American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I have recently been playing a lot more multiplayer games than usual and it has made me more aware of a number of problems. One is how many mistakes our Rebel brothers are making tactically. To address that I started a thread over in Southern Raiders and highly recommend everyone on the Southern side read it. I have observed poor tactics by all officers regardless of rank so this means you.

The other is the title of this post. HPS added a much needed rule to fix major problems with blitzkrieg tactics in their Turn Based play. This was the Optional rule for Embedded Melee phase in Turn play. The problem occurs now in multiplayer games because using the optional rule would add a second set of mailing for each side to resolve melees. The solution was to added a House Rule for Embedded Melee where each player executes all his fire and movement before he starts his first melee. Once he starts meleeing he can no longer exploit the result by more fire and melee.

The problem comes in when more than one players forces are adjacent or intermixed. Then one player is going to complete his melees before the next player moves. So the question is how to interpret the House Rule in these situations. I have found everyone seems to be handling it different way so I thought I would see if we could come to a consenses as to the best way to handle the problems so we are all on the same page. Once we have something I will sumarize it on the CSA War College site in the shared area.

Problems I see:

Sometimes enemy units from one melee retreat into another player's area where he intents to melee. Can the unit be meleed again? Shoot at the offending unit? Etc.

Should we enforce a no cross border between adjacent player's divisions? One could justify this because intermixing of commands was a real problem in the CW.

Should one player turn over part of his force to another so they can make a combined melee which wouldn't be possible under the strict interpretation of the rule? Example, the units might be in separate stacks but one his on the rear of the enemy unit while the other is on the front. Separately neither is strong enough but together thay could easily defeat the enemy.

And, I am sure others have seen people do things that didn't conform to their view of how the rule should work. I have also observed that not to many people are use to playing under the rule and violate it on a regular bases. So lets start a dialog on it and see if we can come up with a simple set of how to use the rule instructions.



LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

Good post Kennon. Under MP play there is the Field commander who receives the other sides turn and sends it on to the next player, he also should send his side's completed turn back to the opponents. Why not have the field commander resolve all the melees at the end before he sends the turn back. He can CC this turn to his partners so they can observe the results.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
Commanding 2nd Div, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

Having had my butt thoroughly kicked by General Whitehead several times, I would love to get my hands on that tactics paper. Should be required reading for every reb, but I hope you guys don't read it. I really really do.

General Don Golen

I Corps /Army of the Potomac
"The Iron Corp"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Drex</i>
<br />Good post Kennon. Under MP play there is the Field commander who receives the other sides turn and sends it on to the next player, he also should send his side's completed turn back to the opponents. Why not have the field commander resolve all the melees at the end before he sends the turn back. He can CC this turn to his partners so they can observe the results.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is a workable idea. But would it solve the issue? I do not think so.

However, I do not agree that there IS a problem. There are MANY anecdotal mentions of routed or disrupted ACW units moving into and through troops of other regiments. This would and should create a disruptive effect of those troops and they would not be able to complete their mission.

I see that as having nothing to do with MP games, whatsoever.

IF I am playing one vs one against an opponent and MY melee creates THAT SAME REACTION, do I get a DO OVER?? NO way. You live with what happens.

It is not reasonable to say that an MP game is any different than a one vs one game. The results of the combat are the results. IF players want to discuss all aspects of their moves beforehand, then I guess that is not a problem. Is that gamey, perhaps.

The embedded melee rule is fine and should almost always be used. The optional melee optional rules DOES work.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands, General
4th Brigade, Cavalry Division, XIV Corps,
Army of Cumberland, USA


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

"Why not have the field commander resolve all the melees at the end before he sends the turn back. He can CC this turn to his partners so they can observe the results. "

That should work just fine. The last player/commander does the melee.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Pfleck</i>
<br />"Why not have the field commander resolve all the melees at the end before he sends the turn back. He can CC this turn to his partners so they can observe the results. "

That should work just fine. The last player/commander does the melee.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The three major problems with this solution. One is for complex battles with an extensive number of melees this will lead to a lot of detail messages being attached trying to describe what to do with each players forces. The second the success or failure of one melee may change the reason for the next melee. The third is defensive fire may disrupt one or more of the meleeing units making the attack need to abort.

It solves the problem but may create a whole new set of problems for the players. It also requires the last player in the sequence to do the melees if you don't want an additional mailing. If that player is your weakest player this could be a problem.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

"The three major problems with this solution. One is for complex battles with an extensive number of melees this will lead to a lot of detail messages being attached trying to describe what to do with each players forces. The second the success or failure of one melee may change the reason for the next melee. The third is defensive fire may disrupt one or more of the meleeing units making the attack need to abort."

Micro-management problems. I say let the last person touching the file decide the melees, and who cares if he screws up, or how the results of one melee may have warrented the initiation of another, it is supposedly nearly simultaneous action. If you're not comfortable leaving these kinds of decisions in the hands of other, don't play MP games.

MG Al "Ambushed" Amos, Commanding Officer
1st Div, I Corps, AoP, USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Pfleck</i>
<br />"Why not have the field commander resolve all the melees at the end before he sends the turn back. He can CC this turn to his partners so they can observe the results. "

That should work just fine. The last player/commander does the melee.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The three major problems with this solution. One is for complex battles with an extensive number of melees this will lead to a lot of detail messages being attached trying to describe what to do with each players forces. The second the success or failure of one melee may change the reason for the next melee. The third is defensive fire may disrupt one or more of the meleeing units making the attack need to abort.

It solves the problem but may create a whole new set of problems for the players. It also requires the last player in the sequence to do the melees if you don't want an additional mailing. If that player is your weakest player this could be a problem.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The player that would resolve the melees should be the field commander who is usually the strongest player(but not always). In any event, each player sends on his turn with instructions on who is to melee. It is NOT onerous since melees usually do not get too numerous plus the field commander could decide that he doesn't want to melee if the odds don't suit him. This procedure is being used now.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
Commanding 2nd Div, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Drex</i>
The player that would resolve the melees should be the field commander who is usually the strongest player(but not always). In any event, each player sends on his turn with instructions on who is to melee. It is NOT onerous since melees usually do not get too numerous plus the field commander could decide that he doesn't want to melee if the odds don't suit him. This procedure is being used now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We've been using this method for years in several MP games with literally hundreds of turns. On the BG engine, with a team of 4 per side, there was no other realistic way of doing a MP anyway. It works. Of course, you do have to trust the last player's judgement to some degree.

<center>Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
[url="http://www.acwgc-usa.org/"][/url]
<i>"... and keep moving on."</i>

</center>

When embedded melee was originally suggested at Tillercon II, I envisioned pre-plotted melees that would be resolved when the phasing player ended his turn. Sounds like that would still be the ideal solution. If others agree, I will try to bring it up at Tillercon III. It ought to be feasible, as SSI's Napoleon's Battles had preplotted cavalry charges back in 1985, and they worked great.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />When embedded melee was originally suggested at Tillercon II, I envisioned pre-plotted melees that would be resolved when the phasing player ended his turn. Sounds like that would still be the ideal solution.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Isn't that the exact way it is now and the way the game works WITH the optional melee rule???

What is meant by "pre-plotted melees"? Is that something the AI does at the end of my turn?

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands, General
4th Brigade, Cavalry Division, XIV Corps,
Army of Cumberland, USA


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

IMNSHO, Embedded melee and the other concerns printed here are house rules and if they are important to a player, they should be negotiated at game start and adhered to, whatever is agreed.
Whether each player does his own melees or the field commander performs everybody's at turn end, agree to observe the restriction or it does not exist.
Keep the game fun!...for all players.

That includes <font color="yellow">detaching units to command control of a teammate. </font id="yellow">
It was done often during the ACW, I served in detached units in both Korea and Viet Nam and while fretting over the lack of promotions in one such "bastard" unit, I had some of the best challenges to give me "growth" experiences in my military career. I don't regret volunteering for the assignment and later received a letter of commendation from the supported brigade commander which led to a commendation medal. (ARCOM) As an "acting Jack" sergeant, I probably had more freedom than the company commander of my parent unit. The company HQ was 20 miles adjacent to battalion. [:D]

As for game procedure, we are not automatons and can respond to situations with individual decisions.
<b>Operational Control</b>
No mixing of units from different commands and stay within command boundaries?...It happened and continues to happen. Cannot be avoided, but a team commander certainly might give guidelines as to areas of operations. (AOs)
If you need extra men in a coming melee to reach 3X+ strength, ask to borrow a regiment or brigade and I shall let you know whether I have other plans for them, or I may be glad to lend them.

The game engine will prevent a second melee against meleed units retreated into a vacant hex.
Already meleed units retreated upon unmeleed unit(s)?,...
I prefer that they share the fate and liabilities of the previously untouched target units.
If actions of all teammates are theoretically simultaneously happening, then the target units could be receiving ranged fire from a different outfit as it is being moved against to be melee attacked by another stack, preferably from a different hex.
<font color="yellow"> The meleed unit should confer no immunity against being meleed again for its unmeleed, now host, neighbor. </font id="yellow"> This is somewhat arbitrary but I hold that it is more realistic.

If it's in LoS after melee, accordingly, shoot it again as wanted... with everyone doing their own melees.
That keeps things simple. You don't have to keep track of opponents's actions as they take turns on replays, and you may not know anyway which formations belong to whom. That will minimize opportunities to generate disputes.

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

"Take what you want," said God, "and pay for it."
Spanish proverb

Well said, I agree...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ross McDaniel</i>
<br />IMNSHO, Embedded melee and the other concerns printed here are house rules and if they are important to a player, they should be negotiated at game start and adhered to, whatever is agreed.
Whether each player does his own melees or the field commander performs everybody's at turn end, agree to observe the restriction or it does not exist.
Keep the game fun!...for all players.

That includes <font color="yellow">detaching units to command control of a teammate. </font id="yellow">
It was done often during the ACW, I served in detached units in both Korea and Viet Nam and while fretting over the lack of promotions in one such "bastard" unit, I had some of the best challenges to give me "growth" experiences in my military career. I don't regret volunteering for the assignment and later received a letter of commendation from the supported brigade commander which led to a commendation medal. (ARCOM) As an "acting Jack" sergeant, I probably had more freedom than the company commander of my parent unit. The company HQ was 20 miles adjacent to battalion. [:D]

As for game procedure, we are not automatons and can respond to situations with individual decisions.
<b>Operational Control</b>
No mixing of units from different commands and stay within command boundaries?...It happened and continues to happen. Cannot be avoided, but a team commander certainly might give guidelines as to areas of operations. (AOs)
If you need extra men in a coming melee to reach 3X+ strength, ask to borrow a regiment or brigade and I shall let you know whether I have other plans for them, or I may be glad to lend them.

The game engine will prevent a second melee against meleed units retreated into a vacant hex.
Already meleed units retreated upon unmeleed unit(s)?,...
I prefer that they share the fate and liabilities of the previously untouched target units.
If actions of all teammates are theoretically simultaneously happening, then the target units could be receiving ranged fire from a different outfit as it is being moved against to be melee attacked by another stack, preferably from a different hex.
<font color="yellow"> The meleed unit should confer no immunity against being meleed again for its unmeleed, now host, neighbor. </font id="yellow"> This is somewhat arbitrary but I hold that it is more realistic.

If it's in LoS after melee, accordingly, shoot it again as wanted... with everyone doing their own melees.
That keeps things simple. You don't have to keep track of opponents's actions as they take turns on replays, and you may not know anyway which formations belong to whom. That will minimize opportunities to generate disputes.

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

"Take what you want," said God, "and pay for it."
Spanish proverb
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. General Thompson
XIX Corps,
Army of the Shenandoah

"That's damn ungenerous! I shall take those guns for that!"

-General Phil Sheridan

<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>

Isn't that the exact way it is now and the way the game works WITH the optional melee rule???

What is meant by "pre-plotted melees"? Is that something the AI does at the end of my turn?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, Ernie,

The big difference between pre-plotted and the way it is now is that you have to conduct melees one by one, and can't start a new one until the old one is resolved. What I envisioned is during your turn you assign all your units to melees. After all the units who are going to melee are assigned, your last player hits the change phase button. At that point, the AI would resolve all the melees that have been plotted one by one. I would prefer op fire to take place when you assign the units to melees, but that too could be after the change phase button has been pushed.

The advantage in multiplayer is that everyone could assign units to melees during their turn without instructions and without extra emails. Players receiving the turn from their fellow players could see which units had already been assigned to melee and could add one of their units if it was adjacent. As I mentioned, the basic concept was around when computers were a lot less powerful than they are now.

Whether JT would want to mess with it is up to him, but I am certainly impressed with what he did after we introduced our ideas at Tillercon II. And if you guys don't want it, I won't bring it up. I rarely play single turn and almost never play multiplayer.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Pre plotting an entire move not just melees would be a tremendous step toward taking the gameyness out of the games. It would be a massive change to the engine, though (I assume), so I doubt there's much chance of it happening.

It would be great. You would make all your moves and indicate all your melees based on what you see at the start of your turn. Then you close your turn and send it to your opponent. He watches the replay - but in the replay your units move, fire and melee not necessarialy the way you plotted them. Some of your units may move into unseen enemy ZOC, some units may take defensive fire and become disrupted ; all the units in a melee may not be available. (Maybe even have rules for units to change face or reduce movement if moving into the fire zone LOS of a previously undetected unit so units don't march blndly ahead) This would tend to make us all move with a more historical caution and completely remove the opportunistic decisons made in reaction to information gained by moving one unit at a time. This would, in effect replicate the simultaneity of at least friendly movement.

At any rate, the oppnent would watch the replay and then do his move etc. We would then watch the replay which would start with the replay our last turn so we could see what actually happened; then the replay of the opponents move, then we make our moves etc. Repeat until Victory, Defeat or Exhaustion.

But like I said, I think the engine change would be too massive.



BG Michael Burns, CSA
1/4/IV/AotM