American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Here are a few ideas for enhancing the game engine:

1./ Gun capture & recapture - this would prevent "gamey" melee attacks where, in reality, the enemy would have a good chance of re-capturing the guns. Guns that "magically" disappear when captured seems a serious flaw in the game engine. So, effectively victory points for guns would only be counted at the <b>end</b> of the scenario - this would mean that the high Campaign Gettysburg gun values would be a lot more acceptable.

2./ The possibility of guns limbering up before meleeing - useful, but I suspect considerably less important than the above. Also, if they don't limber up, an automatic ADF at 100% effectiveness for single phase mode. Increased effectiveness of artillery at close range would make sense too, as would a more reliable ADF system (like the Nappy ADF, where units seem to fire a lot more defensively)

3./ The ability for cavalry to sub-divide (and recombine) as in the Nappy engine. This would make cavalry far more flexible and effective in their scouting duties. Big cavalry units really aren't much use for scouting.

4./ Some kind of loose scouting formation for cavalry sub-units (ie. with 100 max. stacking per hex) which reduces casualties and allows the cavalry to slow down the enemy. (ie. reduces enemy movement, like infantry with deployed skirmishers) Cavalry in this formation should be able to avoid getting caught up in a firefight with infantry - perhaps the solution would be to reduce losses to enemy fire while in this formation by 75%, but give the cavalry a melee penalty if they attack (but not if they're defending). Also, surely mounted cavalry in this open formation should still be able to fire if armed with say pistols or shotguns?

5./ Supply depots that can be raided - perhaps fixed supply wagons, with <i>points for supply</i> carried over from the EAW engine. This would enhance the role of cavalry and would make gameplay in general more interesting.


Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

I have read accounts of batteries being captured and recaptured, within short periods of time. Also, when they could, the artillerymen spiked the guns, using whatever was handy. Sometimes this just made it too difficult, in the heat of battle, to reuse them. Unless they had the means to move them, they would be destroyed or made much more unusable.

#3. Would be an excellent addition and has been done in some made scenarios. I think the patrols would be about right at 100 men as that seemed to be the numbers for a company. An interesting account of the Peninsula Campaign is found at:
http://www.ehistory.com/uscw/library/books/battles/vol2/429.cfm
and another at
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Lineage/arcav/arcav.htm
,which made this statement:" While a number of mounted regiments and smaller organizations of Volunteers were mustered in for service in the Union Army, only one mounted regiment was added to the Regular establishment during the entire four years of the war. The new Regular regiment, at first designated the 3d Cavalry, differed from the other horse regiments in that from its beginning it had 12 companies instead of 10. In it, 2 companies constituted a squadron, and 2 squadrons a battalion, which was commanded by a major. A company could have any number of privates up to 72. In contrast, the volunteer regiments were modeled after the pattern of the old Regular cavalry."

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">

I would like to see all cavalry represented in squadrons or battalions. Full regiments do not allow cavalry to be used properly.

Now if the OOB files weren't locked, I could make my own version for Gettysburg, and be happy as a clam, and not have to bother anyone.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

From Cooke's Manual on Cavalry:

<b>In all parades and exercises the companies will be desig­nated as squadrons.</b>

<i>THE ORDER OF BATTLE.
The order of battle for a regiment of ten squadrons is the four right or left squadrons deployed in line; the four squadrons of the other flank in line of squadron columns 300 paces in rear of the first line. The 5th squadron, In column of platoons, generally left in front, is 50 paces be­hind the right flank of the first line, the line of its left guides being a platoon front to the right of the extremity of that flank the 6th squadron, in column of platoons, right in front, similarly disposed to the rear of the left flank of the first line.

If a squadron be absent, the second line will he composed of 3 squadrons, in columns immediately in rear of the first line; the 5th and 6th squadrons, counting from the flank which composes the first line, being always the flanking squadrons.

BASIS OF INSTRUCTION.
The Lieutenant Colonel commands the second line, and is posted 25 paces in front of its centre.

The order of battle for a regiment of eight squadrons is as follows:

The six right or left squadrons deployed in line; the 7th and 8th (or 1st and 2d) squadrons are placed in columns of platoons, in rear of the right and left flanks of the line of battle, as described for the flank squadrons of the regiment of ten squadrons.

In the order of battle each field officer is attended by a trumpeter,

To change from line or order of review to order of battle in an eight squadron regiment, the 7th and 8th squadrons are wheeled by platoons (or by fours) to the right, and conducted by the shortest lines to their positions,

In a ten squadron regiment, the same for the 5th and 6th squadrons; the Lieutenant Colonel takes command of the next four squadrons, wheels platoons right, column right, and to the left, after marching the proper distance to the rear.</i>
---

Using the above as a base I would model ACW cavalry regiments with two 'main body' elements and two 'flanking squadrons' elements. So the two main body elements would have the strength of 4 sqdns, and the flanking squadrons would be the strength of one each.

Proprer in-depth research would assist in fine tuning each regiment to see how many squadrons (companies) were present.

