American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gettysburg Patch is up at the hps site.
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/updates/up ... Gettysburg


General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
XVI Corps,
Army of the Tennessee.
Commanding.

And Chickamauga...

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS

Interesting stuff in the patch

<center>
General John Corbin
Commander in Chief
Army of The Shenandoah
USA</center>

Glad to see the arty min-movement added. And as John said, interesting stuff! [8D]

Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "The Bishop's Men"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

Since I patched I can't seem to find the help menu that describes the ins and outs of the optional rules. When I try, all I get is the <u>PDF HPS help file</u> and I can't seem to find anything there about how each of the optional rules changes play. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be greatful.

Major Bill Cirillo
3rd Brigade, 1st Div.
XX Corps, AoC, USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Net Warrior</i>
<br />Since I patched I can't seem to find the help menu that describes the ins and outs of the optional rules. When I try, all I get is the <u>PDF HPS help file</u> and I can't seem to find anything there about how each of the optional rules changes play. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be greatful.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Pp. 29-32 in cwb.pdf.

BTW I find it's really getting unreasonable. 25 optional rules! BG had 8. It was bad enough then to reach an agreement with opponents.

I do think game designers should accept the responsibility of adding features to a game, period. Not everything is so contentious it warrants an optional rule. My € .02.

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

West Point Class of '01

I agree with General Walther. The appearance of the optional rules has rather skewed the playing field I think. Optional rules must have some impact on play to be worth including...or else why bother to use them? So if they DO have some relevance or influence on play is it wise or 'fair' to not use them? It certainly has caused disagreement with opponents when determing the conditions of play.

Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

I disagree. The addition of optional rules has corrected many flaws within the game system and kept what would now be a very down in the tooth game system somewhat fresh. Many should have been embedded in the game, not optional, but the designers either were nice enough to give us the choice of using or did it for backward compatibility.

Individually some rules will favor one side over the other but I have found in most scenarios having all optional rules on neatly balances out the game (Phased Play, I don't do enough Turn to judge it). Some favor the Union and some the South but generally you will find them in groups that neatly cancel out each other while significantly improving the game play.

There are some scenarios that will have balance problems when some rules are used but for the most part there are few of these.

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

Optional rules are, well, OPTIONAL! They allow people that want certain things to have them and those that do not are free NOT to use them. Many optional rules have the same effect on BOTH players.

If both parties cannot agree and it is a complete impasse, then find another opponent.

I think the optional rules are methods to improve the game, without there having to be a re-write of the games.

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

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

I agree with Kennon, most of the optional rules have addressed the flaws in the game engine and improved them immensely. The only ones I prefer not to use are the Optional Fire and Melee Results, the Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates and Rout Limiting.

One optional rule that I've found will have a major effect on games is the Alternate Fixed Unit Release. If the scenario was playtested without it the rule can unbalance the scenario.

As to it causing a problem lining up an opponent I have not found that to be the case. I usually state my preferences before posting for an opponent and if they don't like my options they don't need to reply to my request.


Gen. Ken Miller
1/2/VI
AoS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by krmiller</i>
<br />I agree with Kennon, most of the optional rules have addressed the flaws in the game engine and improved them immensely. The only ones I prefer not to use are the Optional Fire and Melee Results, the Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates and Rout Limiting.

One optional rule that I've found will have a major effect on games is the Alternate Fixed Unit Release. If the scenario was playtested without it the rule can unbalance the scenario.

As to it causing a problem lining up an opponent I have not found that to be the case. I usually state my preferences before posting for an opponent and if they don't like my options they don't need to reply to my request.


Gen. Ken Miller
1/2/VI
AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think the rules you mention are good additions and here is why I usually use them:

Alternate Fire/Melee Tables - This change basicly use two random rolls and averages to get the result. It changes the casualties from a linear relation to the min/max fire numbers to a somewhat center weighted curve. Why is this good? Well with the addition of the optional rule for stack firing, which was added to compensate for the poor fire results created by small units, it compensates for the lack of individual fire to average out the extremes. When using this option you know longer have to use single unit fire to prevent a major force from getting some ridicuiously low result. Some people like the extremes but I still think this optional rule makes a good pairing with the Stacking rule.

