American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I don't agree that the BG series was better. I've had entire divisions wiped out in that series and the casualties are almost always 2x or 3x higher than actual. Maybe a simple fix is to increase the defenders fire rate. If the attackers are taking hits every hex the casualties will add up over long open distances. The best thing that can happen (from a realism standpoint) is the attacker disrupts and can't assault. A more difficult thing to do is perhaps reduce the attackers fire by the portion of movement allowance he has left when he fires. Use it all and you can't fire at all. I expect that's an engine change. Last, if an attacker moves adjacent to a defender in breastworks, does he get the breastworks modifier on fire from the defenders? Breastworks should only work in one direction regardless of how many turns the attacker stands there. Just thinkin'...

Major General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

I think overal the HPS system (phased based [:)]) improved the defender side relative to the older Battleground system. Changes to melee, zoc, and isolation rules made defense a little easier. The fatigue changes favored the winner (not necessarially the attacker) which I generally agree with. Battleground tried and failed to use fatigue to limit fighting. It never really worked for this.

I do think the defender still gets the short end of the stick in these games. Some tests I ran indicate that only a slight advantage in numbers is required for an attacker to win. However, there is a problem on how to correct this and the accompanying problem of to high a casualty rate. Anything that overly favors the defender can leave the attacker no way to win. The problem comes from the god's eye view and total control we have of the battlefield. Most CW and for that matter Napoleonic attack successes were accomplished by achieving locally the two to three to one odds required to take a defensive position. In HPS and BG this is impossible. The defender can react to quickly to an attackers movement. Net result if the defender is given significant improvements then attack is crippled.

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

Another thing that frustrates defenders is the ADF only fires one regiment at a time while the attacker can fire multiple units at once and get credit for the total of all guns firing. So, as the attacker moves he may receive fire from multiple units, but only from one at a time. This usually results in minimal losses. Once in posotion, the attacker then can double click an entire stack and fire with them as one total, often with devastating results. This is especially true of artillery. What is the use of stacking artillery when they fire one unit at a time in defensive fire? Completely useless. Offensively, a stack of 8-10 guns fired at once can wreak havoc. Firing 1 or 2 guns at a time, might as well throw rocks. In scenarios with limited LOS, the attacker can run up and melee lines of infantry and artillery almost at will with minimal casualties - now that's realistic!

Major General Jeff Bangma
Commander, I "Fighting First" Corps
Army of the Potomac

With the change in the way casualties are figured under HPS, it shouldn't matter much if units fire individually or as a stack. The only difference should be different random numbers, which ought to even out the casualties for units firing individually. But you have to use the multiphase system, otherwise often all your defensive units won't fire. I'm not sure how counterbattery fire works, but it seemed like the bigger Union batteries in Peninsula were more effective gun for gun than the Confederate sections. But that was just a perception, and decent guns for the Rebs are in relatively short supply in that game. BTW, I can't seem to find parameter data for the Whitworth, either in the Gettysburg game I am playing or in the Peninsula, which I stopped playing. Does anyone know if it is listed anywhere?

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Banger</i>
<br />Another thing that frustrates defenders is the ADF only fires one regiment at a time while the attacker can fire multiple units at once and get credit for the total of all guns firing. So, as the attacker moves he may receive fire from multiple units, but only from one at a time. This usually results in minimal losses. Once in posotion, the attacker then can double click an entire stack and fire with them as one total, often with devastating results. This is especially true of artillery. What is the use of stacking artillery when they fire one unit at a time in defensive fire? Completely useless. Offensively, a stack of 8-10 guns fired at once can wreak havoc. Firing 1 or 2 guns at a time, might as well throw rocks. In scenarios with limited LOS, the attacker can run up and melee lines of infantry and artillery almost at will with minimal casualties - now that's realistic!

Major General Jeff Bangma
Commander, I "Fighting First" Corps
Army of the Potomac
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What Mike said in reply is true but only for phased system. From your description you are using Turn based which has a problem. A smart attacker always moves as stacks and fires as stacks because the AI's Auto Fire logic triggers only on movement and fire. A stack can fire once with all units and get the equivalent of each individual unit firing but the defender fires only in response and after a random roll to see if it will even bother and then at half strength. A lucky attacker may not even get fired on at all.

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

The strange thing about all this is that it is not a problem with the HPS system as such. In my experience, in the HPS Napeleonic titles, even in turn-based play defensive fire is brutal, attacking a battery suicidal, and that a defender won't fire defensively when being meleed is at least very rare. The same game system, basically, mind you. In the ACW games you can have a peaceful picnic directly in front of a battery of Napoleons without any great chance of being harmed. When a battery of French 12-pounders goes off in the Nappy games you'd rather not want to be within five hexes. An unresolved contradiction for me.

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

I haven't played the HPS Napoleonics enough to be certain but I suspect there are two reason for Turn based working for Nappy games and not ACW. The troops are armed with muskets that only have a two hex range so most Auto Defense Fire will occur and close range. And Napoleonic artillery is more effective than CW artillery. This is due to the designer incorporating two things that made artillery in the Napoleonic wars the queen of the battlefield: Higher density formations and flatter terrain.