The above configuration would allow cavalry to scout and screen better, IMO.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

agree with everything mentioned, particulary that cav should have at least a limited mounted firing ability.
One I'd like to add is the line of sight rules. It shouldn't be that everything is automatically spotted just for being in LOS. A stationary single leader in woods at long distance is certainly unlikely to be spotted and many other examples can be made.
Allowing arty to limber/escape melee should also be allowed. A good example is Bigelow's battery on the 2d day of Gettysburg fighting against the rebs practically alone around the peach orchard and then attempting escape. And of course, with the OB, if they make the arty start in sections, be allowed to combine them into full batteries. And since they're in sections, allow the cav to breakdown/recombine...

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

I agree with most of what you say.

As nothing happens in a vacuum, the fly in the ointment with the cav sub units is the current ZOC rules as they effect enemy movement. Right now a 25 man cav unit can bring a whole 5000 man division on a road to a dead stop. In the HPS system a 1 man unit can do the same thing, not quite as bad though with weak ZOC's but still unrealistic.

The one complaint I've heard with the Nappy rules (I've never played the system) is the ability to make dozens (hundreds?) of subunit skirmishers thereby slowing any advance to a crawl.

Better to have a soft ZOC system like that of the World at War system. ZOC's were dependant on unit size (of course) but also unit fatigue, unit experience, unit moral, unit disorganization status and leadership. Like predicting melee outcomes, too many factors to predict a ZOC with certainty.

All units had either a hard, soft or no ZOC which could change throughout the game depending on the above factors. Hard is like we have now with the BG system; soft, an enemy unit expended a certain number of MP's to enter AND leave the ZOC, which varied and then, no ZOC.

So sub cav units will have to go with a better ZOC system for them to work.

Regarding LOS, I agree with the idea of smaller units and leaders remaining hidden. Also, remove the "spotted units" feature.

Finally, it'd be great if any night activity increased fatigue. For example, right now units can march for 72 straight hours in Gettysburg and still be as fresh as the day they were mustered in. I imagine it's the same in The Seven Days.

Gen. Doug Burke
XX/AoC/USA

Maybe cavalry should be better than infantry at slowing down enemy movement?

I suppose it doesn't seem realistic for a handful of men to hold up an advancing army, but perhaps it should be assumed that the enemy automatically slow down because they're not exactly sure what's up ahead? Would an army keep on marching down a road in vulnerable column formation if it were suspected that there was an ambush up ahead? I don't think so. For this reason, it sort of makes sense for a tiny force to be able to delay a much larger one.

A more sophisticated LOS system would certainly be another useful improvement, but this might be more awkward to incorporate than some of my previous suggestions (some of which are already present in other series). Instead of all units in LOS being <i>automatically</i> detected I'd like to see this as a probabilty based on:

1./ Distance

2./ Weather conditions

3./ Size and type of unit (obviously a large body of mounted cavalry should be easier to see than say 25 infantry or an unaccompanied leader)

4./ Terrain type and elevation

5./ Whether the unit remains stationary or is moving

Alright this sounds rather complicated, but it would be great to see something like this someday.

...............


Regarding <i>fatigue</i> - I'd very much like to see fatigue for night movement carried over from the WW2/Modern series. Also a system like in <i>Age of Rifles</i>, where units that used their full movement allowance (ie. in daytime) would accumulate some fatigue.

Currently doesn't having skirmishers deployed cost the enemy an extra movement point? Why not add that feature to mounted cavalry? It would give them a little extra job to do, and a reason for players to risk the high VP's.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

I like the LOS spotting thoughts. In Talonsoft's Campaign Series unit's weren't automatically spotted and Tiller had a hand in those games.
I'd also add to consider the quality of the spotting unit to the possibility of spotting, and then the spotted unit may initially only be a question mark, then a unit type, then a vague size unit as the intel improves.

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

I like the idea of cavalry breaking down into squadrons. Perhaps that would lead to them being used more realistically than seems to happen now. In almost every cavarly vs cavalry action I have experienced so far the side with the most units will destroy the other by surrounding. In my opinion, cavalry in the Civil War acted as scouts and almost exclusively as skirmishers against infantry. But in these games with their mobility they are most often used almost like armor. They exploit breakthroughs and move to surround units. I played a game that tried to incorperate a house rule that if you "bump" into a consealed cavalry unit you could not move any other units adjacent to that unit that turn. The concealed unit could stand the next turn or pull back. This did slow movement through some of the forest roads but kept casualties down and gave cavalry a more realistic role. Without some restirction I have found that small scout units quickly get trapped once they run up against enemy cavalry. Finally I would like hearing other opinions on this as i am open to any suggestions that will help put cavalry in it's proper role.


Brgd General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

Well, it's clear that what we need is for cavalry to be able to perform its historical functions (scouting, skirmishing & raiding) and not be utilized as shock melee troops. The game engine as it stands doesn't exactly encourage this, instead cavalry are best used like armour to exploit a breakthrough. So how might this be achieved?

All cavalry regiments should be capable of subdividing into 100 man or less troops (perhaps 70 men would be about right), and it should be assumed that, when sub-divided, the cavalry is actually operating in <b>open order</b>. This would mean that they should be <i>less</i> rather than more susceptible to enemy fire than infantry and, if armed with suitable weaponry - pistols, shotguns or carbines - they should be capable of mounted fire, even if this isn't particularly effective. However, due to being spread out, there should be a maximum stacking of say 150 cavalry per hex - this would make it much more awkward for players who want to use cavalry as shock troops. Also, cavalry in open order (like EAW troops in extended line) should be far less effective in offensive melee but less vulnerable when defending, as their object would be to delay an advance rather than hold their ground and repulse the enemy.

Open order cavalry should exert an all round ZOC - perhaps even an extended ZOC - plus receive the "deployed skirmisher movement penalty" ability. This too would allow cavalry to slow down an advancing enemy, as it's assumed that the presence of the cavalry forces them to advance more cautiously.

Presumably cavalry regiments would still be allowed a higher stacking limit if not subdivided (and thus effectively in close rather than open order), but they should be a lot more vulnerable to enemy fire, would be unable to make use of the "deployed skirmisher movement penalty" ability and, due to their formation density, perhaps should have a lower movement allowance. Maybe undivided cavalry regiments - like Nappy cavalry - should have 1/2 the stacking allowance of infantry? However perhaps, like Nappy cossacks, they should receive a charge bonus against enemy routers?

Having this sort of system would allow players a lot more flexibilty with their cavalry. Perhaps they'd still be able to use cavalry concentrated as shock troops if they really wanted to, but doing so would be liable to result in their cavalry no longer being fit for more historical scouting duties. So players would be more likely to think twice about how they handle their cavalry.

Unfortunately, with the current game engine (especially in single phase mode), players are effectively penalized if they attempt to make use of their cavalry for scouting purposes, with small cavalry detachments either being surrounded and massacred by a larger force or else shot to pieces. The modifications outlined above would make open order cavalry less vulnerable to enemy fire and also harder to pin down and wipe out by ZOC melees. Surely this would be a significant improvement both from a game-play and historical perspective, and it would also help to justified the higher victory point value assigned to cavalry?

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

I like the new ideas and suggestions regarding LOS. Seems like in most of my battles my opponent's objectives are to keep as many units out of sight as possible resulting in many non-historic type movements. I also like the idea of being able to scout without being seen or without your opponent knowing he's being watched.

One LOS suggestion I'd like to make is something I'll call "LOS on the move." There have been a few times when my cavalry were on the other side of a hill and when it was my turn to move I'd move them around the hill and down the road several hexes. Then they would accidently bump into an enemy unit which was clearly out in the open and able to be seen, but was "unseen" during the LOS determination phase. In real life they obviously would have seen the enemy several hundred yards away and would have stopped to make adjustments. Maybe with a limited LOS feature while moving (say 6-8 hexes) it would prevent that from occurring and be more realistic. Just a thought.


Lt. Boyd "Bama" Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV

Boyd has an interesting point regarding LOS. Perhaps the 'Recon Spotting' rule could be carried over from PzCamp. By expending 1(+) MP's a unit could have enemy in his LOS revealed. For example - run a cavalry unit up a road to the crest of the hill, click 'spotting' and he could see what was waiting in the valley below.

In reference to guns, a final blast before melee at a high effectiveness in ADF would be quite welcome. (Off the top of my head %150 effectiveness or more - for the discharge of cannister and to dissuade head on attacks of batteries.)

I did like the way gun captures were handled in Age of Rifles. Guns that lost in melee were abandoned/uncrewed and their number reduced by about half (I think the number was random). The winner was given the option to spike the guns and eliminate them permanently or recrew them (at low quality and disordered) from the victorious infantry. Captured guns were not allowed to limber and could only move by prolong (sic?)

1<font size="1">st</font id="size1"> Lt. M. Cox
1st/3rd/VII
AoS
<i>'Once more unto the breach'</i>

Really like the LOS ideas---the other main issue I have with the games attempts to mimic history is I remember few battles where losses were over 50%, it seems common in these....I suppose one can comfort oneself a bit by thinking that these loses are really not killed, rather confused, disorders, lightly wounded, ect...but I would like a percentage of the army "failure to function" at certain percentages of loss which would therefore make players exercise more caution.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M

I guess I'm in the lone dissenter here regarding "on the move" LOS. Good thoughts posted and not without merit.

However, I kind of like the current setup because it's a little more real although in an abstract sort of way. Sure, there's an arguement to be made concerning the frustration we all feel bumping into a previously concealed enemy in the open. But there's also an arguement to be made for minimizing the "American Civil War with Radios" factor that is already a very large part of these games.

The comparison has been made to the Panzer Campaigns system. In WWII they had radios.

The points all made have centered around the spotting unit as an isolated unit on the battlefield, moving in a vacuum. In the games we play this is usually not the case. Players, upon moving units over a hill and suddenly seeing an array of enemy can instantly react with units perhaps dozens of hexes away. This happens now when we bump into unknowns as that's the system. At least it's only the front three hexes. Better that then an entire valley now in LOS.

I wish there was a better way, but as I said I like it because it reduces "The Civil War with Radios" factor just a little although in an abstract kind of way.

Gen. Doug Burke
XX/AoC/USA