American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Campaign Antietam - Pros, Cons, and Neo-Cons

<u>Pros</u>

<ul><li> Alternate Reinforcement Schedule(s) - this feature adds good replay possibilites.</li>

<li>Random Weather Element - a sweeping feature that effects both movement and visibility, creating "battlefield doubt". A Good Call.

Note: If Mr. Tiller saw to complement his random weather routine with an "At the Double-Quick" <b>Forced-March</b> option, then pc players of the <i>game</i> would at long last experience the kind of more flexible (i.e., not so a-historically 'fixed') "activity capability" routine so long available to tactcial ACW boardgamers.

["Forced" marching would provide for, say, an additional 1-4 MP's - at increasing expense to fatigue and an ever-increasing negative modifier - beyond 2 MP's - to a concluding movement phase <i>moral check</i>.]</li>

<li>Bonus <b>Meeting</b> Engagement Scenarios: 1st Bull Run (Scenarios 003 / 004) Cedar Mountain, Groveton, Chantilly, 2nd Bull Run, and Hagerstown -- employing either alternate reinforcement schedules / random weather feature or both.

<b>Meeting</b> Engagements begin with no units on the map. Units from both sides enter under variable arrival and entry conditions - all very ??? thus all very good as far as foreseeable replay value possibilities go. A Good Call.</li>

<li>Nice mix of small and large set-piece scenarios.</li></ul>


<u>Cons</u>

<ul><li>The (good) <i>mix of small and large set-piece scenarios</i> fail to capture a sense of a <i>fluid</i>, <i>connected</i> set of situations within the context of a single campaign.

Campaign Corinth remains a favored choice as it provides commanders with a sense of a series of inter-related battles and maneuvers within an encompassing Campaign.</li>

<li>As with Shiloh, players now NEED additional pre-battle <i>intelligence</i> to make any sense of the "rock, paper, scissors" possibilities behind any "Decision!"

Example - Cedar Mountain scenario 106 (Historical w/Weather)

Union "Decision" set of possible options:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
a) General Banks attacks Confederates near Cedar Mtn.
b) John Buford's Union cavalry arrives
c) A Meeting Engagement near Cedar Mountain <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So, here's the obvious "no brainer" for any Union commander: "Why in tarnation wouldn't I <i>always</i> invite John Buford's Union cavalry to join me in an attack on the Confederates?!" From the Campaign brief provided, there's simply no way to tell what possible <i>consequences</i> such and such a Decision has.

Yet, to example a second option wherein the Union Commander learns - only after the battle - that his Decision to entertain a Meeting engagement with Jackson (see 'C' above), has unwittingly released an additional two Confederate brigades under BG Field and BG Starke (A.P. Hill's Division). Not a good Decision, after all.

To Review: Pre-battle Campaign Decisions should provide both players with possible pluses and minuses so commanders might make a more 'reasoned' Decision instead of exercising pure guesswork?</li>

<li>Dated - uninspired, grainy - Graphics.</li>

<li>Path-finding / auto-routines for troop movements remains an 'unintelligent' exercise.</li>

<li>Missing-in-Action "Friendly FOG" Command and Control effects - Mr. Tiller's ACW tactical / Grand-battle Achilles heel.

-- Command and Control must <i>see</i> to limit freedom of (a) movement and (b) combat capabilities for all <i>out-of-command</i> combat regiments / brigades / Divisions along with dependent officers and leaders.

-- As a corollary, there <i>should</i> be an historically-governed brake - limit! - placed on the number of "Detached" units, brigades, and divisions that a commander might think to 'entertain' (assign).]</li>

<li>Without <i>permission</i> to combine <i>sections</i> and <i>pieces</i> (#guns), stacked in a hex, into a single integer FIRE - i.e., <i>battery</i> - attack, Mr. Tiller's staff of Scenario Designers have no recourse other than to <u>breakdown</u> all batteries - for all sides - into their historical sections and pieces.</li></ul>

<u>Neo-Cons</u>

<ul>"RIP"</ul>

Fld Lt D. Shoeless, CSA
Secretary of the Cabinet (Ret)
1st Tenn Provisional Army


<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

Shoeless,

This is an interesting post.

One important pro (IMHO) is the new <i>optional Melee phase</i> for single turn play.

Your comments on the campaign issue, are well founded. I will try to make it better releated and understood.

Many of your other <i>con</i> comments do not relate to Antietam, but rather to the ACW series as a whole.



Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<font face="Book Antiqua"><font size="4"><font color="orange">Gents!

I really like the new <b><font color="beige">Optional Melee Resolution</font id="beige"></b> available as it will allow you the option of gaming turn base play with opportunity fire and not having to game with house rules concerning melee attacks. Looking forward to patches of Rich's other gaming titles to include this new optional rule.

