American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Would it be worthwhile having stragglers - due to movement (especially night movement) as well as combat?

Casualties in the game tend to be much higher than historical, so if say 50% of all losses were actually stragglers and could gradually return to the unit if it rested away from the combat zone (ie. remaining stationary at least 5 hexes from known enemy units and not being shot at), this would reduce overall losses and would also encourage players to pull worn out units back out of the firing line.

Also, if say 50% of losses were only stragglers rather than permanent losses this would also mean that fire factors could be increased, units wouldn't tend to remain very long in close proximity to the enemy, and it might also encourage players to rely more on firepower than melee, especially if melee resulted in additional stragglers for the losing side.

Movement could also result in stragglers. Units moving more than 3/4 of their movement allowance would lose some stragglers and any units moving at night would lose even more stragglers. The current fatigue penalty for night movement isn't really a sufficient deterrent.

From a game engine perspective, the concept of Stragglers could easily be handled like fatigue, but with only 50% of losses recoverable. Perhaps additional losses might be recoverable at the end of a battle for campaigns, representing the lightly wounded returning to the ranks along with further stragglers and also replacements.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3rd Brig. III Corps
Phantom Cav. Div.
ANV

Hi,

Your idea has historical merit. I read at Gettysburg a lot of I Corps regiments were down to company size after the first day, but doubled in size after the battle. I guess the problem is what timeframe did it take for soldiers to rejoin their units. Then would elite units lose fewer stragglers than green units, and would they come back quicker. But I think you are onto something because in the crucible of battle men were shaken loose from their units and didn't rejoin them until later. I thought "Red Badge of Courage" was a good illustration of how it works, even though it was fiction.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

This is already handled in the HPS Campaigns. A certain percentage of casualties are restored going into the next campaign phase, even for units entirely wiped out.

As many have noted over the years the casualty rates in these games are far too high if the casualties are taken to mean strictly killed and wounded. But, if you look at the casualties as being a mix of killed, wounded, captured, and the large number gone missing because of helping wounded comrades to the rear, the men who had taken as much as they could and finally ran; the outright cowards and shirkers that always disappeared at the first hint of a fight; then the casualty rates don't seem quite as high.

On a side note, I hate the idea of marching and fighting all day and all night; and doing it for days on end. The men had to sleep and eat some time! The fatigue recovery is not much of an incentative I've found. However, adding a "returned strggler" routine for units that don't move during the night might prove more so.

Of course, I have no idea if it's feasible.

BG Michael Burns, CSA
2/1/III/AotM

Civil War Generals 2 had this implemented and it worked beautifully. Reduces casualties....It also took into consideration people who left the firing line when things got too hot for them....It is one of the single biggest improvements this game could get....You actually have to watch how you push your troops....Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

i like the idea of straggler loss and recovery but regarding the issue of excessive losses and continous day long action, I feel that the penalties for excessive fatigue should be of greater influence. I have not given this all the thought it would require to make happen or even if it could, but if units permenantly disrupt once they hit red fatigue and only reorder when they have rested long enough to reach medium fatigue would cause players to place more ephasis on rotating troops out of the line and maitaining reserves.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

The HPS fatigue system really doesn't do much to limit fighting. That is because it affects attacker and defender about equally so there is little reason to stop fighting because of it. For an attacker, who tends to be the guy with the larger army, it rewards pushing the enemy even harder since fatigued units will route easier.

What the game system does not simulate is the affect of disorganization that an attacker suffers even when successfully attacking. Almost all attacks in the Civil War were eventually stopped by the loss of command cohesion and control. This tended to affect the attacker more than the defender forcing the attacking commander to call a halt to the attack for a few hours in order to sort out his troops before he could attempt to continue. This is why uncommitted reserves were so important to a successful attack if one wanted to continue to press it.

Basically you need a second system similiar to the fatigue one but measure the disordering of units due to attacking. It needs to be structured so that it accumulates about three times faster for a unit on the offensive than for a static defending unit. It should reduce the ability to move a unit to almost zero as it goes up. Once a unit is out of enemy fields of fire, in command control (so you can't rest individual regiments) and not moving the unit should be able to rather quickly recover from it. Maybe on the order of 2-3 hours to recover. The unit should accumulate disorder relatively quickly so that about one hour of hard fighting reduce it to an unuseable state. This would limit formations to 1-2 hours of offensive actions followed by 2-3 hours of inactivity. This would probably cut casualties in half.

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 Bill Peters</i>
<br />Only if we get a forced march rule. Other than that I cant see stragglers in the game for just regular marching.

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

I agree. I think the system is fine as it is for handling the loss- type of dynamic. Any straggler-type rule should only be optional if implemented. The value of it would be to increase the tactical situation for command decisions: do I rush my units to the front line and suffer the cost in stragglers or do I give them a chance to regroup before entering the fray? That decision can only be decided on the ground given the immediate circumstances. If your main line is beginning to falter, rush them in as quick as you can. If your line is holding. Let them regroup(?) Any unit that is "double-timed" to the front is not going to enter the battle at a 100%. A straggler rule would help to simulate this.

BG. Brett Kolcun
3/Cav/XX/AOC

<font color="yellow">I like Jon's idea for units with 600+ fatigue permanently being disrupted until they recover fatigue. This would help with some of the play balance. </font id="yellow">

<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 />i like the idea of straggler loss and recovery but regarding the issue of excessive losses and continous day long action, I feel that the penalties for excessive fatigue should be of greater influence. I have not given this all the thought it would require to make happen or even if it could, but if units permenantly disrupt once they hit red fatigue and only reorder when they have rested long enough to reach medium fatigue would cause players to place more ephasis on rotating troops out of the line and maitaining reserves.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. Gen. Boyd Denner
II Corps Commanding
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - Wilderness 1864

General White,

I am in favor of such an modification.


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Lieutenant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army