CW battlefields tend to be rugged terrain than didn't allow cannonballs to bounce through the rear troops. Combine this with two rank lines which limited the maximum casualties of a direct hit to about four and you have a pretty ineffective weapon. Napoleonic battles used high density formations and were fought on flat cultivated fields. So you have battles like Waterloo where most of the British casualties were caused by artillery compared to CW battles where the average is less than 10% due to cannon fire. All this tends to get factored into the PDT values since the game can't handle it on the formation and terrain level.

Also, I noticed the Napoleonic Game Club came up with the embedded melee phase rule to keep the Turn based games from becoming Blizkrieg games.

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

Another point in favor of the Nappy games is of course the target density modifier which makes sure you take more casualties when you mass up for an attack. Not to forget the pass-through rules whereby all units in a hex can be affected by artillery fire at once. Used in combination both rules (they are optional rules) make it easier to break up an attack effectively with defensive fire.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />Although its Hollywood, I'll ask anyway...

Can the assault on Marye's Heights battle scene from <i>God's and Generals</i> be reproduced in the HPS system?

If so, then the system captures the essence of tactical combat during the war. If not, then the system needs to be reworked.

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

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


I am currently playing Fredricksburg on the CC system. I'm finding it is MUCH more accurate than the same battle played on BGN that I played about 1 year ago. I have learned several attackers "Tricks" since reading this trhread but overall I have found the defenders manhandling my poor boys in Blue. One of the things that I notice is that the same defending unit will fire at 5 or 6 regiments arriving in it's vicinity. This seems ahistorical to me. I also note that there does seem to be a Confederate bias that is very difficult to overcome. But I've noticed that about every Civil War battle I've ever played. If I had to choose I would take BGG over HPSG but some of that is comfort of play. Of note, the turn by turn play similar to Talonsoft's old system is the only way to play HPS games otherwise the blitzkrieging and bizarre defensive fire choices just get to be out of control and ruin the game. Otherwise, some of the scenarios are really incredibly well thought out. Balance, some good some bad. Sorry for rambling, just wanted to get my two cents in.

Major General Don Golen
2nd Brig/3rd Div/ I Corps/
Army of the Potomac, USA!
"The Bucktails"

<i>-"Another point in favor of the Nappy games is of course the target density modifier which makes sure you take more casualties when you mass up for an attack. Not to forget the pass-through rules whereby all units in a hex can be affected by artillery fire at once."</i>

I really don't see why the ACW games don't have this density modifier and the pass through rules. I'd also like the option of detachable Nappy style skirmishers and cavalry breakdown into squadrons in this engine. In fact, I'm almost tempted to go to the effort of converting ACW scenarios over to the Nappy engine so that the defender actually stands a fair chance of winning. The more I play the HPS ACW & Nappy games the more I prefer the Nappy engine.

Heck, why not just carry over dismounted cavalry, abatis, trenches and gunboats over into the Nappy engine and then scrap the ACW engine altogether!


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

I do not like multi-phase only because of when you can change formation. Having to do it up front is a crock, with no logical explanation. Change that, then I could see multi-phase having the advantage, until then single phase turns with historical play is the way to go.

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

-"Can the assault on Marye's Heights battle scene from God's and Generals be reproduced in the HPS system?"

Probably - provided you use the EAW ground scale and break battalions down into companies ... and don't forget to use the alternate pdt (and perhaps enhance the artillery canister factors a bit more too).

With the EAW system, attacking units will have further to advance while under fire, and with battalions broken down into companies there'll be a lot more units capable of ADF.


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

For the Nappy series, HPS multiphase really needs to have the ability to form square, change formation & cavalry counter-charge restored from the BG engine. Otherwise, the BG engine is still superior in multiphase mode, despite the various other HPS improvements .


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

Gentlemen,

"I can't seem to find parameter data for the Whitworth, either in the Gettysburg game I am playing or in the Peninsula, which I stopped playing. Does anyone know if it is listed anywhere?"

I, too, was looking for the parameter data for the Whitworth quite a while back. I even thought it might be called by a different name (caliber, etc.) in the parameter table, but I didn't find any weapon listed with its range (or close to it). Can anyone answer General Mihalik's question?


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 really don't see why the ACW games don't have this density modifier and the pass through rules."</i>

I don't know what a pass through rule is, but Rich Walker just introduced a density rule to Shiloh. It isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction, IMHO.

<i>I do not like multi-phase only because of when you can change formation. Having to do it up front is a crock, with no logical explanation. Change that, then I could see multi-phase having the advantage, until then single phase turns with historical play is the way to go.</i>

The original justification for the formation change prohibition was that units could run down the road in column without fearing fire and then change into line at the end of the move. Personally, I agree with Al about the inability to change formation in mid-turn. It's an artificial limitation. But I would also like to see some form of op fire so that units can't run down the road with impunity. I think something could be worked out where units that fired op fire would fire at half rate in the defensive fire phase, while units that didn't fire during op fire would fire at the full rate. You can always set the range you want your units to fire if you want full defensive fire; but infantry ought to be able to change formation at will. Maybe the best of both worlds.



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA