American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

aka, <i>Playing the Odds</i>

Does anyone here routinely group to combine unit SP's, stacked in a hex, into a single fire attack? If so, could you please, explain your reasoning behind this for the benefit of other's here. Thanks.

Fld. Lt. Shoeless, CSA
Secretary of the Cabient (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>

I have just started using this method of fire and did it to reduce return fire from the enemy. Could be my imagination but it seems to be working and also saves some time when playing with a lot of units.


MG D. Groce
AoP
V Corps
2nd Division
"Into the breach"

<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 />
As has been said before - the golden loss number is 25 to invoke an automatic morale check. I try and get 25 losses on one unit before moving on. (and much thanks again for this being mentioned as I had not known that 25 was of any importance)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, Bill,

My understanding of the formula for determining morale checks is that it is x/x+25, with x=number of casualties. If that is so, 25 casualties would give you a 50% chance of a morale check. I guess this is cumulative casualties for the player turn, but I'm not sure. I know with op fire a moving unit will sometimes disrupt, so that must be determined shot by shot, but for rout purposes I'm assuming all casualties, including from melee, are combined. Does anyone know for sure? Of course, all defending units who lose in melee take a morale check. I think. Guess I need to re-read the rules, but some things were never clarified.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

The Battleground series used the step loss of 25 to trigger everything including the morale check. HPS uses the formula x/(x+25) for a probability check to see if a morale check will be made. Losses uses are accumlated for the fire casualties if you are using the phase system and then applied at the end of Defensive Fire or at the beginning of the next turn for Offensive Fire.

The critical number in this is the LCV (Low Combat Value) which is equal to:

5 x (Weapon Factor) x (Number of Men Firing) / 1000

The Weapon Factor is range, terrain and weapon dependent. If its 1 then 1000 men fire with a LCV of 5. This will be the lowest number of casualties they can cause, 5 men. If your unit or unit stack meet this requirement it matters little how you fire them. But if say you only have 100 men firing than you have fallen below the "magic" LCV of "1". Then probabilities get skewed. Firing ten 100 man units individually will not produce the same 5 minimum casualties of firing 1000 men combined. And the chance of a morale check goes down proportionally.

Turn based play further accents this problem for the defender. Not only is his fire less effective than in Phased play but being halved and more likely occuring at longer ranges and by individual units, he will seldom meet the LCV > 1 criteria. In Turn based play the test is made on each fire as it occurs rather than using an accumulated number for the morale check but it still uses the same formula. The Attacker does not suffer this problem since his best method of fire is to first create a stack then fire it combined. One more of the hundred in some things that make Turn based playing an attackers game.

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

God, I'm glad there are club members out there like you Kennon that can explain this stuff. I just don't anlayse to that degree, but I'm awfully glad you can bring it down to layman's terms.

It certainly seems another darn good reason to play "phased play". Can't stand that 'single turn stuff'.



Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />The Battleground series used the step loss of 25 to trigger everything including the morale check. HPS uses the formula x/(x+25) for a probability check to see if a morale check will be made. Losses uses are accumlated for the fire casualties if you are using the phase system and then applied at the end of Defensive Fire or at the beginning of the next turn for Offensive Fire.

The critical number in this is the LCV (Low Combat Value) which is equal to:

5 x (Weapon Factor) x (Number of Men Firing) / 1000

The Weapon Factor is range, terrain and weapon dependent. If its 1 then 1000 men fire with a LCV of 5. This will be the lowest number of casualties they can cause, 5 men. If your unit or unit stack meet this requirement it matters little how you fire them. But if say you only have 100 men firing than you have fallen below the "magic" LCV of "1". Then probabilities get skewed. Firing ten 100 man units individually will not produce the same 5 minimum casualties of firing 1000 men combined. And the chance of a morale check goes down proportionally.

Turn based play further accents this problem for the defender. Not only is his fire less effective than in Phased play but being halved and more likely occuring at longer ranges and by individual units, he will seldom meet the LCV > 1 criteria. In Turn based play the test is made on each fire as it occurs rather than using an accumulated number for the morale check but it still uses the same formula. The Attacker does not suffer this problem since his best method of fire is to first create a stack then fire it combined. One more of the hundred in some things that make Turn based playing an attackers game.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I fully concur with Gen. Collins. Exceptional post Kennon! (Kudos!)

