American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I think Gen. Mihalik makes an important point about victory hexes representing strategic value. Controlling Gettysburg was important, because the side that did so would have considerably more maneuver options than the other. That meant holding Cemetary Hill, which controls the town.

That said, some victory hexes seem less strategic and more narrowly tactical in value, which IMO detrimentally restricts the play. I find this to be more true in the smaller-mapped BG games, and have noted a decided improvement in this regard in the large-map HPS scenarios.

I hope the trend continues to focus on the broader strategic nature of objectives. If you eliminate objectives altogether, you turn the battlefield into a not completely blank slate, but something that lacks strategic context. (Tactics II, anyone?)

Lt. Gen. Matt Perrenod
<i>The Blue Ghost</i>
VIII Corps, Army of the Shenandoah

engine wise Objective hexes assist the AI.

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

I didn't want to make it TOOOO easy!


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Now you know that's against the rules. <g> But I can say that the main battleground will take place east of the Mississippi and south of Gettysburg!

In fact I have two titles in progress. I hope (I must be careful here) to make a release this summer.



Rich


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

Rich left out this statement:

"North of Brazil!"

The game takes place DURING the war and not after it!

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

Rich,
I am gonna spill the beans......I happen to have reliable information that says the next campaign from Rich is the "Fort Anderson (1865) Campaign, while the 2nd is the highly balanced and entertaining "Shermans March to the Sea".....The only problems he is having is the fact that there was basically not much fighting in either of these campaigns....They are great for using the "expected outcomes" option though.....Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp

Your "reliable" source of information must be the same as what Bush used for Iraq! Mind you, I'll enjoy Sadam's (note the one "d") and future execution. Oops, did I make a political remark. Sorry!

Rich


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jefferson H. Davis</i>
<br />Rich,
I am gonna spill the beans......I happen to have reliable information that says the next campaign from Rich is the "Fort Anderson (1865) Campaign, while the 2nd is the highly balanced and entertaining "Shermans March to the Sea".....The only problems he is having is the fact that there was basically not much fighting in either of these campaigns....They are great for using the "expected outcomes" option though.....Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp

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

I have absolutely no idea what the upcoming HPS ACW titles are. But the one it should be is the Shenandoah Valley Campaigns of '62 and '64. I think the mix of battle sizes and the mix of who is on the offense would make it most interesting. Probably some possibilties for a number of what-if scenarios as well. I know a bit more of the details of the '64 Campaign and I also think a campaign game for that could have a number of twists and the battles would not have to be scenarios with a huge number of turns, which while interesting to some, are simply too long for me to enjoy in a campaign format at 1-2 turns per week.

Also, I think the discussion of the victory hex topic in this thread has been one of the more informative threads in terms of what needs to be considered and what the pros and cons are of various scenario design choices.


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

I once emailed a question to John Tiller about this very subject. I had just finished a full three-day Gettysburg and found myself at the end of the three days with a major victory and a completely exhausted Confederate army. I had won the victory on paper, but in reality my entire army would have been vulnerable to a fresh company of girl scouts. Despite the victory, Lee would have had to withdraw.

It didn't seem reasonable to grant someone a major victory, if they were unable to continue the fight afterwards. He stated that battles in the real civil war rarely continued once either side had experienced a 25% loss in casualties.

He suggested that one way to avoid this sort of outcome was to have both players agree to a limit of total casualties, and then call the game once that level had been reached.

It seemed to me that this would tend to make both players more cautious about their use of troops on the field, because once they lost 25% of their command, they would be forced to withdraw from the field.

In this respect, FtW seems more realistic in that generals are not obligated to defend particular hexes, but to defeat the army before them.

Carry on Gentlemen,


Formerly
Col. Charles S. Hayes
Copperheads Brigade
2nd Division
1st Corps
AoA

Hi, Col Hayes,

Congratulations on your victory at Gettysburg. My experience would lead me to believe they are rare for the South. I suspect your opponent was in as bad shape after the battle as you were, and that was often the case. Murfreesboro comes to mind. I have no experience with FtW, but it sounds like a lot of fun. But it seems to me that without victory hexes, Lee could fortify the Blue Ridge Mountains and dare the Yanks to come after him. Of course, they would do no such thing; they would simply march down and take Richmond or starve him out, which shouldn't take long. I say at least have the exit VP hexes for important roads. But I wish they would fix it so that units exiting could come back as reinforcements when your crafty foe attacks the rear guard. Losing the points gained by exiting, of course. Another thing is that once a unit exits, any enemy reinforcements on that hex are cancelled. I know objective hexes can be annoying, but I think they are a necessary evil to give some sort of purpose to a battle. My two cents. Again.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA