American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Rich, we need to engage both camps.

Here's what we do know: Both Johnston and Beauregard have been given a 6-hex command range (identical to any "division" level commander) on the 1st Manassas battlefield.

Here's where I'm a little fuzzy - please, sort this out for me.

Q) Is it possible for <i>both</i> Johnston and Beauregard to pass down their "in command" morale-check bonus to the SAME CSA subordinate brigade officer? [8)]

Fld. Lt. D. 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>

<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 />Wrong, their command range is not 6 hexes. Are you even checking this before you post?

The range for Johnston and Beauregard is 28 hexes. Anyone could have found this out by highlighting the leader and selecting the View Menu and then the Command Range option.
Col. Bill Peters, The Boise Rifles, II Corps Artillery, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Respectfully, Bill, you are muddying the waters.

So, to be crystal clear, Bill, you have <u>not</u> actually confirmed - via playtesting - Scenario 002 (Historical) 1st Bull Run - just what are the WORKING command ranges for McDowell (12 hexes - i.e., that of a "corps" commander) and Beauregard / Johnston (6 hexes - i.e., that of "division" level commanders) .

For Scenario 002, Rich - apparently - forget to change the "info" settings command range display toggle to match actual game play command ranges.

How do we know this?

Through simple but methodical playtesting.

Here's what YOU do, Bill:

1. Open Scenario 002 - that's the first one we chose to play, too!
2. Note BG Stonewall Jackson's location - hex 85, 79.
3. Note BG Jackson's status: "Detached".
4. Next note Beauregard's and Johnston's starting hex location - 78, 74.
5. Count the number of hexes between Jackson and Beauregard/Johnston. Answer: 8 hexes
6. Question: who's right? the "info" command range toggle via menu of 28 hexes? or the actual observation, during game play - which required further fleshing out to reveal that both Beauregard and Johnston have 6 hex command ranges. Nowhere is this documented - you would have to PLAYTEST this to confirm. Why? I haven't a clue.

Now, to be fair, Bill, get back to me to state for the public record just how "un-wrong" I can be, too - despite your own sometimes less than patient if "moot" assessments. Thanks. [:)]

(Incidentally, The same playtests work for McDowell's army in Scenario 002 except that YOU must step through a number of turns to confirm McDowell's actuall command range = 12 hexes over his division level commanders.)

Rich, of course, knew this. And, he knows this; but for whatever reasons - it doesn't really matter - has remained mum on the topic. Since, none of this has been documented, and since not all our "historical" 1st Bull Run scenarios engage the same army leader command ranges, perhaps, herein lies one clue? But, don't know.

What I do know, at present, is that <u>no</u> one can - or must - assume to know the command and control story at 1st Manassas without actually playtesting the darn things.

I don't claim to know precisely what's going on here, Bill, but I dare say, Bill, you, too, appear as in the dark as the rest of us, especially in light of your previous, inexplicable - if not crazed - claim, alluding to "invisible" (hence, undocumented) CSA division leaders on the 1st Manassas battlefield - or whatever's unseen to be at play in the game; just as you incorrectly held that all 'army' commanders at 1st Manassas must have a 28 hex command range! Poppycock! [;)]

Now, without a further muddying of the waters - what I / we presently need to know is a simple, forthright clarification to this - preferably from Rich, I believe:

Is it possible for <i>both</i> Johnston and Beauregard to pass down their "in command" morale-check bonus to the <i>same</i> subordinate brigade officer all in the <i>same</i> turn?

Still awaiting a more enlighted if forthcoming reply. ==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>

I'm not where I can open a game file. I will check when I get a chance

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

This just in:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No, only one of those will be the first-in-command, the other will be second-in-command and will not pass ==John Tiller, 7-23-08<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So, here's what we know:

1. Johnston - w/ 6-hex command range - <i>only</i> passes down his "in command" bonus to "in command" brigades under his command - i.e., Jackson, Bartow, Bee, and Bonham.

2. Beauregard - w/ 6-hex command range - <i>only</i> passes down his in command "bonus" to brigades under his command.

As John pointed out, neither Beauregard's or Johnston's commands may overlap.

3. McDowell - w/ 12-hex command range - may pass down his "bonus" to any "in command" Division commander within his command range, who in turn may pass down their "bonus" to any "in command" brigade officer, who in turn may pass down his "bonus" to any "in command" regiment within his command range.

4. Now, please, do the math:

_a. An "in command" USA regiment may receive a maximum +3 "in command" morale-check bonus (i.e., army = 1 / division = 1 / brigade = 1 for grand total of +3)

whereas,

_b. An "in command" CSA regiment may receive a maximum +2 "in command" morale-check bonus (army = 1 / brigade = 1 for a grand total of +2).

I know we might get some quite understandably biased Union general viewpoints [:X], but, honestly, does any Confederate general worth his weight in hardtack, grits, and green corn actually think that the Union command at 1st Bull Run / 1st Manassas was historically superior in command and control - by a 3 to 2 ratio, no less!? [:p]

Anyone who nods "yea" shall be sent to serve under General Bragg for three months! [8D]

Fld. Lt. D. Shoeles, 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>

I can't believe we are still arguing over the details of command ratings & range when the scenario itself is so obviously stacked in favour of the Rebs! I concede that the victory conditions may need 'tweaking' to make what happens on the field more fairly represented in the results table, but tabling victory conditions through a points system is always going to be an abstract way of displaying things. Surely most of us understand that a 'victory' goes to the side that: (A)Has 'control' of the battlefield at the end of the day & (B)Suffers the fewer losses?

I have done my own research into this scenario and my finding paint a picture so bleak for the Union that I can hardly credit that the Rebs are demanding a 'fairer' representation of command systems.

I wish to bring attention to the following:-

The balance of forces as play opens is as follows (there are no reinforcement arrivals for either side in this one, so it is nice and simple) The total strength figures are Union: 25,972 and Rebel: 28,500. Reasonably balanced? Right, but I challenge any Reb to dispute the fact that the 2 Brigades of Miles' Division...some 4,565 men including 8 Guns are FIXED for the entire game. They can only be released through the direct action of the Rebel player so I do not expect them to release in 90%+ of engagements. The situation for it happening just do not occur. This adjusts the balance to Union: 21,407 Rebel: 28,500 Not so equal?
True, Rebel units start fixed but do all eventually release during the day. I have NEVER been able to effect a large scale entrapment of fixed Reb units while playing as the Union side.

The balance is further complicated by this:
The Union force comprises 43 Regiments (1B, 16C, 26D) of which 8 (all D) are fixed for the entire game. The Reb force on the other hand is 50 Regiments (8B, 29C, 13D) I will not count those 8 fixed Union Regiments toward game planning because they just DO NOT count. They are there but not in it. This gives us 35 Union vs 50 Rebel Regiments (I admit, 2 of the Reb 'Regiments' are actually detachments. But they still have movement points, fire opportunities, fatigue points and Zones of control). The Reb Infantry is Quantitively and Qualititively superior. Anyone disagree?

Next, Cavalry. The Union field 341 Cavalry in 2 Regiments. The Rebs field 2,015 in 5 Regiments. Who has the advantage here?

Finally, I have often seen the Union artillery described as superior in this game? The balance is as follows: Union 54 Guns in 21 units (including 8 Guns in 2 units that are fixed for the entire game) Effective: 46 Guns in 19 units. Rebel 55 Guns in 21 units. Every single Artillery unit in the game is 'B' quality for either side.

To see argument about command and control unfairness from the side that has BOTH greater force AND better quality is...frankly...an insult. Any Reb player that cannot win this one must be doing something wrong...

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

<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 />Sure Jim, you play CSA and I will play Yanks. Be happy to show you how its done.

Put up or shut up (intended in a fun way).

That cavalry advantage is bogus. Ever lost Reb cav before? Its expensive. So what do you do with them? Whittle?

The Yank can pull back, form a line and just wait on the Reb. Its an easy win for them. Bring it on to back up your argument.

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

Of course, I meant to add at the end of my previous post that I am willing to face ANY Reb Officer and take command of the Reb forces to prove my point. It seems that Gen. Peters and I have something of a grudge forming between us [;)] I believe it stems from my defeating him on the 1st Bull Run scenario recently. Let us quickly examine the facts:
I ended the day with a major victory, though Gen. Peters was very much in control of the field and had beaten my Army back in disarray. Total disaster was only avoided by:- Running out of map! Running out of time, the Union falling back on the 'fixed' reserve of Gen. Miles' Division and a hard fought delaying action conducted to cause as much loss and disorder to the Rebs as possible (principles that I have learnt through study of German tactics on the Eastern front in the latter part of WWII)
The Union start the day with control of 1 objective and 50 points. The Rebs contol another 10 objectives that are worth another 250 points. Even if the Union player takes every objective from the Rebs it only gives him a total of 300 points, still 200 short of a minor victory. I dispute that the Union player can sit back to achieve a win. How did I end the day with a major victory even though I only had control of a single objective hex? My points came from losses inflicted on the enemy. Gen. Peters is disgusted because I destroyed the large Reb Cavalry Regiment? well, I suggest that his management of his Cavalry was flawed that day.
We are currently engaged in a return match, though it is too early to tell how this one will end.

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