American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<u>Intro</u>

The ACW Club was originally envisioned by Charles Ledford as a promotional system, rewarding players for not only winning games, but for also <i>how well one plays the game.</i> Under Ledford's system, one could lose a battle but still rise in rank.[^]

Taking Ledford's notion appropriately a step further, we should see to at least acknowledge <i>how</i> well a wargame performs, too.

<u>1st Manassas Scenario 103</u>
<ul>"Historical," 6 AM start, fixed units, sectional artillery, w/ weather, phase-based play option.</ul>

I am assuming Tiller really cares about his 1st Manassas "Historical" re-creation. I do, too. All Good so far.

I must presume too, then, that Tiller has played his own 1st Manassas first hand! Still all good.

Now, steel yourselves to be "shocked! ... "shocked!" - as you witness with thine own eyes if not ears, a most rare but god's honest confessional by the man, himself, and on this very public site no less, unleashing words that might make even the shills who sell among us shudder ....

Ahem ... now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Well, according to this hastily scribbled, rainsoaked morning memo just received from a Capt. Dickenson (seemed to be on some kind of a <i>mission</i>), it reads,<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Damn it to heck! My Manassas is ... well, it's just <i>too</i> ... good. I mean, it's <i>too perfect</i>. Too perfect for the place. Too perfect for the time period. Gentlemen, do you think anyone will notice what <i>time</i> it is ... or care?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1st Manassas - now more than at any other <i>time</i> or on any other ACW battlefield of his making (TS) or remaking (HPS), reveals Mr. Tiller's massively aching Achilles Headache. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

<u>The Battle - 6:00 AM</u>

After a perfectly uneventful if pleasant two hour trudge along trails, roads, woods, and muddy grounds-keeping, it is now 8:00 AM.

My worthiest if not most cunning and bold of opponets, has already deployed Tyler's 4 brigades into line, magnificently splitting his divisional command into a visually quite pleasing (see stunning overhead map view! cool!), perfectly aligned, perfectly coordintated, and exquisitely well-timed (perfect!), massive three-pronged assault on Lewis, Balls, and Island Ford. All simultaneously and precisely going exactly as planned! Incidentally, I said "massive three-pronged assault," because Hunter's division, having been countermarched by McDowell from his 7 AM "release" along the Sudley trail, is now right behind Keye's and Sherman's dressed line units assaulting Lewis Ford.

-- CSA Col. Cocke counters brilliantly, himself, however, with 1 "detached" (out-of-command) regiment, above Lewis 'lookout'! [8)]

Heintzelman's division releases at 7:20 AM, and like Hunter, is countermarched to 'backup' Schenk's more cautious battering ram at Balls Ford.

-- Cocke - sure [}:)], as always of himself - again masterfully counters with 1 piece and 2 regiments - one entrenched.
-- His two remaining regiments have been "detached" along with his 3-gun section and placed to the rear in 'reserve'.
-- Beauregard's closest reinforcements (Jackson, Early, and Bartow) are presently more than two hours away over trails to arrive at the Balls-Island ford theater - forget Lewis (besides, without Clark where would he have been?).

The time is now 8:20 AM, Swiss-Standard-Time. The End.

<u>Summary</u>

McDowell's entire army has successfully linked up without a single hitch, all coming together like precision clockwork.

<u>Solutions</u>

<ol type="1"><li>One thing that might help to slow down or impede McDowell's 21st century Gen. Patton kind of juggernaut is to provide more CSA VP incentives on the Union <i>side</i> of Bull Run - in hopes of forcing McDowell to split up at least elements of his early morning juggernut to "historically" act and behave more cautiously as per his real life counterpart. Beauregard currently has <u>no</u> realistic VP incentives whatsoever to conduct a morning demonstration of his own across Bull Run if only to think or try to distract an otherwise perfectly manageable and uninhibited McDowell machine.</li>

<li> As for BG Tyler - toss him out - along with the other Union Division commanders - or just disable Tiller's now (because it's 1861) a-historical "In Command" bonus feature.</li>

<li>Let's not pretend or claim to be designing an "historical" battle around an unmodified hardwired code that is being asked to do and serve more battle formulas than it was cut out to do. Without an additional <i>formula</i> to properly address the myriad friendly command and control nightmares, logistical challenges, and subordinate troop/officer inertia, the "Historical" 1st Manassas is a bull without a prayer's run.

