American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I might as well continue blowing off some more steam, since I've opened my vents already...but I'll do it in the form of a question, which I hope doesn't paint me as too much of a whiner. Does anybody else out there feel that the values in HPS for the <b>Quality Fire </b>and <b>Quality Melee Modifiers </b>are too high?

My problem isn't with the idea behind the options, but with the application, which I believe is too strong. Giving A and B rated units a +5% modifier and E and F units a -5% modifier would, I think, have been much more appropriate than the current 10%. But the existing 20% swing in fire and melee combat between the top and low quality units seems not only unnecessarily high to me, but also excessively weighted when one considers the inherent capabilities that a unit's morale rating already has on it's probability to disrupt or rout and it's capacity to undisrupt and rally and the resulting, overall effect upon play.

Now I realize that I'm probably unzipping this thread to comments that might reflect some long-standing bias in regards to the notion that southern troops need all the help they can get, especially at battles like Gettysburg to make it a fair contest! Both northern and southern officers of this club may very well, I suspect, think of this 5%/10% Quality Fire and Melee Modifier in very subjective terms. But that's not what I'm asking.

Is the current 10% application too strong? Do you consider it ahistorical? Do you think that HPS could offer a reduced application for those who do consider it over the top? Would you, instead, like to see it increased to 15% because you feel its still not enough, or would you be inclined to trim it down to even 3%?!!!!! Give me your hard reasons for any suggested change or why you feel the 10% modifier should be retained as is.


Col. Jos. C. Meyer,
4th "California" Brigade,
"Cumberland Sabres" Cavalry Division,
14th Corps, Army of the Cumberland

If anything the bonus is too low. Let's look at each of them individually.

Fire modifier:
Green troops were known to
1) Do silly things like forget to tamp the round, leave their ramrod in the gun, such and so.
2) Aim horridly
3) Fire in a fit of nerves, well out of effective range.

On the other hand, experienced, veteran troops would not only tend to avoid those mistakes, but also simply be more practiced in the manual of arms, ensuring a faster rate of fire.

Is each of these enough to give a 10% swing from "average" troops? I believe so, yes.

Likewise with melee. For all of the paintings of clubbed muskets and bayonets, melee was the exception rather than the rule. Melee was as much as anything a matter of intimidation (thus, why so many accounts of the war make reference to the rebel yell).

This effect may not have been as extreme as it was in the Napoleonic Wars, but it was still there. In many ways, the "winner" or "Loser" of a melee in game terms is the one whose morale holds out longer. On seeing the onrushing horde of Rebs, do the Union troops hold steady, and force the Rebs to recoil before they get to the line? Or do they panic and run off leaving the position to the Rebs?

Again, veteran troops will be far more likely to hold their morale than green soldiers. Note, this effect isn't really covered by the Rout rules, because those only come into play after the winner of the initial melee is determined.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

No, no, NO! Enough of this tweaking and fiddling and beggaring about with this, that and the other. I am sure we will disappear up our own backsides soon if we continue with our insatiable pursuit of..."more realism".
If we go down the road of factoring into the game such arguable traits as 'quality' and 'morale' then I think we risk trying to invent hard limits for things that are simply not calculable. Troop quality is an abstract idea that is NOT simply down to how much fighting experience a unit has had. It is derived from experience, leadership, training...but also things like food, rest, equipment, physical & mental fatigue etc. Abstract ideas that are difficult to repesent in game turns.

More mathematical tweaking of the system will further play into the hands of the members of this site (and I think there are more than a few of them) who play their games using a coldly logical application of the game engines results calculations. These games don't deal with the reality of civil war era combat. They are about player A versus player B.
Units already have a quality of 'A' through 'F' PLUS the benefits of other modifiers such as leader, terrain, flank morale etc. 600 'E' quality troops dug in behind breastworks, in wooded terrain, behind a stream and on raised elevation are already likely to run away when someone shouts BOO! as it is, without making them even more susceptible to shock.

I think what we have at the moment with the HPS games is...adequate, and will be further improved as patches bring all the titles up to standard. There is already a big optional rules table that can be used to tailor the games to an individuals personal taste. (Though I think the countless options may be themselves a problem, as they act to skew the standard game environment that ALL players should be on)

I have read, some years ago, an interesting piece on WWII's Normandy D-Day landings. It suggested that the objectives might not have been acclomplished on 6th June 1944 if the Invasion forces had comprised only Veteran troops! describing how experienced troops, whilst steadier and more reliable in action were also less likely to take risks. It found that highly trained 'Green' troops, as were largely used on the day, could be relied upon to perform with greater 'zeal' the first time in action (because they hadn't experienced the horror of combat before). It is this kind of paradox that makes representing things such as Quality such a headache in the game system.

It is very difficult to gain agreement on subjects such as this, but I think the game experience is more likely to benefit from a few standardised 'house rules' rather than endless adjustment to the program itself?

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

I agree, quality can be hard to come to agreement on, due to the subjective nature. I also agree that it's not entirely experience, but training, leadership and esprit.

The Iron Brigade fought as well as any "veteran" troops its first time out, while other units had a hard luck reputation throughout the entire war.

From a scenario design point of view, my general view is that most troops should be seen as average, unless there is something specific about that unit which leads one to rate it up, or down. So, the 20th Maine at Gettysburg had better be rated highly, while the better part of Howard's Corps at Chancellorsville should be rated poorly. That's a reflection of what those units themselves showed.

The bigger part of the quality issue to me isn't the debate over this optional rule set, but the absurd rankings of the Union Army in many of the Western battles (see especially Franklin), especially in comparison to the CSA armies.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA