ACWGC Forums

American Civil War Game Club

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotT    AotC    AotP    AotS     Union Army Forums

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:51 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 348
Location: United Kingdom
Do you feel that if each unit in Gettysburg had 5 or 10 men less would it make a difference to the game. How do your thoughts on realism find it would affect the game. I have seen the strengths are different depending on which version of the oob's you are looking at.
Please give me your thought's on this. Not only for Gettysburg but for other battles also.

General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
XVI Corps,
Army of the Tennessee.
Commanding.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:58 am
Posts: 124
Location: United Kingdom - Exeter
I always thought that some Gettysburg units were a little understrength in the games, an example, I read that the 1st Tennessee numbered around 360men on July 1st. Yet in TS Gettysburg the numbers are much less. HPS gives this Regt a few more men.

Also in the TS Gettysburg game quite a few Regiments of Early's Division are missing totally from the Ordr of Battle - I imagine they were left out because they were on duty elsewhere somewhere off the field, though still nearby.

I do feel that the CSA was most short changed in TS Second Bull Run scenarios though. Lee had about 55,000 when he marched against Pope in August 1862, 25,000 with Jackson and 30,000 with Longstreet. Jackson lost a few thousand at Cedar Mt and another 1000 at Brawner's Farm, not sure how many Longstreet lost when he skirmished with Pope along the Rapahannock but I do feel here that TS Second Bull Run wouldn't be such a Union walkover in the TS game if the Confederates had a few thousand more. Especially in Longstreet's Wing...after all nobody does a Pope in that one anymore!

Hood's Division is quite strong, but since the rest of Longstreet's men had been through essentially the same battles, with comparable casualties, why then are the other Division's of Longstreet's wing much lower in numbers?

It's a shame because I think that TS BullRun is the best of that series and I feel that the numbers of the Confederates let that battle down from a wargamer's perspective.

Because we all know the scenarios too well, the historical
battles become unhistorical. Random arrival times help but rather than increasing unit strenghts, a number of possible arrival points would turn all these old favourites around...

I remmeber at the old Wargamer's club I used to go to when I had command of AP Hill's Division, The Union players look of surprise when Longstreet appeared! They were more 7yr war fans so that one certainly caught them out

The N-F version of TS 2nd Bull Run looks like it might repair that problem, but as yet Ihaven't really had chance to play that one...[^]

Col P. Kenney
4th Brigade
1st Division
III Corps
Army of the Mississippi, CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:48 am
Posts: 345
Location: United Kingdom
The trouble with calculating unit strengths for historical battles, is the unreliability of the source materials. The better known battles all probably have a number of sources you can draw your figures from, but they will almost certainly clash. How to decide which one to use? they can't all be correct but could actually all be wrong. Probably best to compare two or more orders of battle and use an average from these. Obsessing over nominal figures is all very well, but we simply cannot guarantee that the information we have to work with is 100% reliable.
As for affecting the 'realism' of a scenario, I guess it might make a difference if every Union Regiment was given an extra 10 men whilst every Reb Regiment was given 10 fewer. Then the cumulative effect of errors could cause a significant imbalance.
I much prefer to fight a battle with a lot of small Regiment rather than fewer large one's. The very big Union Regiments found in a number of battles are dangerously unwieldy and inefficient. An 'E' quality unit with 1000 men will disrupt the turn it goes into action and probably stay disrupted thereafter (unless it routs) and it will quickly reach max fatigue, making it basically useless for game purposes.

I recall the BG Gettysburg oob's had a good mix of small, medium and large Regiments for both sides that fill out the armies to the broadly accurate total strengths that we know the two sides had. I think the HPS version is fairly similar in scope.

Are there any scenario's from either game series that have ever proved to be so one-sided as to be effectively unplayable? It always amuses me when the Rebs complain about being outnumbered and that a scenario is a 'Union walkover' when I have never found a game that was that easy, because any advantage I had in overall strength was countered by the fact that the Rebs had better quality troops and more units in total than I had.

I've strayed a bit from the original question, but I'm not sure I understand exactly the bearing of the original question? I normally trust that the game designers have done their homework and don't worry too much about unit strength figures. If I win the scenario then the balance was correct. If I lose then there is a problem and the designers should have given me another 5000 men...obviously!! [:p]

Capt. Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 348
Location: United Kingdom
Battleground Shiloh was a pain for us yanks I recall fighting a reb ( the grey fox Thomas)I think it was who had all the moves worked out and always over ran the yanks. I even fired on my own men in an effort to free them.
But back to my question.
I would take the same amount of men off both sides I do not want to change the game play I just want to take 5 to 10 men off each unit.
Then I can use the saving to introduce new icons into the games.
The other way would be to use the large oob's with the extra corps and use the numbers from them. That would mean I would have to rewrite the oob's and I want to avoid that.
So keep your opinions coming.

General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
XVI Corps,
Army of the Tennessee.
Commanding.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:59 am
Posts: 25
Location: USA
Then to me it looks like the case is made then that it really wouldn't matter as there is no "actual" or "correct" number. So as long as the balance is maintained losing 5 men per unit wouldn't seem to matter.

Lt. Joe McCleery
4/3/VI
AoS


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:49 am
Posts: 417
Location: USA
With all respect, I think you guys are tilting at windmills.



Sincerely,
Brig Gen Dwight McBride
V Corps/AOP/USA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 348
Location: United Kingdom
Dwight,
Tilting at windmills?
There is a reason I ask this question. I respect this club and its members and I would not want to take away anything from their enjoyment of these games. I am about to change some things (ie)strength of units so as to give me leeway to put in some new icons representing the original units. Hps cannot use these so I create. I am passionate about the American Civil War always have been and want to give it my best efforts. I want your views on this so as I can make a better decision on what I do.
Keep them coming boys.

General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
XVI Corps,
Army of the Tennessee.
Commanding.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1724
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by old banshee</i>
<br />Dwight,
Tilting at windmills?
There is a reason I ask this question. I respect this club and its members and I would not want to take away anything from their enjoyment of these games. I am about to change some things (ie)strength of units so as to give me leeway to put in some new icons representing the original units. Hps cannot use these so I create. I am passionate about the American Civil War always have been and want to give it my best efforts. I want your views on this so as I can make a better decision on what I do.
Keep them coming boys.

General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
XVI Corps,
Army of the Tennessee.
Commanding.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not quite following what you are trying to do. How would changing strengths allow changes to Icons? In HPS Gettysburg you can't alter the OOB but you can start them as reduced by casualties.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 348
Location: United Kingdom
Wrong. I have figured out a way so I can add icons.
You just play with numbers.

General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
XVI Corps,
Army of the Tennessee.
Commanding.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:36 pm
Posts: 372
Location: Russell, Kansas USA
<font color="yellow">

Quite frankly, I do not feel that mine is an inform'd Opinion & therfore I would only insult my Brothers & draw shame upon myself to venture such.
However, that said, I will always desire the Greatest Degree of Realism achievable via the medium of Conflict Simulation, varients & "what ifs" included, Suh. <salute>







</font id="yellow">

<center><font size="3"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="black"><b>Major General Tom Phillips</b></font id="black">
<font color="red">The Brus Artillery Btn</font id="red"></font id="Comic Sans MS">
<font face="Times New Roman"><font color="yellow"> 4/3/III/AoG
</font id="yellow"> <b>Confederate States of America</b></font id="Times New Roman">
</font id="size3"></center>


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group