American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I have several campaign games going on and in both cases my opponents have mentioned the size of the union regiments as compared to Gettysburg. They are very big and I think you will find it is a severe handicap for the Union player on the attack. The stacking limits are 1000 men or 8 units. This means in most cases(until the Confederate fire whittles them done) the Union will only be able to melee with one unit at a time on the attack, which negates their superiority of numbers. On the defense it should be easier for the Union to hold with numbers barring Disruption and other melee modifiers(which the Rebs seem to always get[:p]).

Col. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP

Yes, some Federal regiments are almost regulation size. I think I recall to have spotted an unheard-of 950 men monster in the VI Corps--decent brigade size, all on its own.

But the Rebs regiments are of rather unusual size as well, so very often they can't stack either. And then our larger regiments become an advantage.

BTW superiority of numbers is with the Rebs (overall) in most battles.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />Yes, some Federal regiments are almost regulation size. I think I recall to have spotted an unheard-of 950 men monster in the VI Corps--decent brigade size, all on its own.

But the Rebs regiments are of rather unusual size as well, so very often they can't stack either. And then our larger regiments become an advantage.

BTW superiority of numbers is with the Rebs (overall) in most battles.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<Rolling on the floor laughing...>

Superior numbers with the Rebs? Perhaps locally in certain places later in the campaign, but not in the first two options. And most units for BOTH sides are of poor quality and unusually large size in this Peninsula campaign, so there is no great advantage for the Rebs there either. Maybe some of the Reb leadership is better (I haven't really compared / checked the leaders) but other than that, both sides are playing with very similar decks it seems.

Not that the first two battles seem to matter - no matter who wins both sides return to their starting points, which I find quite dissappointing. It alters the campaign options depending on who wins the first small battle, but only slightly and I was hoping to see more hypothetical options resulting from those first battles. If they don't have much effect on the rest of the campaign, why bother? They just become a waste of time and men...

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

You're right. I was thinking of Fair Oaks, where the Rebs have a (slight) superiority in numbers.

In any case, in all battles that I've looked at, the numbers for both armies are pretty close to each other, so there certainly is no great Federal numerical superiority (as Phil suggested).

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

I had noticed this a bit too. I think that, for the most part, the rebels often have the same stacking limitation. Also, I think that the union troops are of slightly better overall quality and I think, based on poking around a little, that the Union officers are of much better quality or, at the least, most of the Reb officers are bad and some of the yanks are really good. So far I really like this title.

Brig Gen Jim Pfluecke
II/III AotM

I compared the leaders, too. My impression was that both armies have fairly low "C" ratings, but the Rebs have some leaders with good "L" ratings. So both armies will have problems keeping their troops commanded, but the Rebs will have a (slight) edge in rallying them once they rout. But of course I didn't compare it systematically, so I may be mistaken.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />
Anyone have any comments on the morale ratings of the units?

Are the Texans really this much better than everyone else at this stage of the war?

Col. Peters, 3rd Brigade
2nd Cavalry Division, II Corps, AoA

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think part of the difficutly in choosing morale is that morale is just plain hard to reflect in the game. By this I mean, we can’t predict who would or would not stand in given situations, and neither could the commanders during the actual war. For example, who were the 20th Maine before Gettysburg? Nobodies. They had done little to distinguish themselves, and in all honesty didn’t do THAT much at Gettysburg short of holding the end of a line at the top of a steep, rocky hill against one tired Reb regiment and part of another that had already marched 14,000 miles that day and skirmished their way up and back down another, even larger hill before facing the 20th… yet we now revere them, do we not? And what about the XI Corps? Were they really cowards or just the most unlucky Corps in the army? Would any other units on either side have held any longer at Chancellorsville or Gettysburg? Probably not – they were in untenable positions against superior numbers with all the momentum against them.

I think we tend to judge some the “goodâ€

I agree with Colonel Lynn mostly.

Personally I think the quality ratings in the BG games were (a) too high overall, (b) biased in the Reb favor. In the HPS games, it's both more reasonable (with overall lower ratings) and considerably more fair, considering that in reality there was very little difference between both armies in terms of experience, training or doctrine. They ought to be similar in most respects.

Now let's not forget that moral (quality) is not an abstract judgement on a unit's performance. It's a very concrete statement on how often, on average, out of six times, a unit will fail its morale check. An "A" quality unit should usually not fail, except under the most dire circumstances. An "F" should run on the first shot, unless under the most favorable circumstances. There are other things tied to a unit's quality in the game engine, like positive/negative modifiers on combat performance, etc.

In my experience, a "C" quality unit will perform pretty regular under normal circumstances. A "D" will require some care, but in the firing line, with friendlies on the flanks, no enfilade fire, no high fatigue, etc., they should normally be fine. The trouble starts with "E", and "F", of course, is good for guarding the wagon trains with no enemy within 10 miles. I am not too happy with "A" and "B" quality units actually because they have a sad tendency to perform so well under fire that they stay until they're wiped out. [}:)]

What did I mean to say? Probably that an army should be composed (and in the HPS games usually is) mostly of "D" and "C" quality units. For me, they represent the standard infantry of the mid-war (i.e. summer of 1862 onwards). Early war infantry, green units, state guard and all that stuff should of course be "E". And very experienced units should probably end up a "B". Like Colonel Lynn, I think there's a tendency with game designers to give gamers the special rating for some famous units that they expect--obviously there is no dogding the gamers's expectation that the Stonewall Brigade, the Iron Brigade, the Orphan Brigade etc. should be "A" quality--and they likely deserve it. Units that had one good day and someone to tell a good story about it (1st MN, 20th ME) are probably overrated in the game, but hey, luckily there's only few of them. [:)]

Generally, a complete chain-of-command with many leaders with a high "C" rating does more to keep an army in good shape than unit quality itself, and I think it's here that the BG games erred most badly, especially on the Reb side. Add up the many bonuses that an unbroken chain-of-command with everyone passing the check five out of six times gives the troops at the receiving end, and I think we'll find that under these circumstances unit quality itself is a negligible quantity because the high "C" ratings of their superiors will make them pass anyway. (The Rebs know this only too well. For the Feds, for getting an idea of it you had to play the Sherman's March scenarios for BGC. The Army of the Cumberland at Resaca, with Sherman in overall command and Thomas in army command, was a sight to behold.) This, too, has mostly been corrected in the HPS games.

Now, I lost completely the point I wanted to make, I think. Oh hell. Anyway, I think the HPS games are an improvement on all those fields, and I am just fine with "D" units. [:I]

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Good grief. Hearing you guys talking like this makes me wonder what I am doing. I move these little square counters around on a hex map next to other little square thingys and then I push a buttton that says fire or melee and watch what happens. You mean to say those names and letters on the little "cardboard" squares actually MEAN something?

Maybe THAT explains my dismal record of late.[B)][xx(]

Lt. Gen. Don Adams
5th Texas "Lone Star" Cavalry Brigade
I/III ANV
http://www.rootsandsaddles.com/index.htm

A very insightful commentary on unit quality and leadership by General
Walter. Another bias in favor of the Confederates which has managed to
carry over into the HPS system is the different command radii of Union
and Confederate commanders. I'm not sure what the justification for this
was or is. And I don't know if it continues in the Seven Days.

I think one major improvement in the HPS system was converting the 9
point fatigue system to a 900 point system that is a lot more flexible. Perhaps
a similar expansion might be considered for unit quality, with an allowance
for unit improvement over the course of the campaign. Just a very minor point.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

That's true. With both armies having basically the same organization, tactics and doctrine, and Reb officers, judging from surviving photographs, not necessarily all possessed of the physique of demigods, it's hard to see why they should be able to project their command and control further than us mortal Feds. A regiment is a regiment, a courier a courier, and a voice is a voice. [:)]

I do think, however, that the radii are the same for both armies in at least some HPS games. I'll go and check when I get home.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />That's true. With both armies having basically the same organization, tactics and doctrine, and Reb officers, judging from surviving photographs, not necessarily all possessed of the physique of demigods, it's hard to see why they should be able to project their command and control further than us mortal Feds. A regiment is a regiment, a courier a courier, and a voice is a voice. [:)]

I do think, however, that the radii are the same for both armies in at least some HPS games. I'll go and check when I get home.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think the larger command radii for the South was another benefit given to reflect the "better quality and morale" of the average Southern units. But under that line of thinking, most of the Western commanders later in the war for the South should have a command radius of two hexes at most as bad as that army was, lol...

Thank God we have replaced all of those poor leaders in our new armies.

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