American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Rule 4.2.1.3 says that maneuver games count as 1/2 points. Please allow me to argue against this.

This is a very old rule and was institued to encourage players to play against the opposing Army rather than against ones own Army. This was to maintain Army allegiance,integrity and espirit de corp.I would argue that it does just the opposite.

It is thru the playing of games that relationships are developed. Ironically our best friends then are members of the OTHER Army. My first game back is a very large maneuver game and I assure you that I am not losing respect for the Union but we are still being punished because we both belong to the same cause.

Another factor is that often the club becomes unbalanced as occasionally there are more active Rebs than Yanks and vice versa. Would it not be easier to find foes if we could fight both sides with impunity? It would double our pool.

I know a lot of folks claim to disregard points but all the same by having this 1/2 rule we are tacidly discouraging inter Army play and as a result discouraging a lot of potential cool friendships-and most importantly:friends in the same Army!!

I call for a vote.

_________________
Lt Col Tony Best
3rd Brigade "Tony`s Best"
AoC

My view is that the rule should stand because it does promote games against the other side and that is what the Club is about: North versus South. Also the lower ranks are based on OBD pts gained in battle and it would be possible to reach Brigadier without ever fighting the other side! Manuever games are for practice as well as getting acquainted. I don't think that the men who participate in manuevers care about the points very much. That's not the point of the manuever.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

My experience has been the same as Tony's in that I became better acquainted with the yanks than with my own people.

Perhaps the club could allow those officers who wish to have an alter ego on the other side. Sort of a split personality. I don't think i would be interested but for those who are, it might help foster camaraderie with others they might not otherwise get to know.

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

Instead of changing the rule, why not waive it for a specific event: The Union Army could hold Spring/Summer Manuevers where Eastern armies challenge Western armies. Full points could be allowed. the games would be registered as battles as long as it was identified in the comments section as part of the Spring/Summer Manuever.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

I have a General Peters rule: I NEVER respond to General Peters.

_________________
Lt Col Tony Best
3rd Brigade "Tony`s Best"
AoC

Come on guys. Lets keep it civil. I've always been impressed by the class shown on these forums. Don't ruin it for others, especially the new guys.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Tony I understand where you are coming from, as you are a long time member, but there is a big picture agenda here. IMHO

The reason for the creation of this rule was to promote/encourage playing against the other side rather than your own. When you join you have, hopefully, a lot of contact with members of your side and this engenders friendships if not a pool of contacts. You may otherwise only play vs these fellows. The 1/2 rule is to encourage you to seek players from the other side that you may not otherwise be inclined to seek out. It is something I created as part of a check and balance system of which there are many examples. I agree that in certain situation it may not be the optimum system but in general it serves it's purpose. The goal was to create a system that would work in an overall sense. Certainly there are negatives but the big picture is important. I am a big picture guy.

Bill, I understand your issue with the overall command setup and involvement issue. Since this Club and others are based on voluntary commitments you will have a great variance in effort. The reason the ACWGC is successful, regardless of the systems weaknesses and faults, is that it has a large following. This means you have a relative large pool of volunteers and multiple measures of commitment. The Clubs which have a smaller number of game titles, which will reflect the number of people interested, will have a harder time since many, that are interested in the other periods, also are part of the ACWGC/NWC and are already committed. This leaves a much smaller pool of available resources to support the structure of a club like the ACWGC and NWC. You will have successful organizations, Division, Corps, Armies, an you will have failures. The key is keep working on them. As one organization falters another excels.

I was involved with the creation of the NWC because it certainly could provide a pool of support that would provide a basis to fill up the needed heavy organization and resource intense system as created at the ACWGC. I did not get involve in the other sister clubs, my own resources/time being used up, as I could see that they would need the same commitment without the base of game titles needed to attract those people. (bearing in mind that many are already involved in the ACWGC or NWC)

That is not to say I did not wish or encourage the success (providing wargame.ch resources or my own) Bill as I have of the other clubs.

A requirement of a database system to track games played and points is something special and requires a lot of work by individuals to spend time for a hobby they love. The ACWGC and the NWC have adjusted well to that requirements. Individuals beyond the original creators moved this forward.

I remember when you advocated elections in the ACWGC. At the time I was resistant to it not because I wanted to maintain the current situation, with me as President, and control, never my intent, but I wanted to make sure the club would be able to survive it. After 15 years the club still survives and is viable, after a terrible confrontation with you in regards to the timing of elections. The NWC is doing well albeit a different system of elections. The other sister clubs, CCC, MCGC, are doing what they can and are evolving to adjust to the situation and are doing well for the most part, elections perhaps when they are ready! The Naval club had no chance because it had a limited following and game title path.

A simpler point/rank system would work and might be a better choice for some but this system is fun, interesting, provides stimulus for conversations and fundamentally works. Hard to argue with success. Bureaucracy has to be reigned in but overall it works.

Bill your greatest achievements and contributions to these clubs is your involvement in creating and supporting new titles. You should stick with that rather than trying to revamp these clubs. It is a futile effort,IMHO. The institutions are entrenched ( -60++) chance. In my opinion as long as new games are introduced the clubs will continue to have success. Stop producing new games and all the clubs will follow the path of the Naval club, extinction.

These are my opinions for what they are worth.

_________________
Best Regards,

General Pierre D.

5th Bde, IV Cavalry Corps
Army of Northern Virginia
ACWGC President 1997 - 2006, 2012
ACWGC Forum Administrator

General Pierre D.

Of course I highly respect your opinions( and for newer members we can NEVER underestimate the contributions of this outstanding officer).

