American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

In a recent play of Campaign Gettysburg the subject of “Night Combatâ€

<i>>Night combat was not utilized in the war and should not be a part of the Strategy or Tactics of either side<</i>

This statement is patently false.

The fight for Culps Hill is only one example of numerous night combat events. (See "Gettysburg" by Stephen Sears, Chpater 11 - "Determined to Do or Die") In fact, the fighting of July 2nd didn't end until nearly 2230, and restarted around 0430. Night turns in game turns.

It certainly wasn't the best situation or what each side tried to achieve, but this nonsense of ruling out in games as "unhistorical" is absurd.




BG(SS) Dave Bowman
ANV(TAD)

<center></center>

I agree with Gen Bowman. In fact, in Battleground Gettysburg there is a short Culps Hill scenario that is all night turns.
What you want to do or not be allowed to do in a game I guess needs to be agreed on at start. Some reinforcements arrive at night. And so some will argue they should be allowed to march toward the front and others will say no night movement and want them to pile up on their entry area.
There are penalties in the game engine, but some would argue not enough penalties. Perhaps there should be an automatic fatigue gain for night movement.
There are reasons to fight at night. Either trying to rescue troops that are surrounded or in a bad position. Or the flip side of trying to mop up. Or that final desperate push when you think reinforcements are marching through the night to plug a gap you've created. Or trying to shift forces without the enemy seeing.
So bottom line, if one thinks these things shouldn't happen, then bring the issue up before you start to play.

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"

The HPS games starting with Campaign Gettysburg definitely made night movement justified by their large maps. The Talonsoft battles generally occurred on confined fields where "no man's land" was probably covered by skirmishers and scouts. HPS did introduce a 200 fatigue penalty for night melee and attach some smaller cavalry for screening so I think the game designers did consider night movement and combat to be part of their design. It is unfortunate they didn't include a fatigue penalty for night movement to discourage excessive operations.

I view night movement as something necessary if somewhat gamey to compensate for our god like view of the battlefield. It is the only time you can make troop concentrations that aren't easily spotted by the enemy who can for some reason count men from five miles away.

A player that uses his cavalry to properly screen his flanks and rear will rarely have problems with enemy night movements. And, players who insist on marching around in enemy territory at night will usually be sorry they tried.

There are some "gamey" uses of night combat particularly in Talonsoft games but I don't bother to play Talonsoft anymore except where tournaments require it.

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

The Panzer Campaign games have an optional Night Fatigue rule, any unit using MP during night turns gains FA. Since combat costs MP in those games doing anything at night results in gaining FA instead of losing it. This would make even more sense in the ACW games allowing you to redeploy fresh units at night with a cost of some FA while disouraging movement of fatigued units.

Lt.Gen.Ken Miller
Veteran's Divsion
VIII / AoS

Night skirmishes and combat most certainly did occur during the War, and while not encouraged by the leaders on either side or much appreciated by the men in the field, it did happen from time to time. Fighting at Chancellorsville continued into the night. There was some fighting at Shiloh at night. Gettysburg has already been mentioned. Fredricksburg had some night skirmishing. Chickamauga had some night fighting. Lookout Mountain and the Federal amphibious landing that preceeded it, as well as the subsequent Confederate counter-attack prior to Lookout Mountain were fought at Night. The Wilderness and Spotsylvania saw night fighting (some of the most intense fighting during the war was at night at Spotsylvania…)

So it is not a matter of historicity, but rather a matter of gameplay. I have no problem with night fighting. If my opponent wants to attack me at night, go right ahead, but the same rules should apply – no column attacks just for the sake of column attacks. Troops did get disordered at night, and the automatic disorder for infantry is in the game to reflect that fact and penalize night fighting in line. The only instances of “columnâ€

Night movement/combat has always been a debated subject. In Shiloh, I tried to further restrict it by increasing the combat penalty and shortening the duration of night turns by making then 90 min turns instead of the usual 60 minutes. But I did go back and make variants to allow for the usual 60 minutes so people could try both.

Also, this subject has been brought up with John to see if we could upgrade the engine that would add additional FA for units moving during night turns and also units that quick march during the day. However, these upgrades have not been programmed yet and may be a while down the road.

Rich W.

BTW, To add to Al's list of night fighting, there was considerable night fighting during the Battle of Franklin. [8D]

In the end, it doesn’t matter. The ONLY reason for wanting to eliminate night combat is an inability to deal with reality.

ALL combat has associated risks. An attack at noon on Cemetery ridge has risks; an attack at 3pm on Corinth has risks. The question isn’t whether or not an attack should be allowed; but whether or not the Commander in question is willing to accept those risks.