Because Even the most capable of scenario designer(s) among us can't force a "historical" 1st Manassas silk purse out of a ... perfectly-cast Achilles Heel.</li></ol id="1">

As for the "fun" factor. We have no problem with that. The overheard view of my opponen'ts magnificently coordinated, streaming 3-prong attack alone was worth the ride! Go for it!

Otherwise, all we got here is a digitized precision-like swiss-wristwatch to admire.

And just in case no one noticed, it too keeps <i>perfect</i> time.

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>

John Tiller does not play test individual scenarios. Truely, you are unaware of the many projects currently being worked on.

John's primary concern is in programing.

1) New game engines
2) Engine enhancements to exisiting games
3) Engines fixes
4) etc...

Now, as to Union VPs. Here's how it works. If the Union is designated as the "first" player, then first player VPs are given to that player in the form of achieved VPs, and so the Union will start with that many VP points.

<b>Example</b>: If the first player is designated as the Union, and there are 3x 50 point VP hexes, then the Union will start the battle with 150 points.

To balance things out, the Union's needed VPs must be increased by 150 points.

So for Bull Run, if I placed more Union VPs, I would be giving the Union more starting VPs.

I determined that this scenario is generally a Union attack scenario. The Rebs are defending. If the rebs cross the creek and start taking VP hexes, then it should be considereed a reb victory already, and more VP hexes are unnecessary.

Unlike most BG games, I generally don't like games that use VP hexes to determine the outcome of a game. I generally encourage armies to battle eachother and that victory should be determined by the skill of generals fighting troops, and not sneaking up on VP hexes at the last moment to achieve victory.

I will continue to services my titles and correct errors. The type of errors I will correct are as follows:

1) Engine bugs via John Tiller
2) Missing units and or leaders
3) Misplaced units, and release times
4) Balance in VPs if it is proved that one side CANNOT win. I will not always respond to a single player's losing complaint. Sonetimes it takes more then one try.
5) Map errors
6) Specific PDT considerations

No designer can fix all problems, so John has provided an excellent editor that can do most.

Unfortunately, HPS is not my life's primary concern. In fact, I no longer have as much time to work on these games as I have had in the past, so please confine your comments to specific <b>SHORT</b> observations, or I may be forced to ignore them.

Unless a blatant historical error exists, please refrain from making comments about a battle that is incomplete.

Units and leaders are placed historically for represented historical battles. They move as they are permitted by the game engine and pdt entries. The game engine cannot represent a leaders short comings or brilliance except in their command ratings. If a historical leader made errors that cannot be duplicated by the engine, then I try to balance the game using needed VPs for a win.

Your "early" observations concering scenario 103 are incomplete. Please provide an end of game AAR. I will then determine if changes are needed to balance the scenario. If I then disagree and decide that no changes are needed, please use the editor, and or pdt to make the changes you feel are required to enhance your playing experience.

Thank you for your continued patronage of this series of HPS games and for your game observations.







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

We played as far as was necessary and not a second longer in order to conclude Tiller's Command and Control routine - <i>especially</i> at 1st Manassas - proved <i>too perfect</i> (because it's far "too friendly" for the time period). No one here took issue with that so I will assume this proved a qualified and measured critique.

Now, thinking to defend 1st Manassas as being "just a game that can be fairly won or lost by anyone by the end of the last turn" is just fine with me. I have no problem with such rhetoric. But thinking - or pretending to gloss over in the face of the obvious - to defend 1st Manassas as being something "historical" is just sad.

Since we <i>all</i> just learned that Tiller doesn't even "quality-control" his own products on a scenario level basis, and given the onus of 'design' being outsourced to heroically overworked, likely underpaid scenario recreationists, there's really no point in beating the dead horse, I agree. Still, I kinda feel sorry for the horse. Even in a sandbox or on a playground of such make-believe, he deserved a better <i>historical</i> fate.

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>

The setup for the scenario is historic. The problem is the enemy general isn't historic. Assuming you don't find an idiot to play McDowell and believes you when you tell him he can't win unless he marches the long way to your flank.

I haven't looked through all the scenarios to see if they give you a variant that would force the Historic battle but you could make one easily enough. First start it after McDowells flank march. Put some large VP hexes around Henry House hill. Fix some of the Union forces still east of Bull Run and release most of the the Rebel. Or restrict the battlefield so it doesn't include Blackburn Ford or Sudley Ford and bring most the Union and Rebels on as reinforcements.

If I thought there would be enought interest in one by both sides I would make it. I have "We Shall Meet Again" which gives a pretty good description of who was where at what time. A scenario that forces the Historic battle would have to start about 10 AM with Sherman and Keyes fixed until about 12 noon. The map would have to cut off below Sudley Ford so all the flanking forces would have to come in as reinforcements. Likewise Blackburn Ford area would have to be cut off so all Rebel forces being sent to the left would have to come in as reinforcements.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Phil Driscoll</i>
<br />Shoeless please stop now. [:I] The only rhetoric (and vitriol) seems to come from your posts and your comments are very disengenuous to say the least. [:(]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since we all just learned that Tiller doesn't even "quality-control" his own products on a scenario level basis, and given the onus of 'design' being outsourced to heroically overworked, likely underpaid scenario recreationists, there's really no point in beating the dead horse, I agree. Still, I kinda feel sorry for the horse. Even in a sandbox or on a playground of such make-believe, he deserved a better historical fate.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

First please speak for yourself not for everyone else. If you haven't already figured out that John Tiller doesn't playtest every scenario, then you are probably the last person to be talking design (either the methodology or the economics) Please just speak for yourself not for others.[:(!]

As far as Richard Berg and the TSS and Great Battles of the Civil War goes, great games but not without major flaws and worse-incomplete rules. BCE was an add-on to TSS not included with the game and who can forget the blitzkrieg attacks of stacks of artillery on top of infantry making the stack immune to infantry fire. How many games I bought from SPI,GDW, and Avalon Hill and a host of others I would hate to count but not one of them that didn't get complaints about the game mechanics and/or historical value nor without errata. We won't even talk about ASL.[:p] Computer games DITTO.

Maybe JT should just stop making and supporting ACW games entirely since in your esteemed opinion they are pretty worthless or maybe you should just stop buying them and buy the competitions'(if you can find them) or even better design your own. Then we can buy your game and rip it and you apart with gratuitous comments. What fun.[:D]

As far as balance goes, I looked at the Blitz and overall they seem to pretty well even out by title although some scenarios could use some work. You will find that in any game computer or otherwise. There are some scenarios that just don't work well. Other skewing could be by player matchup. I make anyone look good.[:p]

Your comments about too many scenario's has some merit but the problem is that is a two-edged sword. Players scream about the big bucks they pay for these games and scream about the locks that prevent 'dyo'. So HPS adds a lot of scenarios especially to the CGs to give the average player more bang for his buck. Well that means more pressure to design and playtest more scenarios and less time spent on each.


I do not know your history with JT and in what way you feel slighted but from reading your posts you seem to hold some(alot)animosity towards him. Please limit the display of sarcasm, hyperboly and rhetoric. I think you would have a more receptive audience(at HPS) and on this board if you did. JMHO

PS. How many times have you playtested the scenario in question and with whom?[}:)]


Brig. Gen. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Brig. Gen. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP

To Phil,

Thanks for your concerns. I merely attempted to summarize both Bill and Rich's singular observation that Tiller doesn't play these things, because ... well, because he appears to have better / more important things to do with his limited time. Sorry if this somehow grated upon your own appreciations. Now, see to your brigade, suh! [:)]
<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 setup for the scenario is historic. The problem is the enemy general isn't historic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. Exactly (thank you). McDowell was never able to achieve what my worthy opponent pulled off (i.e., a perfectly timed, coordinated, and excuted 3-prong / 3 Division onslaught.). Our "Historial" scenarios, therefore play out more as "What-if" exercises in virtually absolute command and control.

