American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Well, I guess it must be "just me", but I am getting so frustrated with the tactics depicted in the new HPS series that it makes me want to embrace "Battleground" flaws and all.

Why is the Damn offense more powerful than the defence? I see it all the time and it completely defies explanation. I thought at first that it had something to do with the "phased playing" or "single turn playing" that has been discussed before, but I see now that it isn't.

Time and time again I see enemy units approach and my guys fire and get maybe "2" men hit. The enemy approaches adjacent and sometimes my guys get one more fire, maybe hitting another "5 guys" or so. Enemy fires and hits maybe "26". Even worse, and I know it has been discussed before, an artillery unit will fire at an innocent "enemy" unit four hexes away and not fire at the adjacent unit that is attempting to kill it.

OK, now this "flaw", if you can call it that, exists for both sides. Yes. But this goes against everything I have ever read about the American Civil War. The defense was more powerful than the offense and that's that. There is no getting around it. You can explain it away by analyzing the CRT tables to death, but over all in HPS it favours the attacker. This flies completely in the face of actions such as Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg, the stonewall at Fredericksburg, Cold harbour, Franklin and I could go on and on.

It's fine to discuss all of the nuances and problems with "column attacks" and all that, but how about a fix for this gross flaw. There is something very wrong here. We should see the defender being able to throw back larger numbers of enemy troops before they even close to melee range. Melee wouldn't be the big "bug a boo" it is if the fire combat results gave us historical results.

Look at Pickett's charge as an example. 15,000 men crossing an open field. Now how many HPS counters is that? Say 60 counters conservatively? How many historically made it over the stone wall at the angle. At best one smashed up Brigade, if that. More like one regiment I would say.

How can you possible get that kind of result in the HPS series? Throw 60 counters at a position like that and I assure you one heck of a lot more than one counter is going to be able to penetrate the defence.

Is it just the PDT file? If it is, in the name of God let us fix it. Over in the Colonial Campaign Club they are talking about an alternate PDT file that comes with the game that apparently gives more realistic fire fight results. Some feel that this new alternate table should be the norm for that period.

Sorry for the venting gentlemen. I just love this series of Civil War Games but want to see them reflect tactics and battles that I have read about. Presently they do not.

This a topic in which individual opinions are unlikely to change and their can be an endless stream of comments. I will offer a couple of my own.

I disagree with the basic premise. I haven't played a lot of HPS ACW sceanrios and I do share some of the frustrations expressed, but I still think the defense has the advantage.

In general I think you need a 2:1 advantage to have a 50-50 chance of winning an assault. Against good players you need even more.

In some scenarios (as in history) terrain can be a big factor -- the Union defense at Corinth.

In close situations, unit qualtiy and command/control can make a significant difference in the "effective" strength of your units in close situations. Not just in terms of an officer modifier in melees, but the whole sequence of of things associated with routing/disrupting, recovering from these events, etc.

Optional rules you select also impact close situations. For example, if you do not use the optional fire and melee rules, you are leaving a lot to the roll of the dice. Which is okay if you want a less predictable game. But if you want to see more predictable results select the optional fire and melee choices. Other ruels have impacts as well.

As for the auto defensive fire issues -- if I was designing the game, I would probably want to do it differently, but I think the complaints are over done, IMHO. And regardless as stated, they are the same for both sides, which means as a "game" things are "fair". Note: this is not the case with command/control, which may be historical, but as a "competitive game" in not "fair" in a game theory sense.

As for the BG games, I don't play them but they are still loaded. I think they have some serious faults -- zoc kills and guaranteed melee results being two. Their graphics however are much better and I like a number of the scenarios as well and would like to see them converted for HPS play.


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

As an aside Gentlemen,

What I think Bill is trying to say is " Size isn't Everything!"

Something Ye really wanna Tell us Bill? [;)] [:D]

Pat.

Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Commanding
II Corps,
Army of Georgia.
"Spartan Southrons"
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

Hey Pat, are you going to send me a file any time? I haven't received one for quite a while if you did try to send one.

General Mark Nelms
Union Chief of the Army
Cabinet Member

Hi mark!

Start 2 weeks vacation tomoorrow . . . . I'll be catching up on me games over the next few days.

Talk to Ye then.

Pat.


Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Commanding
II Corps,
Army of Georgia.
"Spartan Southrons"
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

I fully agree with General Collins if he is playing the single phase, but not the multiphase. I think in the multiphase system, the balance is close to historical. My experience with multiphase is that defensive fire is against the closest target in a unit's line of sight. If it isn't, players always have the option not to play auto defensive fire. I like the concept of single phase, and really like the op fire and ability to change infantry formation throughout the move. I wish those features could somehow be incorporated into multiphase. But the whimsical nature of op fire in the single phase really handicaps the defense.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Judging from Gen. Collins description I am guessing you played Turn based (player's phase contains movement, fire and melee). This is badly flawed and heavily favors the attacker.

However, if you set all options on and play in Phased mode (same as Battleground) the HPS system probably shifts things toward the defender relative to the old Battleground game. This is mainly due to how casualties are calculated and a major change in how melees are resolved.

They did reduce artillery firepower and made some changes to VP awards for cavalry and artillery so they are expensive to lose. This is kind of gamey but it forces the player to use artillery and cavalry more like it was in the CW.

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

I think to make a blanket statement that the HPS game engine favors the use of offensive tactics is completely erroneous. I would certainly agree that the engine favors offensive fire from large units, but this does in anyway equate to favoring offensive tactics. A side deployed in a defensive postion and defending an area will still get to use offensive fire during it's turn. Likewise a side making an attack will still be limited to defensive fire when it is the other sides turn. I think the complaint here is that when big units are used in attack they often inflict large losses during their offensive fire phase while losing fewer men when being fired at by the opponents ADF all the while continuing to advance. The answer to that complaint is to play a phased game and as Gen Breen stated to choose the optional results fire table rule. This rule prevents the wild variations in casulaty results from fire by additional averaging. Personally I don't have a problem with the engine at all with or without the rule. The way to win while defending in HPS (as in real war) is to carefully pick the ground to defend,keep your troops supplied and in command and never under-estimate the enemie's ability to get around your flank. I have won (and lost) as both sides in numerous games on each of the HPS Civil War disks, (except Shiloh) and honestly do not believe the system favors the use of offensive tactics. I believe the BG system with it's unrealistic use of zoc's was much more unbalanced in favor of offensive tactics. Where else could 25 men prevent the retreat of 600 men and enable their elimination by zoc kill? I don't play BG anymore altough I agree they were prettier.

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
VIth Corp/AoS
"Where We Lead the Army Follows"

Just to clarify, the reason I didn't include HPS Shiloh in my remarks referring to offensive tactics and HPS ACW games is because I have not had the chance to play anything off it yet. I intend on addressing that very shortly.

[:D]

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
VIth Corp/AoS
"Where We Lead the Army Follows"

Well, as most of you will know by now, I am with the critics on that one. Yes, playing in phases takes care of most of the abuses and restores the defensive to its historical importance; but there is still the minor problem with the extreme results of melee tactics by massively superior numbers (hardly any fatigue or casualties by the attacker, while the defender is wiped out) that prevents rearguards, even in broken terrain, from fulfilling their historical role; and the major problem with still awfully weak artillery defensive fire (not to mention the automatic disruption of guns by units routing through). Once that gets fixed, the games may start resembling ACW combat.

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

Before I sound too negative, just to make plain that I thoroughly enjoy the games nevertheless. The huge maps and the campaign format are a major improvement over the BG games. It's just a pity that the shortcomings that have been mentioned prevent the games from being all that they could be.

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 zinkyusa</i>I would certainly agree that the engine favors offensive fire from large units, but this does in anyway equate to favoring offensive tactics...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ed

I am going to disagree with you there because of the sequence of fire (in multi-phase/single mailing play).

Yes the defenders will get an Offensive Fire Phase on the same table as the attacker, but only after the attacker has fired in both his OFP and DFP.

Realistically the advancing attacker should be taking losses while he closes and when he does fire he will be short however many casualties he took.

I believe historically those losses would have been fairly high relative to the defender for the simple reason of firing while moving in the relative open vs stationary behind available cover.

In this system the attackers casualties are comparatively light while he is able to inflict significant casulaties first, thereby depriving the defender of that number of fire factors from lost men, routed units, and the less efective fire of disrupted units when he does get his OFP. Thus the defenders OFP fire will not be as effective as it would have been had the defender gotten a full strength fire phase first.

All else being equal the one who has the first significant fire phase will eventually win a fire fight; in this system that is the attacker.

Yes terrain etc will help the defender, but realistically the defender should have the advantage of both terrain etc AND first effective fire.

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

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!

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

Neither that, nor Pickett's Charge. Nor, most importantly (because it show how far off the mark artillery effectivenes is in the games), Malvern Hill. (I leave out all the other examples where even individual batteries stopped cold a charge by as much as an infantry brigade.)

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 zinkyusa</i>
<br />Just to clarify, the reason I didn't include HPS Shiloh in my remarks referring to offensive tactics and HPS ACW games is because I have not had the chance to play anything off it yet. I intend on addressing that very shortly.

[:D]

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
VIth Corp/AoS
"Where We Lead the Army Follows"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ED,
I'll be yer Huckleberry

LTC D.H. Smith
2 BDE/3 Cavalry Divison/III Corps,AoA,CSA

http://users.adelphia.net/~sapper99/index.htm