American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Will we still be playing these games in 5 years time? or 10, even 20 years time? No matter how great the rise of gaming technology, the one big obstacle in the way of any future gaming advances is that PBEM is still the "best" arena for human versus human because it allows turn playing to be undertaken at convenience. No need for both players to be available simultaneously to play head-to-head.

This series of games will be winding down I expect after the release of the next few titles and we can't expect to see any futher developments on what we currently have.
But if the programs do become un-locked then the user community may yet still be able to make further changes.

Reading Bill Peters excellent list of "realism" factors I'm wondering if any could be added as optional rules or otherwise?

House-rules are fine but they can be troublesome to correctly enforce and monitor.
How about making changes to Artillery results or usage as an actual optional rule addition? (make gun kills much harder and increase D disruption results for Artillery to reflect the limited effectiveness of counter battery fire)

Or one to change handling of Infantry: whereby ANY Regiment in line formation that is detached becomes automatically disrupted? (to encourage much stricter Brigade cohesion and usage).

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

For example: In a current Chancellorsville game the gun losses are reaching biblical proportions as my opponent and I attempt to skittle down each others guns in an exchange that is 100% game and 0% realistic.
The trouble is that gun kills are basically the only means of reducing Artillery threat to Infantry ...and it is Infantry that Artillery are meant to be used against? Civil War counter-battery fire was the polar opposite of what we have, but I think that could be changed.

The table of fire results could be changed so that gun kills become very unlikely and D disruption results become much more frequent? You rarely (if ever?) see a D result on artillery other than through proximity to rout ...but disruption WAS the thing that Artillery (guns & crews DID suffer in combat).
A change might discourage the gun-versus-gun duels and make players more careful about Artillery deployment. at the moment two 6 gun batterys can sit and blast each other down one gun at a time until last man standing, in a fight for points but minimal risk of disruption.

Would any simple change be welcome or are there futher problems on attempting to do so?

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

Unfortunately the HPS system for artillery uses the same fire calculation it uses against infantry. Just substitutes the "crew" strength to convert the kill calculation into a gun kill. It would take a rewrite of their code to separate artillery so separate parameter tables could be used.

Generally though it is far to easy to get gun kills in HPS. And long range artillery fire is far to effective against all types of units than it was. Also, the army level handling of ammo makes the guns able to stay in position and fire much longer than they should. No running out of ammo after bombarding Cemetery Hill for just an hour or two. And 9 pounder ammo seems to work just find in 10 pound Parrotts.

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

Gentlemen <salute>

I am no historian, so any input I have is based solely on observation of gaming results. That being what it is:

1) The loss of all movement points when coming into contact with an enemy force is bull. I could theoretically advance my infantry column one hex on a road (11 movement points remaining, let's say) and suffer the cruel fate of 1) taking the defensive fire while in column (that's okay, I blundered into it), 2) taking the opponent's offensive fire while still in column, and 3) taking a defensive fire while changing formation. If I were FORTUNATE and had all units still in good order I would take an additional defensive fire in a melee. That amounts to four rounds of fire taken from one encounter. Movement points should be based on movement, not on contact. If I make contact and choose to deploy into line, I pay the points. If I choose to redirect my march and suffer the subsequent defensive fires it is my choice. At a minimum I should ALWAYS have the option of deploying into line.

2) Cavalry victory points are unrealistic. We are at a major victory level in one of the Gator Challenge MP battles because our opponents decided to engage an infantry corps with a large part of their cavalry force. While we appreciate the opportunity to run up the score by killing their mounted smurfs, the penalty paid should be that they lose the service of these troops' mobility and the reduced strength should they encounter our own cavalry. The arguments presented previously have been they cost more to produce, therefore they should be worth more. I counter that the cost has already been paid, with the consequences becoming a factor in later battles.