I did a quick survey of the opponents wanted section and it was running roughly 80% Yanks seeking Rebs. In the past i have seen it the opposite. I think the fighting of Battles is VERY important and encouraging easier access to opponents would seem to be a good cause. Any player could decide to only fight members of the opposite Army but espicially for newer players who want to jump right in, doubling the pool would certainly ease waiting.

The key question seems to be whether this will destroy the two Army concept. Having been a General in each Army I always affiliated with my Current Army( by the way almost NO ONE has surrendered more points than I have). I still think that more same Army comradery will be created by inter Army play.

_________________
Lt Col Tony Best
3rd Brigade "Tony`s Best"
AoC

lets see what out great Lt. Col said:
On the other hand Scott Ludwig can attest that my BRIGADE over in the NWC is one of the ideal orgs in our club. Why? Because I email my subordinate officers at least monthly, look over their game files, type with them about all kinds of things, and yes, play in Maneuvers with them, and never think about the points. I have gotten to know FOUR human beings in my club. That is what its all about. And you do not have to get THAT involved. Just simple email once a month works fine. Your guys may be super busy in real life and not want to email back. Great. But you made the effort.

You can find fault in the ACW but not in the NWC becuase you are in command and doing such a wonderful job there...My fine Lt.Col......Get some points...yes.you play in the ACW and become a general....then you can get more involved and mail all your command here making the ACW a better club than the NWC......what a slap in the face to eveyone who reads this.....your command is open.....take on the position....lead by example......not by telling us there is a problem here.....and we know the solution to the problem...you just haven't done it yet.....

It is not the General Peters rule.....It is the Lt.Col peters rule....lets get the facts straight here....

any time you want to discuss points and involvement......I am here


General John Dragan AoA

Gentlemen <salute>

I'm getting confused about the point of this thread. Starting to sound like a lot of "I" do/did this and "I" do/did that.

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

Gentlemen of the ACWGC. <salute>

Usually I like to read the forums, but am not an individual to comment.
That is the way I am.
But seeing my name mentioned I feel I should throw my hat in the ring, (respects always to Capt. Rickenbacker and the 94th Fighter Squadron).

I do appreciate what Bill does for HPS, the club forums, and the club members.
He has worked on explaining to me the game in better detail than what I knew from the game manual and has patiently suffered by inexperience, (as Lt. Gen. Blackburn will attest to in another MP Game that I have lost, head hung in shame, after he worked so hard to put us in a position to achieve a victory, no disrespect intended for our fine opponents who worked hard and deserved the Major Victory they achieved, monsieurs Giorgio Beacco and Neil Thomas).

There is no doubt that my play has significantly improved by Bill's guidance.

But I think this ultimately ends up a personal choice on participation and no matter what one decides it should not detract from the club.
As I mentioned before, I rarely comment, but I do like to peruse the forums to learn tactics, see what members are thinking, reading, and talking about.
I have already established good individual communications with several club members who I have no problem with having a "pop" or two if they are ever in town.
I have already noted some other club members that are purely gamers and have no other interaction during our games, and I am fine with that.

Finally, I am comfortable with my Chain of Command that when I have had questions, or requested assistance, they were prompt, (more so than I am on muster), and very helpful.
A hearty salute to you the Staff of the Army of the Shenadoah:
Gen. Hodgkiss, CinC
Maj Gen Ringbloom, CoS
Lt Gen Tremel, CinC VI Corps
and
Maj Gen Denny, 1st Div CinC
<SALUTE> (with a pop that only a U.S. Marine can deliver)

Freedom.
To join in, or not.
That is my take on this side issue of this post.
And why I am a proud Unionist fighting for the Righteous Cause.

As to the Manuever question, I am more interested in games and the camaraderie that the club offers.
Victories and points are understandable but to me side bars.
What ever the club decides on I am fine with.

Respectfully

_________________

Brig. Gen. L.T. Korotko
1/1/VI/AotS
The Bucktails

i don`t know how this topic became a referendom on commands and inter Army communication but that certainly was not my intent. I have made my case as succintly as I can and so far despite some disagreement I have not seen a true downside.

I just ask-why would we discourage Battles betweren ANY club members? This also discourages relationships. Again-why? Sometimes the pool for certain games or scenerios becomes small. Why discourage those few that like gigantic scenerios or home made scenerios or whatever from seeking each other out just because they joined a certain Army. How would making each Battle equal in the eyes of the club limit role playing and Army bragging?

The club is a democracy so why not vote on the matter?

_________________
Lt Col Tony Best
3rd Brigade "Tony`s Best"
AoC

Tony: if you feel strongly enough about it, then petition the Cabinet. I just don't think enough guys agree with you.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Actually I offered to command my division in this club. But the problem is that I can only do so much

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

but what you have listed has very little to do with the ACW.....you can't spend 3-5 min a month seeing if your fellow players are alive or dead....that is if you were in command....but you have time for all the other clubs you are in....but not the ACW

And yes to you all.......Peter and his ideas piss me off.....the people who complain on how to fix something and never get dirty fixing it...but they sure can tell those getting dirty how to fix it...I like my contest between him and me on who's is bigger and shoots the farthest.

For the sympathy vote I teach handicapped and retarded children from the ghetto and give blood for our troops in reply to I help John Tiller......

if you get the number of maneuver game I have played and times it by two......who equal more points than peter has.....don't you get it by now......keep your insults and your ranting about how bad the ACW to yourself......anytime you write about this....I will reply on how full of crap and yourself you are......