American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

As you all know, in the HPS games units now disrupt when other units rout through them, with comparatively drastic negative effects on the effectiveness especially of artillery (as it often happens to be posted right behind the frontlines).

Since it seems to have become the fashion lately to run polls [;)], I thought I'd poll the club public with respect to their opinion on this issue. Please reply indicating which of the following applies to you:

1) I like it just the way it is.

2) I like the concept, but it should not apply to artillery.

3) I like the concept, but the effects of disruption should be made less drastic (something like, movement and fire are not halved, but only reduced by 25-30 per cent).

4) I like the concept, but the rule should be made optional rather than mandatory.

5) I hate the concept and would prefer to see it removed from the game altogether.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Actually 2 and 4

It should be an option, and absolutely should not apply to arty.

ETA: If you are going to "insist" on this, then there should be at least a percent chance that a unit, instead of routing through a unit, will instead stop and rally before fleeing through the enemy unit, to simulate the old "deploy bayonets and stop the cowards!" trick. Not saying this is a good idea, but if routers can gut your second line, your second line should at least have a chance to break the rout.

Brig. General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

Sir,

2 and 4

BG Joe Mishurda

Joe Mishurda, The Cast Iron Division
2nd Div. XXV Corp, AoJ

I think that artillery should be affected like infantry. The sight of your panicked troops running for safety should affect everybody.

Putting this rule as optional will aggravate the conflict between North and South officers, the Union having so many guns...


An good idea could be to apply a "shaken" state for units that is less severe, let's say 25 or 33% penalties in fire and movement.

Fld. Lt. Harold Lajoie 3/2/I/AoM, CSA.

It has its basis in historical reality, but I think it does tend to go too far in many cases. When a 15 man unit can route and run 10 hexes to the rear and disrupt a 700 man unit in good order arriving up a road in that hex or that is just sitting in reserve, there is a problem… I also agree that it has too negligible an effect on artillery – you can limber and move one hex if in the open (and move not at all if anything is blocking a hex side or if in woods…) so it does tend to make the guns sitting ducks at that point. Artillery being more spaced and spread out than a standard infantry unit would not suffer as much effect from an infantry unit running through it as another infantry unit would.

I would not mind the automatic disrupt rule if the disrupted units had the option of automatically undisrupting next turn (or at least had an 80% chance, etc, based on a check) but since they can remain disrupted just like any other disrupted unit, it is a little harsh, especially when a very small unit routing has the same effect on a unit it passes through as a very big unit routing through the same hex. It should be more proportional to both the size of the unit and how far the routed unit has run. A fresh unit in reserve 5 hexes from the front line should not be disrupted in most cases even if a unit routes through it, unless it is a unit of VERY poor quality (rated E perhaps, but even a D unit would probably have stayed in good order if they were far behind the lines and had a small mob run past or through them…)

So I would prefer it to be in place, but modified greatly to be more realistic, and to NOT affect artillery units, or at least only cut the movement by a smaller percentage than half. Even better would be to allow full movement AWAY from the enemy but only half movement TOWARD the enemy, which would mimic the way routed units behave in some sense. I don’t know of many shaken men who would move slower AWAY from something they were scared of, but they would certainly be more apprehensive moving towards it…


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

Sir,

I favor Option #4) only. But perhaps there is an alternative. How about letting disruption not occur automatically but be a function of fatigue & morale???

My reasoning is as follows. Take an example:

Case #1) Meredith's Iron Brigade is fresh on the field. A regiment routs through one of its regiments. Surely it is unlikely that they will stay disrupted from the rout at the end of the 20 minute turn.

Case #2) Von Gilsa's boys are spent with maximum fatigue & right on the edge of disruption & rout. The regiment to their front routs & rushes back through them. Aren't they more likely to remain disrupted at the end of 20 minutes if they are still hanging around?

Should be easy to code. Disrupting becomes a chance event.

Simple thoughts from a subaltern with faulty reasoning powers & a fealty to hisoricity.

Respectfully submitted,

Lt. Col. Dale Henken
2/1/XVI/AoT-USA

I'm not against the existence of the concept, because it is based in reality. However, the implementation of the concept--for the reasons many have listed below--is currently more unrealistic than the concept being represented. Something definitely needs to be adjusted, tweaked if you will.

As far as the poll goes, put me down for #3 only.

Sincerely,

Nathan Easterwood
West Point Cadet

Definitely 3./ Reduce the movement penalty for disruption, or better still give the disruption system a complete overhaul - this would be extremely beneficial for the game engine (and would have saved plenty of my retreating troops in various games!) However, I'm still not that keen on the concept.

As long as the movement allowance for disrupted units is 1/2 rate, I agree with the "not for artillery" part of 2./ (but don't much like the concept even for infantry/cavalry unless this movement penalty for disruption is removed - yet of course it's worse for artillery in woods ... unless of course they're Yankee guns)

I also agree about the "optional" part of 4./ - if this feature is retained it really ought to be made optional in case some players really hate it. I suppose people could always decide to play using an earlier patch, but as more patches come out that option will become increasingly frustrating.

I like Gary's suggestion that routing troops should have a chance of rallying when they run into a friendly unit.

I'd also like to see Nappy style skirmishers (as an option in the OOB), weather and the ability for cavalry regiments to subdivide / recombine carried over into this engine.


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

I guess a kind of modified #3

By that I think that there should be a moral check with mods for fatigue and quality etc, such that fresh crack units virtually never disrupt under these circumstances, whereas fatigued and/or green units often do.

Then throw in a special battery mod to make it a rare event for arty, and I'm a happy clam [:D]

Maj Gen Mike Kaulbars
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS

I prefer #2. IF you play a phased game in HPS and do not have to worry about getting blitzkreiged, this rule encourages you to keep some spacing.

BGen Jim Pfluecke
II/III AotM

The concept that a unit routing affects units adjoining or immediately to the rear, is sound. it happened in relaity and the game needs to reflect it. However, as pointed out by others, a small unit running for several hexes should not necessarily disrupt a fresh unit arrivbing on the scene.

Might I suggest a compromise.

If a unit routs, all units in adjoining hexes should disrupt. If a routing unit runs though other units further back than one hex, they should not autmatically disrupt, but rather should increase fatigue, and possibly undergo a routing check. This would have some effect, but not as drastic as at present.

I understand Dierk's concern re artillery, but historically, a unit routing through a battery would either stiffen the battery's resolve to hold on at all costs, or cause them concern, according to how they "felt" at the time. Should not the game attempt to reflect yhis uncertainty and diversity of action?



Lt. Gen. Mike Tomlin
XIX,
AoS

Mike,
The problem is that right now, there isn't even a "question" as to what the arty will do. It will be disrupted, period.

As it stands, the game engine actively discourages anything resembling historical artillery practice. You can't put them in the front line, because they'll get meleed (though I'm hopeful that the changes in C:S will help this.) You can't put them just behind the line (on a hill perhaps), because they'll be routed through, and hunt out to dry. So, all you can do is put them in distant support.

Brig. General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

Gary, I don't disagree, I'm just trying to point towards a solution that might be a suitable compromise for the designers, in tewrms of what we the users see, andc what they are trying to achieve.

"Per ardua ad astra"


Lt. Gen. Mike Tomlin
XIX,
AoS

(The above is a good lesson for not typing after drinking most of a bottle of rather good red wine!)

I vote #2, artillery has taken enough beating in rule changes it needs something favorable.

Also, think that the disrupt to infantry should not be automatic but based on a morale check. Even better factoring in unit sizes (1000 men routing through 100 more likely to cause disorder than reverse).

Personally I think the whole disrupt/route system needs an overhaul. Right now only the attacker disrupts and the defender routes. This is rather extreme and heavily favors the attacker. It should be handled like the board games did. A unit only routed if it failed a morale check by some factor like +2, otherwise it was disordered. If the designer feels that defenders are really more prone to route then add a modifier to the defenders check or a lower threshold. Another approach used in board games is graduated. The unit must disrupt first before it can be routed. These were usually in combination though with an exceeded factor and any disrupt that failed another morale check became routed.

The computer games have been out for over 30 years, it is about time they moved beyond the restrictions of dice and cardboard.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Well, in Age of Rifles (1996), the attacker can - and often does - rout, sometimes taking nearby units along with it.

It's also possible for attacking units to get "pinned down" or for an attack to "bog down", effectively preventing the unit from carrying out any further action for that turn. This is very useful in ensuring that the tactical advantage lies where it ought to ... with the defender, rather than the attacker.

Age of Rifles also has more formations - including a really useful defensive formation that only dug-in units or units in certain terrain can assume. If units are given time to dig in they become much tougher to dislodge.

It also seems to have automatic and effective rather than occasional ineffective ADF, up to three times for each non-phasing unit whenever an enemy unit fires or moves within range, plus frantic fire whenever an enemy unit moves next to it or attempts to melee (unless it's facing the wrong way of course and gets attacked from the flank or rear).

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