American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I have had a close look at the campaign tree for HPS Gettysburg, and it seems to me that, while the campaign is potentially rather complex and long, there is plenty of chances for it to end very early, i.e. after the second battle. For instance, if the Feds win a MV at Brandy Station (which from what I've seen happens a lot), then there are twelve campaign choices for the Union and two for the Rebs, for a total of twenty-four combinations. Sixteen of those combinations mean that the second battle is the last one in the campaign and decides the outcome; even if it ends as a draw, the campaign also ends (as a draw). In fact, one of the two Reb choices means invariably that the second battle is the last, regardless of the Union decision. In the unlikely event of a *Reb* MV at Brandy Station it's twelve Reb options and four Federal ones, for a total of forty-eight combinations. Forty-four of those mean the second battle decides the campaign.

Are the chances for a third battle any better if Brandy Station ends as a mV or a draw? Just slightly. In this case, the Feds have four options, the Rebs have two, for a total of eight combinations. Of these eight, four mean that the campaign ends after the second battle. Again, it depends on the Reb decision; one of their two options invariably means that the second battle is the last, regardless of the Federal decision.

In other words, of the total eighty combinations of Fed and Reb campaign decision options after Brandy Station, no less than sixty-four mean that the second battle is the last one in the campaign. In fact, whenever the Rebs choose "Concentrate at Culpeper - 3rd Corps screens the right flank on 6/15" (they always get this option, regardless of the outcome of Brandy Station), the second battle ends the campaign. Likewise, all options in which the Rebs attack over the Rappahannock (they can do that only after a MV at Brandy Station) make the second battle the final one.

Which means, afterall, that the chances of ever getting to fight in the Valley or PA are rather poor.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

I guess the only way to insure a fight in PA is to start the campaign somewhere other than Brandy Station.
But looking into all the possible results of our choices, doesn't that ruin the fog of war effect of a blind campaign?

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

Scott,

correct, looks like the General will turn the Fog of war off [:p]
I have just ordered this title and look forward for it with the
fog of war On [;)]
God Gaming to You All!

Regards
Ola Berli
AoA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Schlitte</i>
<br />I guess the only way to insure a fight in PA is to start the campaign somewhere other than Brandy Station.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, I looked a little further down the campaign tree, and it continues this way ... there are really plenty of chances for the campaign to end suddenly after about every battle, depending on the decisions that led there. My present impression is that the designer stuck more or less to the historical course of the campaign, with slight variations; whenever a completely hypothetical battle ensues, it ends the campaign right away, so it can never get totally "what-if".

Which is sort of weird, considering the many exit objectives in the battles on the Rappahannock line. So if the Rebs exit northwards and I exit westwards, the campaign is over--who won? Then of course you could say that the *Gettysburg* campaign is, of course, in fact over when this happens. Still, it's sort of unsatisfactory.

Guess the best way to make sure that a campaign sees more than two battles is for both sides to stick to the historical decisions.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Fortunately, there is a campaign editor, so I guess someone could design or modify a campaign to enhance the fog of war. At first glance, the campaign tree for the full Gettysburg campaign looks pretty intimidating, though.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Realizing that if the Union would have won early in the campaign, the campaign would be a virtual non-starter (which is what happened in '62), I have contrived to lose the fisrt two scenarios, and am thoroughly enjoying a 3rd battle.

Dierk,

I think what you are seeing is how improbable the '63 invasion really was. It was a gamble and a long shot that eventually failed. The only thing that kept it goint as long as it did was failed reactions, or actions by the Union. Eventually they had enough opportunities to bring Bobby Lee's invasion to a halt, that they did bring it to a halt.

Only with maps for the areas south of the actual campaign could a hypothetical campaign continue if the Rebs are stopped in their tracks at the very start. The question then would be, would the Union have proceded on a follow advance on Richmond after stopping the intial thrust of the '63 invasion, or would they have sat on their haunches happy to have stopped a 2nd invasion. My guess, they would have been happy, and sat still.

As to the game logistics, imagine how many more maps, research and complexity of design the game would have had to present a CPD with guaranteed X number of battles regardless to whose favor each round goes to.

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

To take the Concentrate at Culpeper - 3rd Corps screens the right flank on 6/15" as an example, I think the author of the campaign (Doug Strickler?) hypothesizes that such an option would lead to a battle of such magnitude that, no matter the outcome, would conclude the campaign.
A case could be made that a Confederate victory might lead to a Union withdrawal to Manasses and a continuation of the campaign (not currently an option.) All in a point of view. I'm guessing that if someone wanted to, they could modify the campaign tree accordingly and allow the campaign to continue.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />To take the Concentrate at Culpeper - 3rd Corps screens the right flank on 6/15" as an example, I think the author of the campaign (Doug Strickler?) hypothesizes that such an option would lead to a battle of such magnitude that, no matter the outcome, would conclude the campaign.
A case could be made that a Confederate victory might lead to a Union withdrawal to Manasses and a continuation of the campaign (not currently an option.) All in a point of view. I'm guessing that if someone wanted to, they could modify the campaign tree accordingly and allow the campaign to continue.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

While it is dissapointing to fight so long (currently in a 216 turn battle # 2) only to find the campaign end, it is quite historically likely that such a large battle would have ended any campaign - for both sides. Not until the Overland campaign in 64 do we find a series of large and costly battles fought in quick succession.

