American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
Speaking of choice, a choice that I'd see much rather than another dozen optional rules is to be able to modify the games with own maps and OOB's, as we had up to Corinth 1.01. Now THAT would really make sure the series remains alive--a lot more so than the shallow freedom of choice of a few optional rules.

But I suppose that's just me.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS
West Point Class of '01
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Oh I wish, I wish. Gettysburg with Lee-Jackson OOB and Stuart on the field day one.

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

The locked OOBs chased me away from this series. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I like to experiment with making OOBs. I would've kept buying this series, but ... oh well. Maybe someday.

G-burg is the prime example. I would like to set the cavalry and artillery up differently than Drew (?) did. I don't expect him to write up an OOB just for me, but I would like to make my own.

al

The OOB's will be unlocked one day, when JT is done releasing commercial games for this series.

Optional rules are still a good way to implement things, IMHO. For example I only play in turns - and if there were many fewer O.R. then the multiple options of play could easily be missing (Auto & Manual Def. Fire variations that allow 3 distinct types of play). Also, I prefer not to use rout limiting where a lot of people want it. There are a few that I'd be fine incorporating with the game fully:

Victory Points for Leader Casualties
Night Movement Fatigue
Weak ZOC
Full Melee Def. Fire
Arty. Retire by Prolonge
Arty Ammo by Cannon

But that's about it...I play with a lot of the others, but there are cases where some have not wanted to, or an older scenario dosent support for some reason (such as the bridge rules).



LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

I could live with your short list of ORs moved into the engine as permanent fixtures, Rich. This would shorten the OR list a bit, and maybe in a couple years a few more could/would migrate into the main engine.

Look forward to the day when the OOBs are unlocked. [;)]

al

General Walter,
I see what you are getting at, but I think perhaps a better solution is for some imaginative type in the club coming to the cabinet and perscribing two or three logical rule combinations. People would be able to deviate, of course, but we could set up matches as--lets play rule combinations (West Point #1, or #2---or perhaps Walter #1 or #2). It would make it easier for novices to have a good idea of what they are picking. And it would give us an opportunity to use the Cabinet to approve such suggestion.
BTW--I believe the multiplayer game is in Union hands--but I could be mistaken, if I am it is my fault. Let me know.
MG Laabs
III A of M

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by CSAML872</i>
<br />General Walter,
I see what you are getting at, but I think perhaps a better solution is for some imaginative type in the club coming to the cabinet and perscribing two or three logical rule combinations. People would be able to deviate, of course, but we could set up matches as--lets play rule combinations (West Point #1, or #2---or perhaps Walter #1 or #2). It would make it easier for novices to have a good idea of what they are picking. And it would give us an opportunity to use the Cabinet to approve such suggestion.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that over-complicates (Rules for using rules) matters. I think optional rules should be discussed and resolved by the opponents, without outside intervention. I have never been in a situation that the optional rules prevented a game. I am sure it does happen, especially in regards to phased play, but I have not heard of the optional rules being a complete sticking point.

For novices, some assistance during training might be a better solution, or even an amplification of the optional rules for trainees, developed by the Academies in conjunction with each other.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio

ACWGC Cabinet Member
ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by CSAML872</i>
<br />General Walter,
I see what you are getting at, but I think perhaps a better solution is for some imaginative type in the club coming to the cabinet and perscribing two or three logical rule combinations. People would be able to deviate, of course, but we could set up matches as--lets play rule combinations (West Point #1, or #2---or perhaps Walter #1 or #2). It would make it easier for novices to have a good idea of what they are picking. And it would give us an opportunity to use the Cabinet to approve such suggestion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Funny, I had the same idea this night. In the old BG days, people would often simply play "all on". A few alternate sets of recommended rules selections (say one aimed at historical accuracy--oh well, whatever that is!--, one aimed at play balance, one aimed at simplicity--for beginners (leave out things like gun capture etc.) would maybe indeed make agreement easier. At least for those who find it difficult to agree. Of course, if both players are easy, or one extremely easy about such things (as is General Sands in my experience [;)]), then optional rules are not a problem.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
BTW--I believe the multiplayer game is in Union hands--but I could be mistaken, if I am it is my fault. Let me know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'll have to check, but I believe we have had no turn from you since we sent back ours (#71 I think?) about a week ago.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

<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>
I think that over-complicates (Rules for using rules) matters. I think optional rules should be discussed and resolved by the opponents, without outside intervention.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely. If at all, then this would be kind of a set of recommendations, nothing more, in no way binding to anybody.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
Oh I wish, I wish. Gettysburg with Lee-Jackson OOB and Stuart on the field day one.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Of course we would then want our other two divisions of cavalry also on the field on day one ... and while we're at it, Grant, Sherman, & Sheridan. [:D]

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

I suggest that optional rules are much like restaurant menus.
I favor a long menu of choices, although I realize that it is difficult and too expensive for a kitchen to do a good job on all of them. That is why I often go to buffets with 50 to 200 dishes, because I can find the 6 or 7 items that really suit me and pig out on them while ignoring the mass of other stuff.

People who want a short list should play mostly the default settings and not worry about too many choices and the editing that the rest of us are happy to wrestle with. "Make mine vanilla," versus 37 flavors.
The game designers have already decided for them, according to their best judgments.

We malcontents will keep tinkering with the games to improve them instead of moving on, leaving our dissatisfaction behind to try another game which may suit us better.
The customer is often wrong, but a merchant will seldom go wrong in trying to satisfy him, especially if additional expense and time are minimal.
I believe that that will serve HPS and the game designers better than locking players into their designer default choices.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG

I have posted this under this topic since it relates to Gettysburg and I think it started during a mult-player game when some files passed and not all players had updated. Anyway, I have updated and I am having an issue with fire combat. All the shooting happens in what I must call a "flash" With "on map results" on all you see is the number of men hit pop up really fast. There is no sound. In other words the shooting is happening really fast. With "OMR" off the box still comes up but the shooting happens just a fast. I'm not sure if I am describing this in a manner for ya'll to understand but something is out of sinc.

Lt General Jon Thayer
2/3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

Try hitting the F6 key? I am not sure if the speed of the combat sequences is modifiable in the ACW series, but in some of the HPS series this works (F5 slower, F7 faster, F6 normal). Just a guess.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

Jon, if you are watching the replay there's no way to turn "on map results" off, as it is dictated by your opponents settings.

As DSW said, you should be able to use the F keys to control the speed though, if you are ok with OMR and just want to slow things down.

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

I was able to check with "on map results" on and off by opening another scenario. I uninstalled and reinstalled and it is fixed altough that does not answer the question of what was happening.

Lt General Jon Thayer
2/3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net