American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I particularly like the flexible action point system of the WW2/Modern series and wonder whether it would be useful to see this carried over into the earlier series.

There are clearly a number of problems with the current system, for instance:

1./ Surely if a unit doesn't move, or only uses up a part of its movement allowance, it should have more time left for firing? In other words there should be a direct trade off between movement & firing, because if a unit's not moving it can be spending the time reloading and firing additional volleys.

2./ Isn't it rather illogical that a unit should be able to use its full movement allowance and then fire, but can't fire and then fall back, or perhaps move, fire and then move again. A completely stationary unit ought to be able to get off several (perhaps three offensive volleys a turn, plus additional defensive volleys?) volleys because it's not spending the time moving about.

Consequently, incorporating an action point system that linked movement & firing would be a significant improvement to the game engine, strengthening the defender and making it harder for the attacker. At the moment the balance is clearly too much in favour of the attacker, which is both unhistorical and illogical.

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

Richard,

Perhaps a unit could then fire a volley, then fall back in the same turn...... I agree a good idea.. Would charging/melee be considered as well? Would there be a difference if a unit was adjacted to the melee hex or had to move several hexes to get there?


BG Joseph C. Mishurda

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

The point system as employed in Panzer Campaigns system would certainly change the game, and might restore balance to the ACW single phase system because it takes most of a unit's point allotment to melee. Thus a unit would have to begin its turn in close proximity to a battery if
the unit planned to assault it. It would no longer be possible to blow a hole in the line with more distant units and exploit with nearer units either. It would also limit (but not eliminate) the attacker's advantage in being able to concentrate fire while the defender has to depend on a the unpredictable but usually anemic (in woods especially) opportunity fire. I think the multiphase (old) system has the proper balance for ACW, but I do like the opportunity fire during movement and the ability to move and deploy offered by the singlephase.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I was thinking in terms of HPS carrying over the existing action point system directly from the later series - so, yes, a unit could certainly fire and then retreat. With sufficient movement allowance (say in open terrain), it would be able to advance a hex or two, fire and then retreat again. But I'd particularly like to see defending units being able to fire and then be able to retreat. Also, ideally mounted cavalry would be able to use their mobility to scout ahead and then retreat again if necessary.

Melee would also be linked to the action point system. I suspect infantry would only be able to conduct a single melee, whereas cavalry might be mobile enough to melee more than once.

There probably would be a difference between meleeing adjacent units and moving prior to melee. If taken directly from the WW2 engine, then a unit wouldn't be able to melee if it had already used up too much of its movement allowance. Terrain might play an important part here, since the attacker might have sufficient action points left to melee into an open hex but not into a village or wood, or if the defender had constructed earthworks. So, again, this would tend to benefit the defender and give him more time to either retreat or bring up reinforcements.

I'd like to see op fire followed by regular defensive fire, but I also like the single phase turns. Maybe auto pre-melee DF meshed with all defenders getting to fire once the active player finishes their turn? Maybe with melee set to cost 4mp's (for inf) to stop some of the panzer tactics?

Firing and then moving would certainly help rear guards as they could inflict more casualties rather than rely on AI op fire. But allowing offensive fire *during* movement would open a whole nasty bag of tricks, I think, as units dance around, single hexes are used as fire points for divisions, etc. Then again, that's exactly what I used to do in East Front II for flank shots... [:I]

I like the concept of action points, and as long as I/we are making a wish list then mounted cavalry could be given the "recon" ability (spend mp's to spot units in close LOS). Artillery using AP's could fire and move away (retire by prolongue)








Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "Yankee Thrasher"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sean Turner</i>
<br />
Firing and then moving would certainly help rear guards

Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "Yankee Thrasher"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

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

Rear guards? The current system doesn't allow for realistic rear-guards, so any improvement in that regard would be a huge increase! Even the phased based play is favored to the attacker, which makes rear-guards in even phased play nearly impossible. Historically small forces could hold off large forces in many cases, but in the games if you are outnumbered and attempting to fall back, you almost have to decide which units to sacrfice completely because in most cases they will be wiped out due to the engine / rules in place.

I think a fire and then move option would be a vast improvement in realism over our current system.

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

"Historically small forces could hold off large forces in many cases, but in the games if you are outnumbered and attempting to fall back, you almost have to decide which units to sacrfice completely because in most cases they will be wiped out due to the engine / rules in place."

Gentlemen, the inability to simulate rear-guard actions is due more to player's limitations than the engine's. No, I don't mean players don't know how to perform a rear-gaurd action, I mean players don't pursue the way historical commanders did.

If its a fresh engagement they don't take time to deploy, and recon as real commanders would. If its after a battle they push worn out troops way beyond the point of real troops endurance, and usually don't support the efforts properly.

We have unlimited visision, and accurate knowledge of what we do know. We have grown up with the automobile, and the radio. We understand WWII and modern combat more instinctively than horse & musket combat.

Real commanders were much more hesitant to committ troops into combat than we are, therefore rear-guard actions worked for them, and don't for us.

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

Al,

Regarding rearguard actions, you might find it interesting to read Oman's account of the Combat of Marciano 1553, where Piero Strozzi's Franco-Sienese army of some 12,000 men attempted to retreat from an approximately equal sized Imperialist force, both armies being comparatively weak in cavalry. (Art of War in 16th century pp.217-19)

According to Montluc, "Retreats in daylight, under the eyes of the enemy, are so dangerous that they must always be avoided if possible. If it is not possible, it would be better to hazard everything, and commit oneself to a general action."

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

Well, I'm not sure an action point system would greatly facilitate retreats. However, the system would certainly be more flexible and beneficial than the current engine, since:

1./ Units could fire <i>before</i> retreating. They wouldn't have to retreat and then maybe if they're lucky manage to fire at maximum range. The current system of units being incapable of movement after firing is too restrictive, illogical and clearly benefits the attacker.

2./ Advancing enemy would need to have sufficient mobility to move & melee. This would in effect mean that mounted cavalry would have a much greater role in pursuits, since although infantry might have sufficient action points to move back into contact and fire, they'd probably lack sufficient action points to melee. (see Mike Mihalik's comments in this thread)

3./ Disrupted units would have the option of using up all their action points moving as far away from the enemy as they can, instead of firing. The current game engine doesn't provide players with this useful choice.

Al I think you hit the nail on the head. The forces are not used historically because the historical limitations are not present. The fact that we can control all of the forces and push them without consequences except for their elimination and a perhaps a loss game allows the players to do as he feels. To design a game were you take this into account his difficult and might make for a dull game.

As far as action points are concerned, I like them. I am currently designing an operational ACW level game, 1 mile per hex, 12 hour turns, that uses them. Units have a number of action points to use. The total available for the turn is based on their current situation, such as supply, command, fatigue, morale, etc and can use them to move and or fight, entrench etc. For example a unit may use them all up to move and not have left to fight with. The ‘action points’ basically represent time being expended during a turn so if you use all of your time to move you will not have any time left to attack. The player will have the option to move a few miles and then attack. Or he could move many miles and not attack. I am trying to present to the player the similar restrictions that a commander would have. It's not easy trying to do that and making the game enjoyable. I have also toyed with the idea of Cavalry recon, basically using action points in a static fashion to see x# of hexes beyond the unit.


Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
CSA Reserve Corps
President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

Pierre D.,

Good idea about using action points for cavalry recon - not sure if this is likely to be included in the game engine because it's not present (as far as I know) in the WW2 engine.

However, I've heard that the concept of cavalry recon (as a separate feature derived from deploying skirmishers) is being considered by HPS and may, hopefully, appear in the near future. Perhaps mounted cavalry should automatically have this scouting ability, even without using up action points / movement.

Hi, Pierre,

What you are working on sounds a lot like the operation point system that SSI used in Gettysburg twenty years ago, and I think that system is superior to what we have now, although the games we have now are much better. Good luck on your project. Imho, there has been a crying need for a good strategic or operational ACW computer game for a very long time.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I don't think I had that game, since I was not into the Civil war at the time, more interested in WWII.

I agree that a good Operational game is lacking. I always wanted to be able to see the big picture. It's nice to play Gettysburg, but how many people know were it is in relation to the overall theater and situation. How and why did it come about? What battles occurred to make it happen? What kind of gamble was it? What was the timeline for all these battles? Where is Fredericksburg and Antietam? Why did battles happen there?

I figured that a game would be interesting that provided this type of info. Campaigns starting at various points would be available with the players deciding on what they will do to win the campaign.



Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1/3/I, AoG
President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

Frank Hunter put out a very good strategic ACW game. I know some of you have. I have forgotten the name.

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

Gentlemen,
Frank is an online friend of mine (though not too much correspondence lately) and I will let you know that he is planning on publishing an operational level "War of Northern Aggression" game in the future...If I remember correctly the original name was going to be "Army of Tennessee". Frank was of invaluable assistance in my first campaign game I ran a few years back.....he actually made me a special editor to allow for the needs of the campaign.....now that is customer support....he did not even charge me for it.....and at the time, he did not know me.....Pierre, keep working on that operational game.....and good luck to you on it......My dream game would be one that had a strategic level with say month long turns, which when opposing forces were in the same strategic region would scale down to an operational level game with say 6-8 hour turns and perhaps 1 mile hexes, allowing for that portion of the game (jockying for good ground and such), and then finally scaled down to a tactical level game simular to our present engine......It would be massive, it might even have some tedious and somewhat boring parts.....but for me it would be the ultimate game.....doubt I'll see it in my lifetime......Regards, Hank

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />I don't think I had that game, since I was not into the Civil war at the time, more interested in WWII.

I agree that a good Operational game is lacking. I always wanted to be able to see the big picture. It's nice to play Gettysburg, but how many people know were it is in relation to the overall theater and situation. How and why did it come about? What battles occurred to make it happen? What kind of gamble was it? What was the timeline for all these battles? Where is Fredericksburg and Antietam? Why did battles happen there?

I figured that a game would be interesting that provided this type of info. Campaigns starting at various points would be available with the players deciding on what they will do to win the campaign.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

For those interested in the timeline, I have started a thread titled:
The Civil War- A weekly synopsis-Timeline
Where I try to show all the battles that happened chronologically, with the battle and victor listed.

For instance, there were 2 battles going on during the Gettysburg battle, one in Oklahoma and one in Arkansas.

Not exactly what you are discussing, here, but looking at the battles on a timeline is interesting.

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

ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">