American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Good suggestion but I'd propose an additional Battle Field Fatigue to stop player micro managing or fiddling with their units when they are 'in contact with the enemy'.
Ok defining when units are 'in contact with the enemy' isn't easy but I'm sure everyone knows what I mean.

Col Coyle
Army of Georgia

Georgia the Brave

I would like to see some kind of march fatigue rule. Maybe some type of cohesion factor that decreases as units march in column to simulate stragglers. Cohesion could be regained as units rest. The level of a unit's particular cohesion would influence its morale rating when checked for combat etc. Just spit-balling but I would like to see some kind of "movement fatigue." I tend to think that units that march a great distance to get into battle will not be 100 percent even if they have yet to sustain fire of any type.

BG. Brett Kolcun
3/Cav/XX/AOC

I would think fatigue would be worse in December or January... or even during July and August when it's the hottest. March seems like the easiest month to fight in...

Hmmmmm

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS

Shouldn't the movement rate already reflect marching and resting on a regular basis? I'm sure it was typical to march for a period of time and then take a short break before continuing on again. I'd assume that the current movement rate reflects this, or would prefer that it did rather then adding another layer of complexity that in my opinion really wouldn't be needed.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

Twenty years ago the old SSI games had march fatigue. You also got fatigue digging in and could forced march at a fixed cost in fatigue. The whole system operated on the basis of action points, sort of like the PzC games, and leadership played a huge role in how many action points you got, from 6 to 15. Fascinating system for its time. Under the current system, unless a forced march option is implemented at some point, I would leave it as is.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

It would be interesting to hear from the designers what criteria they used for determining movement points per turn? I calculate that Infantry & Artillery units presently 'march' ,under the game engine, at just under 3 miles per hour. This is a very good pace for a body of troops to maintain under normal circumstances.
I don't think it used to be a problem on the old BG games (where most of the scenarios were fairly limited in size, length & area) but we see some some very big scenarios on the HPS games where the maps can be massive. We have seen complaints on other posts recently about early arrival of troops to the battlefield, I think this comes largely from the fact that designers position a unit at the historically correct time and place and then the player promptly moves them like automatons: up & down & across field, valley, hills and forests through the day and night to arrive in perfect order to fight a battle (often several hours earlier than in reality). No one gets lost or takes a wrong turning in these games. No one gets tangled up with units from another Corps, Wagons don't break axles on bridges etc, etc.
I'd like to see added fatigue for movement, but I'm not sure if the game system would really benefit from any tampering with along these lines? It would be a further complication that might open a whole new can of worms.

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

I agree that if there was to be a "march fatigue" built into the system, it should be optional. As mentioned, this would add complexity to the situation, which would detract from the ease of use that is built into the games and helps to make them enjoyable and not tedious. But, then, some of us like complexity!

BG. Brett Kolcun
3/Cav/XX/AOC