The first invasion might be the closest thing to having no down time - after the victory at 2nd Manassas and Chantilly, Lee almost immediately stuck over the river and into Maryland with virtually no down time to rest or refit (which possibly cost him greatly in the ensuing campaign). All other major battles (considering the Seven Days to be a series of smaller battles, or the equivalent possibly of one very large battle) resulted in the end of a campaign, or the drastic alteration of a campaign.

If the armies had fought it out along the Rappahanock and Lee had won, it is doubtful he would have the strength to invade quickly (though he did in 62, why not again in 63?). If the north won, then they probably would not have been very quick to follow up the victory with a vigorous thrust towards Richmond. It probably would have resulted in a stalemate strategically, which in our little fictional world would be best depicted by the end of the campaign - regardless of who wins that first battle. We'd like to imagine every campaign or battle was ultimately decisive, but only a handful were - the rest only slightly shifted the overall strategic situation one way or the other.

Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
I think what you are seeing is how improbable the '63 invasion really was. It was a gamble and a long shot that eventually failed. The only thing that kept it goint as long as it did was failed reactions, or actions by the Union. Eventually they had enough opportunities to bring Bobby Lee's invasion to a halt, that they did bring it to a halt.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not quite sure about failed reactions (afterall, the Army of the Potomac was under the double obligation of protecting the capital *and* bringing Lee to battle) or improbability of the invasion (given these circumstances and the fact that there's plenty of open country west of Washington), but I agree that the campaign was all about creating favorable conditions for a major engagement somewhere down the road, and once this engagement is on, the campaign is more or less over.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Only with maps for the areas south of the actual campaign could a hypothetical campaign continue if the Rebs are stopped in their tracks at the very start.
...
As to the game logistics, imagine how many more maps, research and complexity of design the game would have had to present a CPD with guaranteed X number of battles regardless to whose favor each round goes to.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I realize that, and I suppose it's the main reason for this decision to cut off the campaign tree whenever something unhistorical happens.

It's more from the point of view of disappointed expectations that I think players will find it a bit unsatisfactory at times. Most campaigns that we have seen so far proceeded linearily from one historical battle to another, with the campaign decisions allowing only minor modifications for the setup and forces for each one of them. Take Franklin as a striking example--the campaign tree has no branches whatsoever, the second battle is always Franklin, the third always Nashville, and if a fourth occurs, it's always Nashville again. Pretty obvious then what to expect. Gettysburg, on the other hand, gives the player a multitude of options to alter history, but then he finds that they all end the campaign. From a design perspective, perfectly understandable--Gettysburg is huge enough as it is. But from a gameplay perspective I reckon it can get slightly disappointing.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

BTW I hope I didn't sound too critical. I *love* this campaign--in fact I love it so much I want to see more of it than just two battles. [:D]

There is obviously no way around the fact that any linked campaign of scenarios must always have some artificialities and requires some abstraction. Hence, given a choice, I'll always prefer the "campaigns" that are simply both armies on a huge map and some hundreds of turns. Give me Eckmuhl in one battle any time. (Guess I would love the Panzer Campaign games, if the armies were not so gigantic and the times not so modern.)

Well, the second scenario on the Rappahannock map actually comes close to that. Huge map, 200+ turns, lot of maneuver. It's almost a campaign in itself.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

For huge multi-day battles, btw, fatigue acquired by night marching (as in the PzC series) would be a nice addition to slow down events.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

One area the 'campaign' feature could really be useful is in modeling multi-day battles. The designer could carry fatigue over for the players.

Naturally, some assumptions as to where battle lines would be on the second and subsequent days would need to be made and explained during the design phase.

Troops deployments for each day could be dependent upon who 'won' the day before. Reasons, or choices could be given for where the next morning's battle lines would be.

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

I originally planned on southern losses on the Rappahannock to lead to a fight along the Rapidan. The map work proved problematic and the design work had to stop at some point or John would have (rightfully) had it with the whole concept. The Rapidan map is currently the basis for something else I have in mind. Long belated update by mid-June as my work schedule and other side work is finally waning a bit - but only a bit.

Doug!!!

Geez, I have been trying to reach you in vain for several months now. I lost contact with you just when I had you soundly bagged at Brandy. [:0]

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College