American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Now I've probably seen the words "DISRUPTED" on the ACW units and the words "DISORDERED" on the Napoleonic units thousands of times, but it only recently hit me that there were two different terms being used. My question is whether there is any more to it then simply different terms? I know that the causes and recovery from the two states are not identical in the two game engines, but they are very similar and I assumed it was the game engine that was the source of the difference, not that the state of the troops was different. So does it make any difference or can I just continue "seeing" the same term in both systems?



Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"

Officially in ACW games its DISRUPTION and in Napy games its DISORDER. I am bad about mixing the terms since I still think in terms of the old board games, you just put a "D" chit on them.[:D] However the two engines treat the states quite differently. In ACW a Disrupted unit can't melee. In the Napy games the Disordered unit can melee but at half strength.

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

The other big differene is that a disordered unit cannot change formation, but a disrupted unit can.

I'm not entirely sure of the rationale

Brig. General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

I wonder if JT were to put the two conditions into the same engine what it would be like.

Perhaps we would have ...

Rout
Disrupt
Disorder
Normal

Another step to recovery for units that went bad maybe?

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

Now I've always assunmed that Tiller has a plan to keep evoling his game engine and the suggestion of Al Amos is intriguing. When my miniature playing assoicates ask me what the games are like, I tell them it like playing the Johnny Reb rules on Geo Hex.

Now it turns out that Johnny Reb does have 4 unit states: normal, disordered, shaken, routed.

A unit that is disordered has fewer movemtn points, takes longer to change formation, is more vulnerable to fire and melee.

A unit that is shaken will fire less effectively, is less likely to pass a morale check, which in the game among other thing means it is likely to retreat if charged, and run if sufficently fired upon.

Johnny Reb (developed by a fellow called John Hill) is a pretty detailed rule set and requires constant play to remember all the nuances, but it has been around in variuos versions for many years (crrently on versuion 3) and among the miniature gamers I think is considered a pretty good simulation of civil war combat combat.

So who knows, some day there might be a strategy guide for how to handle disordered, disrupted units.

Thanks for the feedback on the topic.


Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"

It would be far better if there were several levels of disruption - perhaps as many as 10, with the effects on movement and combat more gradual (and thus less severe) than the current disrupt/disorder systems. At low levels, units would still be able to melee and their fighting ability would be only reduced slightly - perhaps -10% for level 1, -20% for level 2, etc. Perhaps from level 5 upwards they'd be unable to melee or change formation? <b>I don't think that there should be any movement penalty, even at high levels of disruption, since this prevents troops from retreating as well as conducting offensive action, which seems illogical.</b>

Also, players should be able to use up part of their movement allowance "dressing the line" to reduce disruption.

Al, your suggestion of combining the two systems would still be over-simplistic and wouldn't work very well, since disordered units can't change formation but disrupted ones can. So both systems have negative features that aren't present in the other system.


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

It would be far better if there were several levels of disruption - perhaps as many as 10, with the effects on movement and combat more gradual (and thus less severe) than the current disrupt/disorder systems. At low levels, units would still be able to melee and their fighting ability would be only reduced slightly - perhaps -10% for level 1, -20% for level 2, etc. Perhaps from level 5 upwards they'd be unable to melee or change formation? <b>I don't think that there should be any movement penalty, even at high levels of disruption, since this prevents troops from retreating as well as conducting offensive action, which seems illogical.</b>

Also, players should be able to use up part of their movement allowance "dressing the line" to reduce disruption.

Al, your suggestion of combining the two systems would still be over-simplistic and wouldn't work very well, since disordered units can't change formation but disrupted ones can. So both systems have negative features that aren't present in the other system.


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

One thing I would propose:

The system can already track which direction units are moving in relation to the enemy (see the fact that routed units cannot move closer to the enemy). While this system has its flaws (which I have ranted about recently! [}:)] ), it could also perhaps be incorporated into offensive movement for non-routed units.