3) Artillery points are equally inflated, for the same reason as cavalry. In addition, how did a gun crew come to be 25 (or 50 in some scenarios)? Again, I'm no expert and I'm sure I could come across the number if I googled it, but I don't see the crew being more than about 5-7. If your 6 gun battery is being meleed by infantry it should almost be an overrun if defensive fires didn't disrupt the attackers. I have a frequent opponent who does very well with counter-battery fire, however in my opinion I should simply suffer the use of the guns lost.

The outcome of Gettysburg wasn't determined by how may troopers Buford lost fighting his delaying battle. It wasn't determined by the number of Federal guns lost during the bombardment prior to Pickett's Charge, or the Confederate guns lost in exchange. The battle was decided by the primary combat arm; the infantry. Period.

Highest regards,

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

Historically, a typical gun crew numbered ten.

_________________
Your Obedient Servant,
Lt Gen Dwight McBride
Ist Division/1st Brigade
V Corps/AOP/USA

Very valid points Neal

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

I hope these games will someday be unlocked and available to modders similar to what's happening with the Total War series. It would totally increase the gaming opportunities and the membership of the Club. All the effects mentioned above and others could be incorporated to create basically new games.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

The best way to improve simulation games is to allow the users to refine them. I hope that happens.

As for the killer cannons in Chancellorsville, I have suffered it in one of my current battles.

Neal's observations make a lot of sense, and finally, the best post is to make the infantry work the way it did.

As for the modding possibility, we could fight the Wilderness, or a giant what if campaign in Texas, to name just two.

Great ideas gents.

MG Elkin
3rd Div/(2nd Cav)/XVIth Corp AotT

_________________
I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies. . . . Let us look before us, and not behind

The number of men to operate the gun was ten but the full crew was 26 men which included drivers and officers. Target wise the gun was a much larger object than the gun crew and piece would indicate. The limber was usually positioned only about six yards behind the deployed gun. The section's caissons were only 11 yards further behind the limber. A single gun deployed had a depth of 47 yards although in battle the caissons would probably be withdrawn further to a protected area. Artillery doctrine at the time though emphasised deplying the guns in positions with clear reverse slopes behind them so these assets were protected. Basically the ideal artillery position was "hull down".

Since in our HPS games there is no special requirements of a hex other than the ability to enter it we deploy almost anywhere on the map. But when you look at actual deployments the guns are missing from large areas of the line even though they are stacked up in parks along the Taneytown road. Unfortunately for Pickett one of the areas that ideally met the requirements of artillery was Cemetery Hill and Ridge.

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

I Agree with Drex.....Let the community get a hold of the game and allow us to make realism changes. I've belong to Subsim's and Total War Forums...and they are just as devoted fan base as we are here with HPS games. We will always buy the game...no matter what they put out....
Why not allow the community to make the changes and improve on the realism?
I'm one for the sounds....They are very generic.....I would LOVE to have Rebel voice commands as well as Union. HPS has gone along way in that they allowed the "Early American Battles series" have background noise instead of music. I love to here the poping of muskets and distant cannons firing inorder to give me the sense that there is fighting going on in other places as well. HPS is alittle set in there ways with the Hard coding.....

_________________
Lt. Col. D. J. Hawkins 6/3/II
ANV "Jackson's Corps"
Chief of Staff ,CSA

At the last Tillercon, we were told that the ACW games would be unlocked (including OOB) after the last one was fielded. There were 2 or 3 games being worked on and none of those 2 or 3 have been fielded as yet. The lock probably keeps us from designing games that they are already working on. I don't think that JT controls the fielding as the designers have to complete their campaigns and finish testing them before he can do his thing. It is my impression that most (if not all) of the designers (and testers) have day jobs that actually puts food on the table as well as families and aren't ordering BMWs with the money that they are making from designing these games. They do it mainly for the love of the games, the love of programming, and just so they can listen to our criticisms and complaints afterwards (love comes in many forms). We were also told that JT already had in mind a new engine for his next series of ACW games after these have been completed.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00