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>

Kennon,

Great work, thanks, and as this formula is basic to all of JT's musket games this should help me in scenario design.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos

The Union Forever! Huzzah!

This thread goes back to my earlier issue with Antietam. If the attacker fires combined stacks the defender will maybe have 2 units fire back. When the defneders are 100 to 200 men they just will not hit many men. It is my opinion that this tactic make simply defending a position impossible. As everyone who reads these post knows I was destroyed in two Antietam battles, once as the Rebs and once as the Yanks. When I was the Rebs my opponent would move adjacent to my guys and fire a combined stack hitting 25 to 50 men. I would have a unit fire back and hit 3 to 10 at best. As the Yanks my opponent attacked Hooker and Mansfield and did the same thing. Again, it is my opinion that this tactic is using the game engine for an unrealistic advantage. Fire combat is suppost to represent a fire fight between two opposing forces, not 3 or 4 regiments against one with 2 or 3 standing idle. Now if I understand correctly you have to hit 25 men to cause a morale check so you have to fire as a stack for your fire to be effective. So we are back to some of the comments from that earlier post. Can the engine be tweaked to cause a defending stack that is fired upon return fire combined? Or do we have to accept that attacking is the only effective way to be successful? To me it just defies logic that it is less costly in men to attack than to defend.

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 Jon Thayer</i>
<br />This thread goes back to my earlier issue with Antietam. If the attacker fires combined stacks the defender will maybe have 2 units fire back. When the defneders are 100 to 200 men they just will not hit many men. It is my opinion that this tactic make simply defending a position impossible. As everyone who reads these post knows I was destroyed in two Antietam battles, once as the Rebs and once as the Yanks. When I was the Rebs my opponent would move adjacent to my guys and fire a combined stack hitting 25 to 50 men. I would have a unit fire back and hit 3 to 10 at best. As the Yanks my opponent attacked Hooker and Mansfield and did the same thing. Again, it is my opinion that this tactic is using the game engine for an unrealistic advantage. Fire combat is suppost to represent a fire fight between two opposing forces, not 3 or 4 regiments against one with 2 or 3 standing idle. Now if I understand correctly you have to hit 25 men to cause a morale check so you have to fire as a stack for your fire to be effective. So we are back to some of the comments from that earlier post. Can the engine be tweaked to cause a defending stack that is fired upon return fire combined? Or do we have to accept that attacking is the only effective way to be successful? To me it just defies logic that it is less costly in men to attack than to defend.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Congratulations. You have hit the nail on the head. This is why so many prefer to play using the phases. At least all defenders get to fire at full strength and inflict casualties before attackers fire anything.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

The current system has been tweaked. But even without a tweak, it should at least be noted that both sides fight using the same system. And each must take his/her turn being the defender.

Also, don't forget this is a game. The use of tactics is important. Just as Chess is a game that uses many different styles and tactics, so do these games. Everyone is entitled to play as they desire. I don't get worked up when I think that an actual 19th century regiment wouldn't do so and so. I just play the game and develop tactics that result in victories, or have fun in defeats.

We (HPS TEAM) will continue to tweak the system to better simulate the flavor of ACW warfare, but that doesn't mean you can't play to win, even if that means doing something unhistorical.

Play, have fun. The game will evolve and so must tactics.

To understand how far these games have evolved, you would have had to been one of the original buyers of BGG. Regimental strengths were 1-8, one being 100. The minimum loss was 100. No soft ZOCs, etc... It was a mass slaughter, and yet the game was a success and has evolved. In the early days, the game was simple. Kinda like Axis and Allies, simple and fun, but not realistic.



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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />The current system has been tweaked. But even without a tweak, it should at least be noted that both sides fight using the same system.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Seriously, how could we play with anything but <i>the same system?</i>

Which is <u>not</u> the same as playing with a <i>level playing field</i> - which is <u>not</u> to be confused with "play balance".

Ignore an MIA / AWOL friendly FOG command and control model / formula, not to mention Tiller's fire combat code limations for stacked fire as observed herein at one's own "historical" peril.

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>