American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Since playing Turn Based (Single Phase) seems to keep coming up in spite of it being a piece of s***[:D], I thought I would start a thread on how to fix it so it is at least tollerable.

First, its good points: It allows multiplayer games without a lot of extra emails, it introduces opportunity fire which people seem to feel there is a need for (this inovation was originally added to board games to prevent panzer-bush), and it allows change of formation right in front of a line of enemy after moving.

It's bad points: The AI for opportunity fire is stupid, really stupid, really really stupid, it allows panzerblits tactics, using the opportunity fire wastes ammo (insuficient control over), defender fire power is significantly reduced by halving and stupid AI, attacker can advance units to recon then follow up with coordinate movements (to much control for a 20 minute period), and if you haven't noticed the trend everything it adds except opportunity fire which is broke favors the attacker over the defender.

Now for my list of fixes:

1. Add the equivalent of NWC's "Embedded Melee Phase". This could be done by locking out all non-melee movement and fire once the first melee takes place or by have a two phase system which separates the move/fire/change formation functions from the melee phase.

2. Give the defender finer control over the AI Auto Defense fire. Let him choose the number of hexes at which its triggered for infantry fire.

3. Let the opportunity fire at ranges over one or two hexes be a freebie (no ammo useage).

4. Let defensive fire at one hex be full strength and use old Auto Defense Fire rules to activate (if at end of phase a defender hasn't fired then it fires and there are adjacent units it fires at one of them full strength.

5. Elliminate melee by column troops. Need to make sure there is an alternate way to take bridges and town hexes. Maybe move into in column and allow change of formation within ZOC.

6. I like the Shiloh Fire before Melee rule. This would give the defender some extra defense against melee. But this is in someways factored into the melee calcualation.

Of course most of these favor the defender and taken all together would probably require adjustments for both sides to balance.

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

Sounds good, especially a two phase system with a separate melee phase. Also, the point that all defenders should get a chance to fire at least once. Maybe <i>all</i> defensive fire should be at full strength, but don't have freebie long range opportunity fire - I think the range at which a unit fires should depend on unit quality and not be under player control. It makes sense for green troops to waste ammo at long range.


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

Sir,

Opportunity fire: Should be at half strength, but any one who did not fire in Opportunity fire should be allowed to fire all or the remaining strenght at the nearest target. So every one who can fire gets to fire at some point. Maybe even have quality of unit effect the distance they fire at.

Action point System: Allow each action: fire, move, change formation, and melee, to limit all that a player can do. This should reduce the panzer tactics except where it really is warrented. You stick ten men infront of a gun to ZOC protect it they should be brushed asside and the guns meleed by a vastly superior force.

BG Joe Mishurda

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

Strange that an action point system would <i>reduce</i> panzer tactics, yet this is what the WW2 engine has and the pre-1900 engine doesn't have.

I'd really like to see an action point system for the ACW, EAW & Nappy series. It makes a lot of sense to link movement, firing & melee into a single system. The current system of allowing a unit to use its full movement allowance, then fire and then melee too is really rather ridiculous. With an action point system, the unit would have used up all its entire allowance with the "full movement" and wouldn't be able to fire as well, let alone melee.


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

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'm getting quite tired of people bashing the turn-based system. If you don't like it, that's fine. but calling it a piece of s*** is counter-productive and insulting.

If you don't like it (and you obviously don't) then play the phase-based system (which you obviously already do). Continuosly spouting VERY negative opinions about a system you don't use benefits nobody. And you might wind up ruining a system that many of us really enjoy. I find the phase-based system too artificial for my taste, but you don't hear me bitching about it every chance I get, I don't use it and don't talk much about it.

The inherent "problem" in the game, whichever system is used is that there is too much control over the forces, every unit can be moved to where you want it, when you want it. This NEVER happened in real life, and neither system can recreate an attack that was disjointed and poorly led.

So go ahead and play your game, and stop trying to "fix" mine. I personnally like the opportunity fire and the fact that initiative and controlling your forces properly leads to well coordinated attacks. If I can punch a hole in my opponent's line (which is what Civil War commanders wanted to do), I have to be aware that he can do the same thing on his turn and plan accordingly. It's fun and exciting.

We are several generations away from having the computing power necessary to even represent what happened on the civil war battlefield. Trying to force this engine to be realistic is impossible.



Maj. Gen. Beno
Pickett's Division, I Corps, ANV

General Whitehead,

From what I've heard, the worst problem with the Turn-Based/Single Phase option is the ability for the attacker to open a hole in the defender's line then exploit it during the same turn with other units moving up, and that this process can be repeated ad infinitum. I can see where this could happen and it would be very frustrating if it happened to me.

I think your suggestion of a compromise would be a good idea: Movement & Offensive Fire (with Defensive Opportunity Fire triggered by action on the part of the attacker) as the first phase, followed by a Defensive Fire phase in which all defenders could fire (even against units which did nothing this turn), then a Melee phase. (At least I think that's what you're recommending.)

By the way, you do know you can set the distances for Auto Fire already, right? It isn't quite as exact as your suggestion #2, but it's pretty close.


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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you don't like it (and you obviously don't) then play the phase-based system Maj. Gen. Beno <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What he said. (Quite eloquently for a REB![:D])



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

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

I'm very glad this "single turn combat" thing is being discussed. That's the way things get better - discussion. It's easy to say "stop all the criticism", but what's wrong with constructive criticism? I will say it again, these HPS Civil War Games are exactly my "cup of tea". Not one of these garbagy "first person shooter" games, and a pretty darn good depiction of Civil War Combat on the regimental - brigade level.