As in, "What if McDowell had perfect control and perfect command, coupled to perfectly drawn up maps for all the Manassas / Bull Run roads and trail networks, key terrain features, etc., and what if BG Tyler actually followed McDowell's orders to the letter this time, then one can entertain a number of most compelling possibilities, including a Union army juggernaut onslaught, falling upon piecemeal elements of Beauregard's brigades as they release, one by one. Without some significant <i>abatis</i> (i.e., friendly FOG command and control constraints) to retard McDowell's absolute command and perfect control of maneuvers and coordinating attacks (something exceedingly difficult to pull off at any time in the 19th c., but probably impossible to execute - for either army - in the summer of 1861), McDowell's command rises to the mythical level of the 200 Foot General. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I haven't looked through all the scenarios to see if they give you a variant that would force the Historic battle but you could make one easily enough. First start it after McDowells flank march. Put some large VP hexes around Henry House hill. Fix some of the Union forces still east of Bull Run and release most of the the Rebel. Or restrict the battlefield so it doesn't include Blackburn Ford or Sudley Ford and bring most the Union and Rebels on as reinforcements.

If I thought there would be enought interest in one by both sides I would make it. I have "We Shall Meet Again" which gives a pretty good description of who was where at what time. A scenario that forces the Historic battle would have to start about 10 AM with Sherman and Keyes fixed until about 12 noon. The map would have to cut off below Sudley Ford so all the flanking forces would have to come in as reinforcements. Likewise Blackburn Ford area would have to be cut off so all Rebel forces being sent to the left would have to come in as reinforcements.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Count me as keenly interested. Shannon and I would drop everything and take it for a spin as soon as it might become available for download.

Meanwhile, I'm curently looking into an aide-de-camp-assisted (messenger) "brigade" level activation routine for 1st Manassas. Alas, unless I'm mistaken, I do not believe there are extra mounted units (anonymous colonels?) that could be employed for this purpose in the OOB mix. But, for all intents and from what I have been able to gather thus far, 1st Manassas was a brigade-level action - at best - with no Division level conduct that we are much more familiar with later in the war.

Let us know if / when your scenario becomes available, Kennon - we are ready here to download at a moment's notice! Thanks.

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>

Phil,

Thanks for your comments. You are not alone in your sentiments. I also feel that the individual making the posts seems to have an axe to grind with "Tiller".

Constructive criticism is fine. But the tone of this individual's posts seems to be rather sarcastic and demeaning. If the individual cares to relay his findings, fine. But please stop talking down to the designers and the club members.

Lt.General Dale Lastowicka
4th Brigade, 1st Division, VIII Corps, AOS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dalelast</i>
<br />Phil,

Thanks for your comments. You are not alone in your sentiments. I also feel that the individual making the posts seems to have an axe to grind with "Tiller".

Constructive criticism is fine. But the tone of this individual's posts seems to be rather sarcastic and demeaning. If the individual cares to relay his findings, fine. But please stop talking down to the designers and the club members.

Lt.General Dale Lastowicka
4th Brigade, 1st Division, VIII Corps, AOS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[?]

Having honest differences of opinion defines part of the daily human equation / condition.

If we have come to this thread in good faith, Dale, please, try to share for the benefit of others why <i>you</i> - yes, you [;)] - agree or disagree with the <u>single</u> key point being made herein that McDowell's absolute <i>command</i> and perfect <i>control</i> over all his troops in the "historical" scenarios is observably the two most crucial components that his real life counterpart <i>never</i> enjoyed.

This regrettable lack of command and control proved decisive at 1st Manassas for the Union forces and is what "historically" defines the battle; and yet nowhere within the "historical" list of scenarios is this crucial component represented - even in the most abstract of manner or expedient.

As "wargamers" - i.e. not mere "gamers" - We Can Do Better!

Whether you agree, disagree, or don't know one way or the other, please, say so while bringing something more than a rhetorical innuendo and "tone" to the war council. Thanks. (Now, you must see to your brigade, too, suh! Incidentally - i.e., just curious - but what in tarnation is a "Lt. General" doing commanding a "brigade?" [8D])

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>

Some people (call them “habitual complainersâ€

Ernie,

I call the trolls. Lurking around boards to suddenly emerge and stir up a bunch of trouble to get people to respond. Then they attack the responders, and seem to enjoy and feed off of the emotional unrest they've created.

