American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

OK, tricky one this.

What is the obligation of an opponent to give battle in any single scenario situation?

These are tactical simulations drawn on a grand scale. The game models Regimental sized combat on operational sized maps. What am I to do if my opponent decides to get "cagey" and play a positional game?

These maps allow players to do pretty much whatever they wish regardless of any political, logistical, strategic or morale implications that would pertain historically.

To be specific, just finishing day 1 of a 4 day Chancellorsville campaign and I've spent the day getting the entire Union Army into the rear of the Rebs only to realise that the Reb Army seems to have crossed to the North bank to occupy my original start position!

Dawn on day 2 I fear will find us faced with a simple flip-flop of the initial start position.

In all my years of gaming I can't think of another instance of a "what-the-hell" moment like it. I realise an opponent has every right to play to the best advantage possible but it's got me scratching my head in confusion.
Surely Lee couldn't have done that in reality? where does it leave us?

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

...and to partially answer my own post, it has long been my opinion that big objectives or special conditions are the key to ensuring historical context to our games.

This big chancellorsville map has a number of scattered minor objectives but both sides are pretty much free to move as they wish. A game of Chess on a board with 50,000 "squares"?

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

Interesting question.

I'm usually a cagey player myself. I could care less about objective hexes unless they suit my needs. I actually prefer meeting engagement type battles simply because I expect my opponent and I to follow a non-historical path to battle. Because the Rebs sometimes get placed into historical scenarios where the Yanks know are strength, position, and intent it can "save" us to follow a different pathway. Stones River is always my favorite example of the Rebs being forced to foolow the historical path without any option really. Shiloh also does but not as greatly. By following a different route or method of attack at Shiloh the Reb player can avoid the mistakes of Johnston and Beauregard.

I guess its a matter of player preference concerning whether to follow historical pathways. I have played games that almost mirror history and others that completely thwart it. Usually in the end I just fight em where I see em.... or.... run like hell and let them find me on my own ground.

I agree with large value objectives as the best way to keep things real, but I think a lot of players, including the designer Rich Walker, are of the opinion that large value objectives are artificial and lead to gamey tactics. My point is that in these games, without meaningful objectives, the Rebs might as well retreat to Mt Whitney and fortify the crest, since they don't have to worry about food, clothing, shelter, or defending the homeland. I agree that objectives are artificial, but they are the best we can do with the games that we have.

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

It all depends. Objective hexes are a means to inforce conditions on the scenario that reflect real but abstract restrains the armies operated under. In Gettysburg, the Cashtown area represents Lee's lines of communications and supply source. He can't abandon them because he can't sustain his army without protecting Cashtown. Others represent operational choices that brought on the battle in the first place. The VP hexes around Cemetery Hill represent these types. Meade has chosen to hold the critical road junction at Gettysburg. If he failed to he probably would consider the battle tactically lost and withdraw to a better location protecting Baltimore and Washington. Exit hexes in some of the scenarios involving Pipe Creek scenarios represent the primary directive to the AoP. To prevent Lee from reaching Baltimore or Washington.

Many scenario designers use the VP hexes to reproduce the battle they are simulating. Unfortunately, this usually takes away any type of player tactical planning options. But all scenarios suffer from the fact that most battles were decided by the operational choices that lead up to them before the first shot was fired. When you reproduce these decisions by placing VP hexes you are turning the scenario into a contest to see if the players can do better or worse than the original generals but not use better operational tactics.

The problems come in due to the limited flexibility of VP hexes. The game doesn't have enough types to handle most situations correctly. Large VP hex values can lead to one side forming a circle around it. Low values can lead to the being ignored. Because they only apply at end game other strange things can happen. The situation described where both side switched positions at Chancellorsville is a good example of VP hexes not properly representing the restraints on both armies.

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

Of course, any opponent I face has every right to play as creatively and daringly as they like but I just have a growing sense of dread that daylight will find the Union occupying Marye's heights looking across the river to a new Reb postion on the high ground there. I can imagine Gen Hooker and his staff standing around giving each other dumbfounded looks and wondering what the hell just happened.

I'm just not gonna attempt a contested river crossing in these games on any map. They were tough enough in reality and with hindsight and the added complication of a turn based system there is just no point attempting to do so.
It's arguable because the Reb is obviously trying to maintain the most favourable defensive situation possible.

I'm not sure how I'm gonna call it but the simplest thing will be to put every gun I can muster on the ridge and spend the next 120 turns in an Artillery duel at long range.
We now face a situation with the defending player in a corner of the map fronted by a river with both flanks anchored on the map edges. The game mechanics reduced to the lowest common denominator.

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

One of the problems in designing scenarios is anticipating every way a player can exploit what you did. Puting a Union exit hex on the bottome of the map to represent failing to protect the route to Richmond would have cured the slip across the river tactic. But then it probably openned up a bunch more exploits as well. Again, having some more choices in VP conditions would have helped better address such problems.

One I wish they would add is VP based on controlling a hex over time. One VP hex at Chancellorsville generating 1-5 VP per turn would dramatically change the tactics. Trying to simulate anything close to the battle flow that occurred during the Chancellorsvill campaign in a single four day scenario would require some very creative use of VP and fixed units.

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