Perfect - No! But certainly the series is evolving and discussion is exactly what we need, so please boys keep it up!

Lt. Col. G. Collins
III/I/II Brigade
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 Ernie Sands</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you don't like it (and you obviously don't) then play the phase-based system Maj. Gen. Beno <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What he said. (Quite eloquently for a REB![:D])

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO
ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As to my playing the system, I don't when I have the choice.[:)] Unfortunately I don't always have the choice since it does make multiplay possible. I don't mind playing the system since I have never lost using it but I think it represent Civil War tactics about as much as Chess does[:D]. I have played games using it and have wiped out some 20,000 men at the lost of 2,000 of my own using it. Was it fun, well for me[:D], I doubt my opponent thought so or is likely to play me again[:(]. Was it Civil War[?], come on[xx(]. These are twenty minute turns with orders carried out by shouting loud. You shouldn't be able to blow holes and push units through them.

In my opinion the fix is easy, as the NWC came up with, you put in an embedded melee phase. It fixes the worst of the problems. This could be done by house rules but I prefer not to try to play games with a boat load of informal rules trying to fix the game. Their house rules for Battleground is now eighteen long and they haven't settled on a standard for HPS Turn system but their tournament rules include about a dozen implementing the "Embedded Melee" and some other fixes.

The down side of the fix, "Embedded Melee" that is, is it makes multiplay a problem since the player can no longer complete their part of the turn and pass the file on. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to implement this fix except by NWC's informal means. But I think the system could be turned into a good/workable system with some optional additions like "Embedded Melee" or its equivalent and it could be turned into a superior system to the multi-phase with a few well thoughout additions to its rules.

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

Kennon and others,

The more I play the turn based (single phase) game against experienced opponents the less problems I have with it. I have played 3 battles of Peninsula with it and, in part because of terrain and in part becuase of regiment sizes, I have experienced almost zero ZOC kills and very little blitzkrieg.

I think that it needs a few tweeks to the opp. fire matrix- the suggestion that units that don't fire any opportunity fire will get one shot at full effect at the end of the current players movement phase and giving a defender in a melee a chance to fire would go a long ways to fixing it. Also, if defensive fire caused a more disruption that would be a big change in tactics. It would slow down attacks.

The yanks see this at Gettysburg and both armies see it in Peninsula already because of all of the low rated troops.

I think Kennon's suggestion #2 is already part of the engine: go to AI, adjust auto defensive fire on the menu bar. This saves a lot of ammo.

Gen Jim Pfluecke
II/III
AotM

Jim, you've made some really good points about defensive fire & disruption - these would help a great deal.

The only other thing I'd feel would be required is a gun capture/recapture feature - more so that the defender has a chance to recapture them than for the attacker to seize the guns and then turn them on their former owner (although that too should be possible, but of course they'd need to be recrewed by undisrupted troops and then turned around, which would take several turns). Of course this would also be a useful feature if playing in multiphase mode too.


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

I have a very simple proposal for the blitzkrieg problem that I think solves most situations without all the complications of the embedded melee house rule, in particular MP games.

The proposal is if you enter a hex with a unit that has meleed you stop further movemnent

Doesn't cover every possible situation and you can still get a breakthrough blitzkrieg type of move, but it is an easier house rule and it should be something that is possible to implement in the engine. And I don't think an occassional breakthrough is a problem, it's only a problem when it is too routine a tactic.

For the purist, you could add a caveat about Nap era skirmishers being allowed to move through if they meet whatever leash rule you are playing with.



Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS

[:(!][:(!]Why are we stuck with board game mechanics designed when we had to push cardboard counters around a map? The whole idea of phased turns is stupid in a computer age. Look, how many gamers remember the WWII games that came out in the early 1990's by Atomic Games? The were the V4Victory series and had turn based simultaneous movement. I plotted my whole turn and then sent it off. The other guy plotted his turn and executed the turn and saw the results and then plotted his next turn to send to me, etc., etc. The computer figured out where battles occurred (you stayed and I advanced). One of the players had a little better initative and leadership and could often, but not always, dictate somewhat where battles were fought. This was not in any way who could click their units faster. It worked great in PBEM and I remember games with 189 turns going to the last turn. We need to change the whole approach but keep the turn based PBEM. One thing I remember very well was that an unit that used road movement in a trun that ran into enemy units really got wacked. No more marching columns into attack columns in 30 seconds! Worked great. Anyone else remember those games?

I had forgotten the V4V series, checked my archives and sure enough I still have every one of them.[:)] They were great games and there is nothing like plot and pray to see how much nerve you have to try one of those great looking flanking maneuvers[^]. Unfortunately[:(], we are talking a whole new game engine for this and I haven't heard of anyone one working on one.[:(][:(][:(]

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

<b><font color="beige">One possible improvement to hamper blitzkrieg tactics and reign in the 80 foot General that sees all and moves all would be an attacker maneuver die roll each turn for each unit, with leader, distance to enemy units or within fire range and unit grade modifiers. Unit movement rates could vary between no movement at all up to full movement depending on battle field circumstances.</font id="beige"></b>

<font color="blue"><b>Brig.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">-- CALVERT LINE --</font id="yellow">

<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b>