Should a night attack be risky and dangerous? Of course it should be!

Should an opponent who is inattentive to his lines or perhaps has made a misdeployment be permitted to not be attacked because it’s a night turn? Absolutely not.

As has been said, a properly screened and deployed Army will have little difficulty in fending off a night attack anyway. QED, in my view the only people who will refuse to allow night combat are those who aren’t willing to do the tasks necessary to defend against such an attack (Not the people who don’t like it, but those who absolutely refuse to allow it).

I don’t like making night assaults, but there are times when it is necessary AND worth the risk. I always think twice about it, and more than half the time I don’t want the associated costs in having a Brigade fatigued out come morning. But that should be my choice, not some artificial rule based on an inability to deal with reality.


BG(SS) Dave Bowman
ANV(TAD)

<center></center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KTGWW</i>
<br />In the end, it doesn’t matter. The ONLY reason for wanting to eliminate night combat is an inability to deal with reality.

ALL combat has associated risks. An attack at noon on Cemetery ridge has risks; an attack at 3pm on Corinth has risks. The question isn’t whether or not an attack should be allowed; but whether or not the Commander in question is willing to accept those risks.

Should a night attack be risky and dangerous? Of course it should be!

Should an opponent who is inattentive to his lines or perhaps has made a misdeployment be permitted to not be attacked because it’s a night turn? Absolutely not.

As has been said, a properly screened and deployed Army will have little difficulty in fending off a night attack anyway. QED, in my view the only people who will refuse to allow night combat are those who aren’t willing to do the tasks necessary to defend against such an attack (Not the people who don’t like it, but those who absolutely refuse to allow it).

I don’t like making night assaults, but there are times when it is necessary AND worth the risk. I always think twice about it, and more than half the time I don’t want the associated costs in having a Brigade fatigued out come morning. But that should be my choice, not some artificial rule based on an inability to deal with reality.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Excellent points.

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

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

What concerns me about night turns, is not the combat. I believe the combat is taken care of by the extra FA and difficulty in using anything except column formations.

Rather, I object to the unlimited movement. For example, it's possible to march units from miles away (think about Gettysburg), and move them day and night at full speed and end up on the battlefield after 48 hours of non-stop movement, fresh as a daisy and ready for a full day's combat.

Now I challenge anyone to find an historical instance of a combat unit moving a straight 48 hours, no sleep or time for resting, and be ready for combat!! My family is from Missouri, SHOW ME!!!

In a effort to reduce the number of night turns, I created 90 minute night turns for Shiloh. It's not a solution, but I think it will help.


Rich W.

OK, I'll weigh in on this one.

First, I think there are important distinctions between historical examples of i) offensive operations deliberately seeking combat undertaken after nightfall, ii) accidental encounters at night, and iii) combat that continued after night fell.

I would further divide combat that continued after nightfall into two catagories - instances where the combat sputtered out or ended once one party backed off, and those where when one side withdrew the other followed on.

It is fairly easy to cite historical instances of night combat, particularly essentially static battles that extended into the night, but in gaming they are used to justify deliberate night assaults; how many historical examples are there of those? and how realistic are they?

Of course night attacks are difficult ... unless you are also allowing melee by units in column.

In single phase HPS games this means that your colun rolls right up to the defender who checks for ADF once only and may not even fire at all. You then melee his butt and send the rest of the panzers through.

In this case the defender is heavily penalized if he is trying a fighting withdrawal because if he stays in line he disrupts while the assaulting columns have full movement, at least until they melee. If the defender switchs to column he essentially has no defense at all except his inherent melee strength, and if he doesn't he is soon completely out manuevered.

In this case one can fairly easily completely overrun a position at night that would have been a gradual pushing back in daylight

And of course there is the speed issue. I am asked to believe that mounted Cav moving across broken ground in pitch dark will do it as easily as in broad daylight. Even on trails with a full moon this would not be accurate, much less cross country with little to no light.

I would note that another objection I have to deliberate seeking night combat is that the game engine does not begin to adequately simulate it.

We know how often ACW units got totally lost while marching down roads in broad daylight, yet in our games they set out cross country in pitch black and inerringly get exactly where they want to be. At a minimum, for off road night movement units should have a morale check and if they fail they then do a random move for their full MP.

And of course there is the issue of friendly fire at night. When moving cross country at night units that contact friendly units should trigger an ADF check for both units, and if either unit fires they both fire on one another.

I will be much more in favour of allowing deliberate night operations when the engine includes some mechanics like these such that the prospect of undertaking night actions approximates what the historical COs faced. Until then I think it fair to use house rules to place limits on what is otherwise significantly ahistorical play.





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

Panzerblitz tactics again come up.

Hey scenario designers make road movement more costly. That stops the blitz.

Roads weren't marched on (troops marched along side the road leaving it open for wheeled vehicles and couriers) unless terrain dictated it so make the road movement rate the same as in line and column in the open. This will allow movement of troops through restricted terrain, but won't make it look like they are on a conveyer belt!

Historically, units on the march went into rout step, and this pace was slower than the different cadences used for field manuevring.

Its not a perfect solution, but one that can be employed without major house rules or engine overhauls. Just slow down the inf/cav using the roads.



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

Al,
I just want to support what Al said about making roads (all kinds) just like open ground. In all my time as reenactor, I have never been able to walk 2 to 4 times faster on any kind of road (even paved at Waterloo) than the rate we walk across an open field. It would make a difference for wagons and limbered cannons but nothing like we are seeing in our games. Same for Cavalry, they are not driving vehicles down a road! We seem to have imported rules from mechanized warfare improperly into a pre-mechanized society. This explains the Panzerloo effect with the french blasting into the flanks of the allies way too quickly and effectively. Movement just didn't happen that quickly in either NWC or AWC time periods.

Col. Michael W. Gjerde
3/2/V AoP

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by greenFyre</i>
<br />OK, I'll weigh in on this one.

First, I think there are important distinctions between historical examples of i) offensive operations deliberately seeking combat undertaken after nightfall, ii) accidental encounters at night, and iii) combat that continued after night fell.

I would further divide combat that continued after nightfall into two catagories - instances where the combat sputtered out or ended once one party backed off, and those where when one side withdrew the other followed on.

It is fairly easy to cite historical instances of night combat, particularly essentially static battles that extended into the night, but in gaming they are used to justify deliberate night assaults; how many historical examples are there of those? and how realistic are they?

Of course night attacks are difficult ... unless you are also allowing melee by units in column.

In single phase HPS games this means that your colun rolls right up to the defender who checks for ADF once only and may not even fire at all. You then melee his butt and send the rest of the panzers through.

In this case the defender is heavily penalized if he is trying a fighting withdrawal because if he stays in line he disrupts while the assaulting columns have full movement, at least until they melee. If the defender switchs to column he essentially has no defense at all except his inherent melee strength, and if he doesn't he is soon completely out manuevered.

In this case one can fairly easily completely overrun a position at night that would have been a gradual pushing back in daylight

And of course there is the speed issue. I am asked to believe that mounted Cav moving across broken ground in pitch dark will do it as easily as in broad daylight. Even on trails with a full moon this would not be accurate, much less cross country with little to no light.

I would note that another objection I have to deliberate seeking night combat is that the game engine does not begin to adequately simulate it.

We know how often ACW units got totally lost while marching down roads in broad daylight, yet in our games they set out cross country in pitch black and inerringly get exactly where they want to be. At a minimum, for off road night movement units should have a morale check and if they fail they then do a random move for their full MP.

And of course there is the issue of friendly fire at night. When moving cross country at night units that contact friendly units should trigger an ADF check for both units, and if either unit fires they both fire on one another.

I will be much more in favour of allowing deliberate night operations when the engine includes some mechanics like these such that the prospect of undertaking night actions approximates what the historical COs faced. Until then I think it fair to use house rules to place limits on what is otherwise significantly ahistorical play.





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



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

General Kaulbars,

I like your idea about auto-defensive fire at night, even for friendlies. However, regarding your point about the speed issue: It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking our units are moving just as quickly at night as they are during the day, but remember night turns last three times as long as day turns (even more in Shiloh), so the units are only moving one-third as far.

I think one of the best improvements in maneuver would be, as Rich Walker has suggested, a game engine change to penalize units for continually marching around the map without any breaks at all.


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - General, Chief of the Armies, Confederate States of America & Cabinet Member
CCC - Sergeant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army

<i>I will be much more in favour of allowing deliberate night operations when the engine includes some mechanics like these such that the prospect of undertaking night actions approximates what the historical COs faced. Until then I think it fair to use house rules to place limits on what is otherwise significantly ahistorical play.</i>

The issue remains one of dealing with the reality of the game – not the reality of history.

In truth, these games are completely non-historical – from the single leader atop a hill who spots and instantly communicates to the entire Army what he has spotted, to the Federal Cavalry running around the woods behind the lines at Gettysburg. Do any of us seriously believe that Buford would have done that? I doubt the thought ever even occurred to him. But under the game engine and rules, it is allowed, and so we as players have to adapt and learn to deal with these things.

The simple truth is that we are playing a game that represents an event – not the event itself. Some compensation for the “god modeâ€