American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gentlemen <salute>

Out of curiosity, how was it determined that the loss of a gun was x points, a cavalryman x points, and an infantryman x points?

You lose a gun, and you lose the service of that piece for fire support. I'd even concede that the loss of the gun sacrificed the crew at the infantry rate.

A dismounted cavalryman is an infantryman. 2500 cavalry and 2500 infantry meet in a skirmish and for the sake of argument each suffer 25% casualties. If the cavalry holds the position, how can the infantry claim victory based on "points"?

I'm not a fan of objective hexes, as I feel they steer scenarios in a predetermined direction. I'm now wondering about the point values placed on unit types, as they steer our strategies. I'll fire on a cavalry unit before an infantry unit any day, as I know there are more "points" to be earned there.

Each of the three contribute their strengths. Artillery the firepower, cavalry the mobility, and infantry the overall force of momentum. The loss of any of these affects their particular contribution, and sufficient losses diminshes the influence they can bring to the battle. That should be penalty enough

My regards,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary

_________________

The VP for infantry, cavalry and artillery are pretty much in the right ratio for the cost of fielding these different type forces. Besides the cavalryman having a rather expensive horse it took over a year to train a cavalryman. Artillery costs primarially reflect the resources in horses, limbers and wagons to field a battery. The game still has some problems in properly reflecting casualties to these though.

The Victory Point system used in HPS has some problems in simulating the winning and losing of battles. A system that better measured the demoralization of an army forcing it to retreat would be better but is also difficult to simulate.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Gentlemen <salute>

Good points made on the expenses involved.

For the sake of argument, as the expense of units currently fielded has already been paid we're saying the expense of replacing them justifies the point values. Should Southern artillery, cavalry and infantry be worth more victory points than those of the North? The North is more easily able to replace both men and material than the South, therefore making them less expensive due to a larger population base and industrial capacity.

Thank you for the replies,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary

The point values are based upon the subjective decision of the scenario designer, which is going to be true in any of HPS's series.



I sort of agree with the "that should be penalty enough" idea - but I think the problem is actually even then the "points awarded" are equal for each side, even if it is saying that 0 = 0. I don't think the "strategic replacement value" concept is valid, as the points are effecting a scenario instead of a larger strategic picture; in other words what was described above is outside the scope of a scenario when played at a scenario level. If you were to edit in cheaper loss values for the north in effect you are probably going to find situations where you've taken some imbalanced scenarios and make them even more imbalanced - by rewarding the Union player's pitching in and relying on the general numerical advantage that they generally have in many scenarios.

From what I have seen in a few scenarios I've played (the most recent of which is Chancellorsville -as a CSA player - the April 30th scenario as well as the second day at Chickasaw Bayou where I played as the Union player), that there are situations in multiple titles where the Union player is able to become a steamroller. I'm sure it works the other way as well - and it is also a tough thing to find a balance that might work. It seems though, that there is some room for some scenario edits along the lines of what Ed 'Volcano Man' Williams has done in the Panzer and Modern Campaigns series - for some user edited 'alt' scenarios.

The complication comes when one starts modifying point values, it is going to have a domino effect upon a scenario's outcome.

___

There is one thing though, that is going to be a tough one for you to overcome, is that the scenarios are decided by points, and levels of points. If VP hexes are eliminated (as the player should decide what features are valuable), and if VP's for losses are eliminated - then I am not sure what victory criteria can be used. If it is who causes the most losses - then the problem still is that armies fight harder and longer than in history.

_________________
~Retired~

Col Trauth <salute>

Stephen, good to hear from you and hope things are well. My "for the sake of argument" was solely for that purpose, and I don't believe that would be a valid position (especially as a Southern officer lol). It was simply to counter the "expense" factor, as the units in the field are already paid for as I mentioned.

I'm not comfortable with the forcing players to use more historical tactics and/or deployments argument as well. Buford tangled with Heth at Gettysburg in a delaying action, maybe the best known (to me anyhow) instance of cavalry historically and intentionally facing off against infantry. In game play you like this situation because you can pile on some points before the Yankee infantry arrives to begin relieving the cavalry. Historically, I don't believe it worked out as well for Heth.

Artillery counter-battery fire is killing me in a current scenario, even though my artillery is pretty well covered by infantry. At the rate it's going the Yankee commander could well save his infantry from the battle while piling on points with gun kills. Once my artillery support is surpressed, his infantry can advance with strong support from his own artillery while enjoying a huge advantage in victory points already. Losing my own artillery support in the affected area should be penalty enough without the added injury of 60 points per gun.

In any case, I was curious how the decision was made on victory points for unit-type losses.

My regards,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary

Neal .. let me take off the blue jacket for a bit ... it is just game player me. My regards to yourself- and hoping things are going just as well for yourself as they have been for me.

Last I heard you had Campaign Gettysburg -so I am going to assume that is still the title you are operating under - at the same time, "the artillery duel" - can may be seen as design intent -I'm not defending it, but I suspect, like you -I am trying to get a handle on what is what. The way I see it, is there are 2 forces at play here even before anyone gets to have a crack at analyzing things - that being what the engine (at any given time) will allow a scenario to do, and what a scenario designer's vision is - as J Tiller does the programming and a few other guys over the course of the series do the scenario designing. The other thing that you are up against (assuming it is Gettysburg) is that you don't have anywhere near the artillery ammo that the other side has -and they can shoot you up pretty much at will. Or in other words, it is as if you as the ANV player have to pick your spots -but at the same time receive it back at will and at pretty much any range -there is no discouragement to the Union player to have them think twice about taking any potshot with their artillery.

(To be clear too - I am only speaking in the context of the product - I know others have their own takes on it -and that is fine, but outside the scope of what I am saying).

It is also true too that there isn't that large of a scenario designing community that has looked at things in this level as there are in the other series. Frankly, it is really a lot of work, and then even more to try and get the right balance.

See, too another problem can be if you take the historical Antietam scenario in Campaign Antietam, there are a lot of fixed units -but nearly all of them have a 100% probability to release on a set time. While, I understand that mechanism itself is taking things out of the players' hands, in my mind, maybe it isn't taking it enough out of the player's hands to make things a little more of a game, and more interesting in the process (this is more my own scenario design philosophy - but with the disclaimer being I haven't actually designed any... ). It strikes me that the mechanic that was used in Richard Berg's boardgame 'Gleam of Bayonets' works maybe a little better and makes for a better game -just by making the release times a little more variable. If you have no release times whatsoever -basically what happens is that the Army of the Potomac has the Army of Virginia in a box .

Cavalry, I think is probably a matter of context - in that if you lose it in a linked campaign - most of it stays gone for good. But I understand where you are coming from. In Gettysburg as a stand alone scenario the Union player is probably going to try to get them out of the way ASAP, and use them to cover the flanks. But, point taken.

As for a definitive answer, -I'm afraid, that is something that only an individual scenario designer can answer for (most of which I have no idea where they currently are, aside from Rich Walker. Which means the only thing anyone can go by is the notes files in each title. I think I am allowed to post those files from the disks - I'll have to go back and check over my notes. I realize that not everyone has all of the games- and consequently they don't have access to the designer notes in the titles.

_________________
~Retired~