American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

It seems as if the supply wagons in the HPS Campaign Gettysburg games like to take a little longer in traversing those secondary roads than the wagons in HPS Campaign Antietam! Has anyone else noted the discrepancy?

Both games indicate a movement factor of 10 for supply wagons, as seen on the unit counters. But it will cost you double points to move on a secondary road in Gettysburg, while Antietam wagons just go rolling right on along with no penalty at all, just like on primary roads! I guess those old wagons got pretty well worn out during the Antietam campaign and were in pretty poor shape a year later!

Another strange thing about those wagons is that they are allowed a 12 point movement factor according to the parameter data for each game! But everyone knows that those teamsters like to take a couple of snorts before they crack those whips each turn.

Or maybe its just me that's doing the snorting!

I haven't checked the other HPS games yet to see what exactly is happening with those wagons, but perhaps some of you already have.


Brig. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

Joe,

Gettysburg was the work of a different designer to Antietam. Each designer has his own ideas and philosophy and sets the parameters to make the game play how he wants it to play. So in that respect it's a difference in opinion rather than a discrepancy. Gettysburg also has higher vp values for artillery and that is intentional too and reflects the designer's design goals. This accounts for some of the differences between the games.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/acwgc_personal_record.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/western_theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

Antony,

I can well understand the designers's differences in tweaking VP's for various reasons, as those adjustments serve to mold and create the battlefield objectives. But the differences in alloted movement points for the various unit types on the field, even supply wagons, would seem completely haphazard without a supportive statement of some kind. I confess that I am somewhat confused and taken aback over this since each game package, Gettysburg and Antietam, makes an allotment of <i>12</i> movement points for supply wagons in their parameter data! This must be a misprint! I do not recall ever seeing a supply wagon on the board with a movement factor of 12; but the point here would seem to be that the <i>basic movement parameter data</i> from game to game would pretty much be the same, with only small adjustment. 10 movement points for wagons seems to be the norm, but even then there are discrepancies in how many points are expended for secondary road movement by the wagons.

How important is all of this? I don't know about other players, but if I'm facing a battle situation in which my combat troops will quickly outdistance their supplies and forsee a critical need need for eventual re-supply capability, then I'll take a hard look at the field and available routes for my wagons. And I'll darn well find out how fast my wagons can move on secondary roads. Moving twice as fast or half as fast from game to game is, I think, a fairly important issue.



Brig. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

I'm going to agree with Joe on this one, I much prefer standardized movement costs throughout the series. I would even extend it further.

I'm very tired of playing some modules where it cost 3 mps to change an artillery battery from limbered to unlimbered and in other scenarios it's 4 mps. That 1 mp makes a heck of a difference.

From what I have read batteries could limber up or unlimber in minutes. Of course our turns are 20 minutes but I am very much in favour of batteries being able to limber up, move back one space, turn around and unlimber in one turn. The 4 mps cost doesn't allow this.

As for the wagons, golly, that should be standard. If a designer wants to 'tweak' his scenario he can either have the wagons come on the board sooner or later depending on what he is trying to achieve.





Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade

Speaking only for myself and the games I have designed (<i>Franklin, Shiloh, Atlanta, Chickamauga, and Antietam</i>), I reasoned that supply wagons should have movement costs set the same as unlimbered arty, excepting that I kept the MPs for supply wagons to 10. Also, my games are designed to allow for arty formation changes to be done with the cost of 3MPs.

Weather rules can alter these costs.

If you find any of the above to not be true, please report it.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Speaking only for myself and the games I have designed (<i>Franklin, Shiloh, Atlanta, Chickamauga, and Antietam</i>), I reasoned that supply wagons should have movement costs set the same as unlimbered arty, excepting that I kept the MPs for supply wagons to 10. Also, my games are designed to allow for arty formation changes to be done with the cost of 3MPs.

Weather rules can alter these costs.

If you find any of the above to not be true, please report it.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And I happen to think that you did it the right way, Rich. 10 movement points is plenty for wagons so long as it also only costs 2 mps for trails, secondary roads, etc. Bumping it to 3 points for clear hexes is a little much, IMHO (I like Chickamauga having it at 2 pts for wagons in clear terrain); higher for other terrain is fine. But making it 3 points for roads or whatever is killer. By limiting them to 10 instead of 12 they already will come up one hex short of all other units, further limiting their movement just makes it impossible to march long distances, which in our newer huge HPS maps makes a lot of scenarios just about impossible.

Supply issues are one thing, but having no chance of getting wagons anywhere near the front lines until day two of a large battle is a bit too much. We make consessions for other issues based on the "it's still just a game" philosophy, why not supply wagons? Especially given the crazy way the game determines if a unit goes to low ammo without any regard to how long they've been combet or how many times they have fired, etc. If the game actually had infantry unit ammo counters it might be different.

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><

My hat is off to you, Rich, for keeping your movement design parameters consistent for the particular games you’ve designed. And I think that by doing so you have achieved, in part, that to which I, General Collins and General Lynn have alluded in this conversation; a general, <i>logical</i> standardization of movement for all units from game to game! I stress <i>logical</i> because I view the movement of supply wagons in the Gettysburg scenarios to be grossly impeded. Your own view of supply wagon movement capabilities being equated to that of limbered field artillery (not horse artillery) is probably realistic enough. Furthermore, a 2-point reduction in movement allotment would generously account for the differences associated with 6-horse and 4-horse (mule) teams and the greater load weights of supply wagons. Muddy roads obviously would further restrict wagon movement.

But here’s the deal! HPS is HPS. Should not all of the HPS CW titles have nearly the same movement conventions for all of the units? I cannot for the life of me think of a reason that Gettysburg supply wagons should move any slower or faster than Antietam supply wagons or why Gettysburg secondary roads should be any different from Antietam secondary roads! Its stuff like this that sometimes makes it overwhelming for a new player.

But more important to the discussion are the statements we’ve made concerning the whole reason for even having supply wagons (or their concept) included within the games. As long as combat units can run low or out of ammunition, supply wagons are an important factor in the game! If these units become so restricted in their movement capabilities as to render them next to useless, then why are they even included? General Lynn states, “Supply issues are one thing, but having no chance of getting wagons anywhere near the front lines until a day or two of a large battle is a bit too much.â€

I'm with you on the preference for less costly movement points for supply wagons but there are a couple of points that need to be made regarding some of the 'peripheral' issues that you brought up.

First point is that the first HPS ACW game released used the same movement methodology for supply wagons that HPS Gettysburg currently uses. Gettysburg was not a break from the way it was being done but Franklin, Shiloh, Atlanta, Chickamauga, and Antietam were actually the ones that didn't follow 'tradition', although I think that most of us prefer the Walker way.

Second, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There hasn't been a patch for about 15 months so games even from the same designer have different 'rules' in them (e.g. movement points for disrupted units, movement costs in forests, command and control radius, and on and on). That means that this thread on supply wagons could have a whole bunch of sister threads. I can imagine the reason why is because these designers are working on more game titles to be released and time to document and write patches probably isn't at the top of their list. They introduce new options in a new game and see how they fly. Eventually (I hope) they will catch up all of the games with the same 'rules'. Until they do, the dumb ones like me are at a disadvantage trying to remember which rules that I'm playing with from one disk to the next.

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/1/VIII/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

John Tiller, as the programmer and developer of these games, has given each game designer control of his game through the manipulation of the pdt file. We designers have different opinions about certain game concepts, and as a result, certain differences have developed over the years. My games have changed over the years to include items I've learned from myself playing the game and from players playing the game.

For example, the first publication of Franklin (my first title) used the exact pdt file that Corinth used. During that time, I was afraid to make changes because frankly, I didn't think I was allowed to make changes. When I found out that I could make changes, I did.

My first major change was increasing the fire power of close range arty fire. Years ago, many players complained using this forum, that arty was about as useless as tits on a bull. In fact, the exact quote was <i>"an enemy unit could have a picnic beneath a battery of arty and not worry about spilling the lemonade."</i> Well I reacted to that post and made sure that nobody could picnic near my cannons. Over the years, I have toned my fire power back a bit, but they still have punch.

In short, you guys have the same power. Use the pdt to create files that meet your needs. Some games need minor differences to work.

BTW, soon after the next game release, you will see a flurry of game patches. I have many files ready for a new patch to all my games, but because each title uses an updated exe file, and all games use the same exe file, we decided to hold the patches until after the release of a new title. Sorry for the delay.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />John Tiller, as the programmer and developer of these games, has given each game designer control of his game through the manipulation of the pdt file. We designers have different opinions about certain game concepts, and as a result, certain differences have developed over the years. My games have changed over the years to include items I've learned from myself playing the game and from players playing the game.

For example, the first publication of Franklin (my first title) used the exact pdt file that Corinth used. During that time, I was afraid to make changes because frankly, I didn't think I was allowed to make changes. When I found out that I could make changes, I did.

My first major change was increasing the fire power of close range arty fire. Years ago, many players complained using this forum, that arty was about as useless as tits on a bull. In fact, the exact quote was <i>"an enemy unit could have a picnic beneath a battery of arty and not worry about spilling the lemonade."</i> Well I reacted to that post and made sure that nobody could picnic near my cannons. Over the years, I have toned my fire power back a bit, but they still have punch.

In short, you guys have the same power. Use the pdt to create files that meet your needs. Some games need minor differences to work.

BTW, soon after the next game release, you will see a flurry of game patches. I have many files ready for a new patch to all my games, but because each title uses an updated exe file, and all games use the same exe file, we decided to hold the patches until after the release of a new title. Sorry for the delay.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And that new title would be what exactly? And the release date will be when? [;)]

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><

Where does one go to find an explanation of the PDT file and thus how to make changes to it?

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/1/VIII/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Thanks for your comments, Ned! I believe that you'll find everything you need to know about PDT files and more at Ken Miller's excellent ACWCO Engineering Site, http://home.comcast.net/~krmiller8/engineering/.



Brig. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland