American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

For smaller battles, the best solution is perhaps using company level scale with 5 minute turns, etc, like the EAW engine - if the weapon ranges are increased threefold - and made pretty lethal at close range - and each battalion is broken down into companies, then an attacker will suffer a lot more defensive fire before he can physically make contact with the defender. Also this will allow artillery sufficient time to fire a few turns and still have the option of limbering up and retreating if threatened by melee - whereas with the standard battalion level system, quite a few gun types (certainly the smoothbores) can barely get in a shot before they're overrun.

Of course this isn't really a viable solution for a large battle, but if the forces are relatively small it works well and gives a very different feel to the standard game.


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

Before you go to a lot of trouble changing underlying parameters of the games you should be sure you aren't creating a new unreality to replace your preceived one. As Alan states melee represents a whole lot more than a bayonet charge. It represents everything that happens when an attacker doesn't lose his nerve and stop a 100+ yards out to exchange fire. It represents what happens when the two lines start to come together and one side has to decide to run or not. The casualties come from fire at less than 50 yards. Making it difficult to occur removes from the game the primary means CW armies used to take a position. They never crossed a field intending to get 100 yards from the enemy and stand in line and shoot until everyone was dead. This might be the result but rarely the intent of the commanders.

I think the HPS system has managed a relative good balance between melee and fatigue. The BG games made unit fatigue much to rapidly since a single 20 minute turn of fire and melee could reduce a unit to uselessness. Since the fatigue affected defender and attacker almost equally it did nothing to reduce the endless fighting. The HPS system will quickly punish an attacker who fails to achieve the attack ratio needed to win melees so generally there are a lot fewer melees in HPS games compared to BG games. Melees are used more for there real purpose, to take a position, than to run up fatigue on the enemy.

Changing stacking to 700 in HPS system will significantly reduce meleeing since it make achieving the 3:1 attack ratio for consistently successful melees (2:1 is the break even) almost impossible to achieve. Robert Frost and I tested such a system using the Corinth engine on Gettysburg. It reduced melees almost to zero. It also reduce the battle to a numbers game. Union had 80,000, South had 70,00, Union automaticaly wins. Saves all that playing time. I think you will find that the stack limit of 700 will lead to very boring games.

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

It would be an improvement if a few <i>Age of Rifles</i> features were incorporated into the HPS engine - in AoR, it was possible for an attacker to get pinned down, bogged down or even rout, whereas the sole HPS equivalent - disruption - just doesn't occur frequently enough to make direct frontal assaults a rash undertaking that should always be avoided if at all possible.

It's quite easy enough to replicate say a short HPS Gettysburg scenario with the AoR engine - same map features, same OOB, same situation ... but the same frontal assault tactics are most unlikely to produce the same result (especially if using oldrules+ and the frantic fire optional rule). With HPS the attacker has the advantage and ZOC melee elimination tactics are commonplace and generally the most effective tactic. But with AoR, it's the defender who clearly has the advantage, especially if allowed sufficient time to dig in.

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

Some interesting thoughts, but i think that pdt adjustments (fatigue or stacking)
are much more practical than engine revamps in acheiving a sensible melee-fire balance.


<font color="gold">Lt. Gen. Ken Counselman
XVIII Corps / AoJ</font id="gold">

Don't worry, I wasn't going to go out and change everything right now. I was just brainstorming. And looking for opinions. As usual, no real consensus. That's one reason why engine upgrade are hard to come by.

Rich

I think Kennon has said it best. What one can do and what one should do are not the same. I certainly agree with what melee represents ie. the effort to force a unit from its postion by the threat of heavy volly or attack and thus if we can despell the idea of melee always representing hand to hand fighting then its affect seems somewhat realistic. I also agree that too much tinkering can lead to static lines ala WWI where the two Armies just hammer away at each other.

Having said that I always liked the "pinned" results in TSS. Much more common than disrupt but not so severe( they came off automatically) Its effect was to make assault more problamatic and subject to failue( and some nasty casualties if trying to attack cannon) but you could still recover the next turn and get out of Dodge or if reinforcemnts were near to continue the assault. In the mean time the defender also had time to retreat, Any other thoughts on "pinned"?

Field Lt. Tony Best

Here's an idea that can be used right away as a house rule and if successful included in some future game engine update.

To melee with a unit an officer must be stacked with the unit(s) and part of the the melee.

This should reduce the number of melees and also change some of the risk-reward calculations since leader casualties should increase. (and the increased number of Major Anon's will impact the recovery from disruption of highly fatigued units reducing their ability to melee as well)

I agree with Commanders Lynn's and Whitehead's observation that the events in these games need to be considered as a series of events and not just the specific event portrayed.

<i>“meleeâ€

Whether one feels that stacking should be 1000, 700, 400 or whatever, I propose the following change to the game engine: <i><i>Only units from the same brigade may melee a hex.</i></i>

Whatever one imagines "melee" to be, it was certainly a command and control problem. The attacker in Melee simply has discretion beyond the capabilities of the era. Mixing regiments from different brigades to pad the "numbers" is TOTALLY ahistoric and leads to some of the problems which have been outlined in numerous threads over the years.

The game engine is certainly aware of this fact and it can easily control this aspect of the game. It was difficult enough to coordinate the attack of one brigade in the Civil War and to control regiments from others was a near impossibility. One might term it "accidental", if it ever occurred.

This change alone might have an interesting effect on melee within these games. One can implement this immediately only through agreement with the combatting parties.

BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bobbreen</i>
<br />Here's an idea that can be used right away as a house rule and if successful included in some future game engine update.

To melee with a unit an officer must be stacked with the unit(s) and part of the the melee.

This should reduce the number of melees and also change some of the risk-reward calculations since leader casualties should increase. (and the increased number of Major Anon's will impact the recovery from disruption of highly fatigued units reducing their ability to melee as well)

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding 4th Bde, 2nd Div, VI Corps, AoS
"Where we lead, the Army follows" - VI Corps

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

That's an awfully good suggestion Bob.

Requiring that an officer must be included in a melee along
with prohibiting infantry column melees except for bridges/fords
(as is quite common in the CCC) would go a long way in acheiving a
sensible balance w/o the risk of unintended implications from pdt adjustments


<font color="gold">Lt. Gen. Ken Counselman
XVIII Corps / AoJ</font id="gold">

I have at times suggested named leaders, rather than just leaders--thus all the more risky when your Brigade leader has been injured.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M

In the Squad Battle games there is a PINNED result. It is NOT automatically removed, but a leader stacked with the unit can rally it to a DISRUPTED state in the next turn.

So, pinned is not in the ACW series, but is in another Tiller game, so...[;)][;)]

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

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

A few years back I took a little time to look at melees in the HPS system as opposed to the BG system. One improvement is the HPS system is a lot less attacker friendly.

One reason, as stated before is the modifiers are figured in as percentages as opposed to 100 man units (For example 200 men meleeing with an officer is now worth 220 and opposed to 300 in the BG system). These modifiers work both ways of course but the change tends to favor the defender since the attacker can set up the melee to maximize a favorable outcome (targeting a hex without an officer, not O firing, etc.)

I looked at several typical A/D ratios, all without modifiers for simplicity. For some screwball reason, I can't locate my paperwork but I do remember in one analyis I looked at, a melee that would have been on the +6 line in the BG system with no modifiers, while a guaranteed win in the BG system, in the HPS system this was reduced to 83%. I remember the numbers got worse for the attacker for more typical 3:1 and 2:1 fights. Even a 3:1 fight with no modifiers, in the BG system the attacker has a 10/36 chance of loosing.

As a sidebar, in battles, I've noticed on two occasions (out of a few hundred melees) where the computer has awarded a win to the side that incurred greater loses. After all the math, the side that incurrs the greater loss is supposed to be the loser. Rich said just to keep an eye on it. Maybe you guys should too.

Gen. Doug Burke
XX/AoC/USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Doug Burke</i>
As a sidebar, in battles, I've noticed on two occasions (out of a few hundred melees) where the computer has awarded a win to the side that incurred greater loses. After all the math, the side that incurrs the greater loss is supposed to be the loser. Rich said just to keep an eye on it. Maybe you guys should too.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I swear that in the Nappy games as well as PzC/MC/SB and EAW games this is quite normal. In fact, why shouldn't an attacker take higher casualties even if successful? Since it seems so normal to me I can't say I would ever have noticed that it would be unusual in the ACW games.

Afterall, the outcome of a melee is unlikely to be decided by both sides sitting down and calmly computing which side suffered more casualties in the brawl ... who loses more on the one hand, and who takes, fails to take, holds or abandons a position on the other don't seem to have, necessarily, a lot to do with each other.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS

[quote]<i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>


I swear that in the Nappy games as well as PzC/MC/SB and EAW games this is quite normal. In fact, why shouldn't an attacker take higher casualties even if successful? Since it seems so normal to me I can't say I would ever have noticed that it would be unusual in the ACW games.

Afterall, the outcome of a melee is unlikely to be decided by both sides sitting down and calmly computing which side suffered more casualties in the brawl ... who loses more on the one hand, and who takes, fails to take, holds or abandons a position on the other don't seem to have, necessarily, a lot to do with each other.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS


My point was simply that the melee outcomet was, at times different then what the documentation said it should be.

Gen. Doug Burke
XX/AoC/USA

I wouldn't mind seeing an optional rule that <i>only disrupted defenders could be meleed.</i> In other words, at least 50% of the defending troops would need to be disrupted before an attacker was "allowed" to melee. This would be one useful way of reducing the number of melees and forcing the attacker to soften up a position prior to assaulting it.

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