I suggest people just read a troll's original post, laugh, and never respond. They will crawl back under thier bridge.

I'm not sure why they do it. Perhaps they're just clueless, perhaps they're sho... hehehe...

al

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos

The Union Forever! Huzzah!

Wow! I'm impressed by all the research that went into these arguments. Haven't had time to play this one yet, let alone analyze it. I have noticed that at least in the HPS version Cocke's two regiments aren't left as sacrificial lambs on the wrong side of the creek, like they were in the BG version.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ernie Sands</i>
<br />Some people (call them “habitual complainersâ€

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />Ernie,

I call the trolls. Lurking around boards to suddenly emerge and stir up a bunch of trouble to get people to respond. Then they attack the responders, and seem to enjoy and feed off of the emotional unrest they've created.

I suggest people just read a troll's original post, laugh, and never respond. They will crawl back under thier bridge.

I'm not sure why they do it. Perhaps they're just clueless, perhaps they're sho... hehehe...

al

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos

The Union Forever! Huzzah!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is wrong and uncalled for.

I payed for this game too, which I assumed - again, rightly or wrongly - entitled anyone - including me - the essential lattitude to discuss this game, as one - anyone - sees fit. Should it be otherwise? Should we all just pretend what's not always real here is perhaps the only thing that <i>is</i>? [doh] Or, that some of what's going on here is only real for some to the point of a profit-oriented motive and as such, any and all criticism potentially has the unintended potential to hurt another's pocket book? If you think I'm here to hurt your pocketbook or anyone else here, you are egregiously mistaken.

And, finally, buying the game and posting any report or thought about it here or wherever one feels necessary to do so might also unavoidably entitle anyone - even me - to sometimes unintentionally offend another with one's own unavoidable sense of humor. Like Rich said, "I try. I make mistakes." Yes, and as I chimed in, "yes, that's because we are all just human and whether you like it or approve it or not, we are all in this same boat together.

Now.

Damn the torpedoes! Let us move-on, assuming we are truly playing on the same, honest-to-level playing field here - yielding to both buyers and sellers alike, mind us all - and, hopefully, too, as one is more able and willing to <i>focus</i> on the current game and play at hand. ==Denny

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>

Denny,

I think the club has an open policy about modified scenarios. Your welcome to submit any scenario you want for public download. I have ALWAYS encouraged gamers to use the editor. So your suggestion of a new scenario is welcome and you won't need my permission.

And like you, and many here, I try to improve games and the engine in general.

Constructive comments are always welcome.

In the future, you might consider wording your comments with a positive tone.[:)]

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

FYI,
----- Original Message -----

<b>From</b>: John Tiller
<b>To</b>: shoeless bivouac
<b>Sent</b>: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:57 AM
<b>Subject</b>: RE: ACW 1st Manassas "Historical" Scenario Topic

Denny,

No problem, I wasn’t aware of the problem and even if I was, it takes something pretty bad to get me upset. Over the past 13 years, I’ve had a lot of things to deal with, [this space was left intentionally blank because it's not for public eyes] deemed but otherwise, we are all human and doing the best we can, so don’t worry about my feelings, I try really hard to let most everything just go by, I have to or otherwise I’d never survive in this business.

John
<hr noshade size="1">

<b>From</b>: shoeless bivouac
<b>Sent</b>: Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:47 PM
<b>To</b>: John Tiller
<b>Subject</b>: ACW 1st Manassas "Historical" Scenario Topic

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... C_ID=12528

Dear John,

Please, if any pure fantasy "dialog" that I posted at the top of the above link, offended you in any way, my full and sincere apologies.
At the time, I assumed wrongly (because both Rich and Bill later corrected me in the thread) that you are not in charge of approving - i.e., endorsing - the individual scenarios we play.

But, the bottom line is, John, I have no axe to grind with anyone. I am honestly determined to try and make your game <u>work</u> for me, too, hence a dedicated host of [ACW] House Rules to complement the program.

Again, I am truly sorry if I offended your finer sensibilities in any way, given the website posting of mine. It was not intended, but probably the wrong choice of humor that day.

Sincerely,
Denny

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