Hight Fatigue Recovery Rule - This one I really like. Before the odds were so low that any unit would recover from fatigue in even a 2 or 3 day battle, it was best for the player to fight his units until totally fatigue then send them somewhere no one would be shooting at them. With the fatigue rule though you are rewarded for properly managing your units. Withdrawing the from combat when they reached 300 and letting them recover and avoiding them getting over 600 in two day battles so they would recover during the night. In other word, with this rule the intent of fatigue was finally realized. The good player will not keep his units in continuous combat.

Alternate Fix Unit Release rule - is another badly need fix. Granted you must be careful with the scenario used with it since some assume the fixed units are nothing but free kills to the other player. But anyone who has watched Rebel units slip around the fixed units in Shiloh because they know absolutely where they are so can avoid LOS and any accidental fire that might release them, knows how necessary this rule is. The two big regiments on the wrong side of Bull Run are also fun to trap.

Route Limiting - now this is a very iffy one. I believe they added it when two many people complained that it was to easy to route units. My main reason for wanting to use this one is it created a very artificial tactic that has the same affect, alternating occupation of hexes. It also favored the attacker since they seldom had to worry about needing a continous line while the defender couldn't leave gaps if they really wanted to hold a position.

Many of the optional rules if you look at them individually have flaws but if you put them into related groups you find they compensate for each other and generally fix real flaws in the game system.

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

As this thread shows, its good they are optional - so people can choose what they want. Its the absolute best way of providing further life to the series.

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
<br />As this thread shows, its good they are optional - so people can choose what they want. Its the absolute best way of providing further life to the series.

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA

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

I agree, and more are coming


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 agree with Kennon, most of the optional rules have addressed the flaws in the game engine and improved them immensely....As to it causing a problem lining up an opponent I have not found that to be the case. I usually state my preferences before posting for an opponent and if they don't like my options they don't need to reply to my request. -Gen. Ken Miller

As this thread shows, its good they are optional - so people can choose what they want. Its the absolute best way of providing further life to the series. -LGen. Hamilton

I agree, and more are coming. -Lt. Col. Richard Walker <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
!YES!

Most of us will have "hot-button" issues about what is wrong with a game and what it needs to fix it.

Choices are what freedom is all about and the more that players can tweak the games to improve them to their tastes will satisfy customers and lead to years of play after something (probably) better comes along.
Some want play-balance, I like historical accuracy and the challenge of overcoming disadvantages.
Good enough will trump better, if a new game system must be learned.

"On the internet, people on both tails of the bell curve can find each other."
We ACW Club wargamers are already a very select group. With members from all over the world, there are only a few hundred of us.
Should the ACW club actively recruit? Certainly HPS should.
I did not know of this club's existance until the commander of the ANV answered my challenge on another gaming forum for the TalonSoft Antietam that I got for a Christmas present.

Eventually I may check GEOD out, but not this year. Right now, I have plenty of tweaks available for the scenarios that I like.

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

It's really interesting that to the mind of most of the posters in this thread "optional rule" seems to be almost a synonym for "game engine improvement". It has become so common, almost automatic, to introduce new features as optional rules that most people apparently no longer separate the two concepts. I say I think we have too many optional rules and most people read I am against improving the game. Needless to say, of course I am not.

If, as several posters after me said, new concepts really have "corrected many flaws within the game system", then I think there was very little reason to make them optional. A flaw is a flaw. I agree, of course, that choice is a good thing. But there can be an overabundance of choices. Easily. We have now 25 optional rules. Another couple of years, we'll have 40. That's a library of choices most players will have trouble to keep track of and decide what they really want. Negotiating PBEM games will become more difficult than bringing peace to Palestine.

To my mind, optional rules should be limited to those concepts whose merits are generally contentious (rout limiting; gun capture). There are things that simply quite obviously improve the game without any remarkable negative effects, and there is very little reason for making them optional rather than just a part of the game.

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