I would propose that disordered units could have full movement points, but any movement <b>TOWARDS</b> the enemy will incur an extra point per hex movement penalty (just like moving into skirmishers). This would still allow for retreats, which should not be severely penalized - since scared men are more likely to run faster! – and offensive actions would only be slightly hampered, which would be realistic.

At the same time, routed units would have full movement, but not be allowed to move towards the enemy or fire, and also incur an extra point-per-hex movement penalty in any direction. Why should a broken and routed unit move at half speed? (If anything, they should get a movement bonus! [;)])

So, here’s how it works:

1) All units would maintain full movement points at all times.

2) Disrupted units would incur a 1 point extra penalty for each movement towards the enemy, as well as all existing fire penalties and no melee ability while disrupted.

3) Routed units would continue to be not allowed to move towards the enemy, but would have full movement away from the enemy, which is much more realistic. A variation could be that routed units have full movement but incur a 1 point penalty for each move. This might work even better. Full movement might not be enough penalty to the routed side, but I think the current system gives too much of an advantage to the non-routed attackers in that they suddenly are able to move twice as fast as the men they are attacking. If you want a reason for the high “casualtyâ€

Commander Lynn makes some interesting observations, which I will comment on.

With regard to routed unit movement. Don't routed units that fail there rally check make another rout move (away from the enemy), so effectively they do get a full move each turn.

Not exactly what was proposed, but in another post, it was suggested that units which are engaging each other do so in skirmish order which does add a a movement point, which would effectively slow the <i>relative movement </i>of disrupted units even more if they keep their skirmish order (I can't remember if units in skirmish order which disrupt keep their skirmish order?)

As to why casualties are higher in these games, I offer another view, not completely thought out. It has to do with time. We do a lot more in a given time period then the troops did in actual combat. I think it can easily be twice as much and even 3x. Not too surprising,since we do have 150+ years of experience and our CinCs have that balloon command center over the battlefield. So this raises a question, could I modify something in the game to change the turn times? If so has anyone tried it? Note: I think such a change might make the game results more historical, it could in fact be a less interesting game, since there would be less time to set things up and less back and forth action.



Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"

Lynn's proposal would be an interesting fix. A lesser (as in easier probably to implement) would be not allowing dirsupted units to enter enemy ZOC's.

I think the main cause of our game's high casualty rates is the ability to coordinate offensives over the entire map. Some type of Action System to limit the number of troops carrying out offensives and tieing them more tightly to the command tree would fix this better. But again this is a major game engine change although we probably could come up with a limited system using "informal" rules.

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

I'll try not to use the forbidden "h" word this time.

Disrupted units cannot deploy skirmishers but obviously will be subject to skirmisher movement effects from other units which have skirmishers.

If a unit Disrupts its skirmishers are automatically recalled.

In HPS games skirmishers are also recalled if the unit melees so in fact a unit with skirmishers melees at full strength. (I seem to recall that in BGS they melee'd at full strength less 100?)

Skirmishers cannot be deployed if the unit is in a ZOC. ie if the unit is in contact with the enemy. Therefore if a unit undisrupts whilst adjacent in combat it cannot deploy.

I thought that by trying to get players to automatcally deploy skirmishers everytime they wanted to move (forward) in Line formation, or even Melee in Line, that this would slow down the tempo of battle and give the sort of pauses that occured in the real battles.

A few solo tests suggest that this idea is impractical plus difficult to maintain during a game. Also as Bob Breen points out the US player may be disadvantaged because he has troops which are generally of lower morale class (and will not undisrupt so easily) plus the Rebs tend to have smaller units (< 100 men) which cannot deploy skirmishers and can therefore move faster. (although that may help them run away and survive!)

So I'll drop this madcap idea and never mention it or the "h" word again. <g>

Sorry for side tracking the discussion on Disrupt/Disorder.

Col Coyle AOG



Georgia the Brave