American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I am currently engaged in a battle with an opponent who recently commented that a charge he made should have, historically, worked. I have to agree with him.

He bombarded my infantry, in battle line, for half-a-day at medium range with dozens of cannon. He had 10,000 infantry in my immediate front which were advancing in good order and firing at a range of two - five hexes. My men were behind breastworks and in the woods so we were getting the better of them. Still, the fight had been a prolonged one and both sides should have been exhausted. Especially my men as they were firing all day without relief. Still they were under 200 fatigue level.

He then launched a mounted cavalry charge with about 1,500 troopers directly against my lines. I had to smile when I watched the replay and then fired back the next turn.

We just destroyed the cavalry without any problem at all.

In reality, maybe, this should have worked. Exhausted infantry, seeing thousands of infantry, dozens of cannon, and 1,500 charging cavalry in their front, would have likely fallen back or been more susceptible to retreating.

These games eliminate the fear factor in your men. A single regiment can stand up to an Army and the men will fight like 300 Spartans as they go down. In reality many men would have likely made a good show and then ran for the hills. But the little computer men know no fear! They may rout on occasion but then they will make up for it by standing strong while the enemy marches straight up to their lines, unlimbers cannon, and then blasts them in the face with double canister! War is hell for our little soldiers on the screen.

It would be interesting if a type of "fear factor" were involved in these games. The psychological impact of battle is not a factor in these games at this point. A regiment can march over the bodies of the rest of the division and launch a banzai attack up a hill without a single man faltering. Your flank can be marched around and your men can watch themselves being surrounded and never take a fatigue penalty or risk being disrputed or routed.

I always found this aspect of the game to be the least historically accurate. Our little men on the screen have no emotions, fears, worries, or concerns about tomorrow or family. They are all zealous fellas who have no issue being gunned down en masse just to allow you more time to save a cannon or two or buy 20 minutes of game time in a losing battle of part of a campaign.

Would need a lot more detail on just what was envolved in the attack and defense. Also what optional rules in effect like morale effects and route limiting. You mention the Union strength but not the Confederate. The game does have a fear factor in it. Morale rating is measure of their training and spirit. A cavalry charge against the front of an infantry line in woods and behind breastworks should die to the last man unless they run first. Cavalry in the Civil War had very poor close range weapons and were rarely trained on how to properly use them. But against breastworks they were pretty much limited to riding up to them and shouting loudly while being shot.

Fatigue in the game is a measure of battle fatigue not how tired they are although that has been added with the night rules. For an attacking force to be successful both in the game and in reality it needed to significantly out number the defender especially it the defender is in improved positions, have a significant morale advantage (better lead, Iron brigade, etc.), or a significant positional advantage (flank or rear attack). Otherwise the attackers tended to stall and the fight turn into a shooting match with the defender having all the advantages.

Good troops almost never broke from improved positions when attacked head on unless significantly out numbered. That is on the order of 3:1 which is the military rule of thumb for a successful attack. The trick is obtaining 3:1 at the point of attack. You don't have to make it along the whole line, just where you want to break it.

A good example is my recent tournament game with Gen. Meyer. The scenario was the pseudo 080C of Chancellorsville. Both sides were exactly equal in every way. Same cannons, same number of men, same morale level, Union actually had a slightly better command structure since they had two Corps and the Rebels were organized in one but had an extra leader. I managed to shift most of my Corps around to their left flank and attacked two divisions. But I attacked with 2:1 odds in heavy woods. Meyer's left desolved leading to a major victory. If I had made a head on attack into his two Corps the opposite result would have occurred.

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

My hexes were filled with about 600+ infantrymen with 2 - 4 guns of artillery support in each hex. A strong line for sure!

You mentioned cavalry charges against enemy infantry being doomed to failure. Where was it I read an alternate history of Lee's battle plan for Gettysburg which speculated on what would have happened it Stuart's men charged behind Pickett en masse up Cemetery Hill. I recall the idea but not where it came from. 7,000 Rebel cavalrymen should be enough to scare any Yankee foot soldier you would think! But, behind a stone wall, and with heavy artillery support... maybe not.

The fear factor for me is watching the replays! If my men don't have fear and caution, I sure as hell do!

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
4/II/ANV

Hi, General,

I think part of the problem is that defensive terrain effects are cumulative. If you were in the woods and behind breastworks, your enemy's fire was reduced by 70%. If in addition you were a level higher, it would be - 90%! And if you were two levels higher, he couldn't even hit you, barring density or flanking fire.

During the Civil War, mounted cavalry charges against infantry were pretty rare and almost always unsuccessful, unless the infantry was green (1st Manassas) or broken (1864 Shenandoah battles). If anything, mounted cavalry is more powerful in the games than historically.

My experience with fear in the game is very different from yours. I have had fresh veteran units break when they weren't even in enemy LOS, simply because their neighbor broke, and that was with rout limiting on. I shudder to think what would happen with rout limiting off! One of the most frustrating aspects of this game for me is to set up a solid defense, only to have it crumble at the first fire for no apparent reason. But I can't say that that never happened historically.

PS: If the enemy is unlimbering cannon at double canister range, you ought to be able to pick off the crew.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

This has been my experience as well. I swear some of my units have been equipped with Nike track shoes rather than brogans.

_________________
Lt. Col. P. A. Thompson
4/1/XIV
AotC

Go back and read the manual and do your best to understand exactly what the various factors will allow and prohibit: You need to forget trying to fight-the-battle and learn to play-the-game. I think that the best players in the club look at the map and see a mathematical puzzle rather than a military situation?

"Chaos" factors are hard to fairly represent in a game. Take Little Round Top: Historically that was 20th Maines day but it's very difficult to create memorable moments in game terms. The parameters allow a certain amount of variation in results but extraordinary feats of soldiering don't really figure. The solution is to make different units different qualities so you get the 20th Maine always figuring as an "A" class Regiment, but other circumstances could have seen 20th Maine defeated easily on the day and we'd consequently be viewing that unit as an average "C" or "D".

I don't know what the answer is to try and represent luck and chance. Introduce something to represent physical fatigue similar to the night movement fatigue modifier. That would encourage players to not march crazily round the map at 12 hexes per turn right from turn #1. Straggling was a massive factor during the ACW but you won't find it here.

In these games it can be a great challenge to try and commad poor quality troops competently but it is almost impossible to command good quality troops poorly. Those "A" & "B" quality guys are always just that no matter how bad your generalship is.

Opponent experience and gaming style can be a big factor. If I have a favourite Reb opponent then Gen. Paul Kenney would be mine. We've played each other a number of times in the past and had a mix of wins, draws and losses. The important factor was that we had very similar command styles so each game developed a nice balance of movement and action. The rapport you can build up with an opponent can make or break your enjoyment of these games I think.

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

The old boardgame series Great Battles of the ACW modeled this a little bit with the Brigade Combat Effectiveness (BCE) rule. As losses where taken by a whole brigade the morale of all units in the brigade begin to drop. A "B" quality held in reserve might become "D" quality if the other regiments in the brigade took significant losses even though the reserve unit may not have taken a single hit.

As others have said, very hard to model accurately but the above would be a simple and straight forward way to get going in that direction. It was easy in the boardgame so with the computer it would be effortless.

Doug Burke

_________________
Other hobby: Running 30-40 miles per week. Several races a year from 5K to marathon. Boston marathon 2007.

I also feel some type of rule that simulates "stragglers" would be a nice addition. For units that move rapidly across the map, they could be penalized by losing cohesion that would effect their performance in combat. Units could then regain cohesion by not moving, in effect regaining stragglers. The old AH game "Fury in the West" had a straggler rule that worked well I think.

Imagine sides A & B are both trying to get to hex xxx,xxx

Side A marches at 12 hexes per turn and suffers stragglers and loss of cohesion due to the forced pace.
Side B marches at 8 - 10 hexes per turn and retains better cohesion and suffers less straggling but has the downside of moving slower.

This would be easy to program in a turn based game wouldn't it? It would represent the "first-with-the-most" principle.

Could we see a difference in straggler rates being imposed on the various pikes, roads and trails? Make straggling vary depending on unit quality maybe.

Difficult to introduce at this stage I guess. A pity, sensible straggler rules might help sort the men from the boys when it comes to ambitious planning and execution of movements.

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

If my memory serves me correctly Civil War Generals 2 had a "straggler" penalty. When you moved your men grew more fatigued and fewer in number every turn. When you "rested" during a turn your men would recover some fatigue and some stragglers would return. The effects were multiplied at night making night movement almost more damaging than actual combat. I remember the screen would actually turn into night for night movement phases. And, for kicks, the units would go into "tents" with litle campfires beside them. A nice little touch. The game even had "night music" which was more subdued than the "day music." It was a fun game despite the many bugs in it if I recall.

Each unit had a sidebar next to it that listed its total strength (say 600), strength present (450) and casualties (100). This would mean your regiment was short 50 stragglers. The game did a good job of actually forcing you to rest your men. Stragglers also increased during prolonged combat as men "dropped out of line" for various reasons. Maybe they were taking the wounded back - I dont know. But a unit in combat became much fatigued after a number of hours.

Ah, memories. I wonder whatever happened to that game... I think I tossed it. The bugs in it ruined the game.

I think I still have my CWGenerals2 game. Never played it much though. I wonder how much a "straggler" effect would have on game play and how difficult it would be to simulate. Does straggling occur more in 1964 than it does in 1962? Does it occur more in volunteer units than regular army? Night vs Day? For all the work trying to create it, would it make the game better?
As far as the fear factor goes, the more fire a unit receives, the higher its morale/fatigue number goes up, so as far as I am concerned, the fear factor is there. As Kennon mentioned, no unit behind breastworks is going to rout in the face of a cavalry charge.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Nonsense! Havent you ever seen "The Undefeated" with John Wayne and Rock Hudson!? Wayne's cavalry charge routed those Rebels quick, fast, and in one hell of a hurry

Hell. John Wayne can do anything. What a matchup Wayne and Hudson. I wonder how that ever happened.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

John Wayne was routed by the boys from that Mississippi Military school in the "Horse Soldiers", lol.

Seriously, I have a question for you general officers. Being fairly new to the game, I have wondered about the issue(s) being discussed here. Does anyone have any experience with how the HPS games react to an attack "En Echelon" ?

_________________
Brigadier General Robert Webb
> 3nd Brigade, Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd)
> II Corps, Army of the West
> "Gator Alley"

Laissez Les Bons Temps Rouler !!!