Cedar Mountain was one of those early Richard Berg battles that came out in the S&T mag in the late 70's. This version is far superior. I think I have already done around 7-8 different battles of this one scenario. Pretty evenly matched, the Yanks have inferior units but pretty big ones so it is up to the Union commander to practice strong command and control and to manage the routs that will occur. But I have seen what the Yankee artillery will do when crossing open ground to attack!

My only comment about sectional break downs of the artillery is that when moving the Union player has an advantage in that his artillery units only take up 1 hex where as it can be from 2-4 hexes when on the road march for Rebel artillery (i.e. the Washington Artillery units).

That said, who would ever want to go back to the old days of board gaming? Seemed like it would take hours to set up, then the area needed to game and be left to stand alone for some time. (I had Wacht am Rhein spread out on the floor of my bedroom for months on end. Would slide it under the bed when not gaming. Got a lot of dust on it over a couple of months time.) Then the real problem was finding an opponent besides yourself to game against!

<font size="5"><font color="beige">Thanks HPS for giving us these wonderful games to contest!</font id="beige"></font id="size5">

Regards,
</font id="orange"></font id="size4"></font id="Book Antiqua">

<font color="orange"><font size="4">Nick Kunz

General
Commanding
Eastern Theatre Command
Confederate States of America</font id="orange"></font id="size4">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>That said, who would ever want to go back to the old days of board gaming? Seemed like it would take hours to set up, then the area needed to game and be left to stand alone for some time. (I had Wacht am Rhein spread out on the floor of my bedroom for months on end. Would slide it under the bed when not gaming. Got a lot of dust on it over a couple of months time.) Then the real problem was finding an opponent besides yourself to game against!

Thanks HPS for giving us these wonderful games to contest!</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

AMEN!

Nevertheless, there is always room for improvement. That is why we now have so many options to choose from.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Bill,

You forget <i>Antietam</i> is a new release. And besides, as an HPS designer, why not just ask JT yourself.


Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I agree strongly with the need for better information in the pre-battle decision options. Most of the HPS games have been very poor in this regard, with notable exceptions for Corinth and Ozark. It really has come down to rock, paper, scissors - you can't really apply any real strategy, because the options don't really tell you what you're actually doing.

This could be remedied by a bit more explanation of each option, and a better accompanying map.

Gen. Matt Perrenod
<i>The Blue Ghost</i>
Commandant, Union Military Academy
1st Brigade, 2nd Division, VIII Corps, Army of the Shenandoah
UMA Class of '01

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mperrenod</i>
<br />I agree strongly with the need for better information in the pre-battle decision options. Most of the HPS games have been very poor in this regard, with notable exceptions for Corinth and Ozark. It really has come down to rock, paper, scissors - you can't really apply any real strategy, because the options don't really tell you what you're actually doing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This has been discussed three years ago ... but as I understand, to no real avail.

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=8279

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

I will throw my 2 cents in regarding the campaign info at the beginning. I am a few turns into the Cassville scenario of an Atlanta Campaign. The information given at the beginning suggested I attack the Union left with Hood's Corps on my right. I moved to set up such an attack when I observed what appears to be a cavalry divison behind me. I have one 100 man cavalry unit so i am totally in the dark as to what I face. It seems to me that the information at the beginning has actually set me up for desaster.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

<font color="red"><i><b>" I will throw my 2 cents in regarding the campaign info at the beginning. I am a few turns into the Cassville scenario of an Atlanta Campaign. The information given at the beginning suggested I attack the Union left with Hood's Corps on my right. I moved to set up such an attack when I observed what appears to be a cavalry divison behind me. I have one 100 man cavalry unit so i am totally in the dark as to what I face. It seems to me that the information at the beginning has actually set me up for desaster.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia"</b></i></font id="red">


Hey, that's why the original attack was canceled... Of course you can recognize them as cavalry... The historical rebs thought Union infantry was there...

Brig. General Thompson
1/3/VI
AoS

Yes I can see there are cavalry there. I don't know if there is infantry since I don't open up the game solo to see what the Yankees have. I also don't know what actually happened in the real battle. All I have to base any action on is what was shown to me in the opening information. Oh never mind. I comment too much.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br /> Please either open up the OB for us to edit or put out alternate OBs for us. Preferably with scenarios for the major engagements ... Thus we could change sizes, morale grades, etc but not the entire OB structure. We could increase the size of batteries and then just omit the other portions we dont want to use. Your structure would remain intact (ie. we couldnt delete units or add new ones) and we could get our larger batteries at the same time.

Col. Bill Peters, The Boise Rifles, II Corps Artillery, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good Work, Bill.

"Make it so!" (somebody? anybody? John? Rich? [^])

Fld. Lt. D. Shoeless, CSA
Secretary of the Cabinet (Ret)
1st Tenn Provisional Army


<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>