American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Well said Sir. You've always provided one of the best examples of role playing and added much to the life of the AoC - and not in a cheesy way either. When the Grizzly steps throught the virtual door the place goes silent and people stand out of the way to let you pass. I dread to think what the rebs make of you[:D] And the rot gutt, now that puts hairs on your chest[:D]

[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/XXAoC.htm"]Army of the Cumberland[/url]

No need to feel sad General Walter. There are still a lot of us who enjoy the role-playing. I enjoy it myself but always try to keep it perspective. I have observed times when it can get a bit out of hand. It is fun to add a "sense of period" to our wargaming as long as we stay cognizant of the fact that this is a hobby and we all have other "real lives". At least I hope we do!! eh eh

I think my biggest "problem" is that I found all of the "sister" clubs and like them all as well. Now I don't have enough time keep up my games and goof around on all the forums and boards like I used to. Having fun can be such hard work.[:(][V]

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
II/VI/AoS
"Forward Bucktails"

As the club's resident 'civilian' observer, I'd like to say that if this club were a 'ladder' system, where individuals simply fought for points, I'd spend very little time here.

I come here specifically to read the 'after action' reports; to hear the tales of gallant deeds, devastating defeats and heroic last stands recounted by the competitors here. Role playing is what gives this site its unique flavor, and I would hate to see that aspect of it lost to become nothing more than a numbers game.

You fight individually, but you contribute as a team, building an overall sense of comraderie between yourselves and your opponents, which is why I believe this site has been in existance as long as it has.

'Rank' within the club is a measure of experience and is justifiably awarded to those who are willing to accept the responsibility of keeping the club members involved and active. Therefore, it seems only natural to me that we defer to those who make the extra effort to keep this club viable.

If this aspect has fallen away in other clubs, then it seems to me that it is their loss, not ours.

Carry On Gentlemen,


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

I have noticed a drop-off of games, challenges, etc since the HPS titles came on board. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT against the HPS games or engines (I own two ACW HPS games), but the vast majority of HPS "scenarios" are 90+ turns long. You might as well sign up to play a campaign, consisting of a number of 90+ scenarios which will take a month of Sundays to complete, rather than a single scenario. Personally, I don't have the time to challenge/accept many 90+ turn scenarios, and if I don't feel like playing one, what alternative does HPS offer? The old TS games, no matter which title, offered up a variety of shorter scenarios ( 6-24 turns) of which you could play several at once without a huge time commitment, and, I know from my Divisional command experience, a lot of guys liked that option.

Since the introduction of the HPS titles, the mind-set of the club seems to have taken on an air whereby anyone who still wants to play the TS games is an idiot. Maybe I am one, but I like the old TS games, especially because of the many short "what-if" scenarios or the short "battle-within-a-battle" scenarios. I also like the HPS games that I have, but my ability (and desire) to take on several games at a time is low, as many of the scenarios require too many turns of marching around trying to find the enemy, then a few turns of actual combat between fractions of the troops on the map...the engine is good, the available scenarios are not to my liking. A drop in gaming options means a drop in gaming participation (IMHO). Bring back shorter scenario battles, I foresee more member participation.

As far as the role playing, I love it! That is why I joined here instead of staying with the ladder club I found first. I don't get as involved in the monkey-business as much as I used to, I don't know why and that could change, but the "Armies" and the rank structure is what makes this club fun. It IS all make-believe, but us adults are allowed some imaginary time, aren't we??? [:)]

For whatever it's worth...

Major General Jeff Bangma
Commanding, I Corps,
Army of the Potomac
USA

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

Jeff,

There's a few shorter scenarios that I have created for Camp. Gettysburg & Corinth on this site:

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... o=cat&id=7

But, the ACW did have a lot of maneuver in it, so marching around on a big map gives you a pretty good feel for what the CO's went through. I'm one of those odd balls that enjoy doing that. [:D]

I'd encourage you to jump in and play with the scenario editor. It's really not that difficult to create scenarios, and I'm sure other's would enjoy checking out what you put together...and you can post them on the above linked site as well...let me know if you have any questions...would be glad to assist in any way I can.

Regards,
Rich

LGen. Hamilton
II Corps
ANV, CSA
Signal Corps - Editor in Chief

Rich

I really do appreciate all that you and the other scenario/game designers do for the rest of us computer-illiterate guys! My knowledge of history and computers precludes me from designing anything! [:)]
I guess I should look for some member-designed scenarios that may be more to my liking. But, I do know from private emails that I am not alone in my thoughts as expressed in my previous post.
Anyways, maybe I can find what I am looking for if I dig a bit in the club links. But I encourage all members to not give up on the role-playing philosophy of our club. It is the essence of the ACWGC and if anyone finds it obstructive or insulting, you are in the wrong club.

I wish one and all a Happy New Year! My best wishes to one and all...

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

I support Jeff's observation about the size of the HPS games. I'm also in the camp of preferring smaller scenarios. I probably average 2 active games at a time and 2-3 turns per week. I recently concluded a Corinth Campaign that lasted around 18 months -- I would not do it a again -- it's just too long, and I stopped a Gettysburg Campaign because the turns were taking too much time.

A suggestion. I would think it would be relatively easy to go see what were the most popular Talonsoft games and create equivalent HPS versions for those that do not exist in the HPS system.

Dave Litton's blind scenario process for Talonsoft is another process from the "good olde days", that could be emulated with a batch of HPS scenarios. Dare I say, if some records were keep of the results of such blind scenaios encounters you could also create a "top gun" list of play among those titles -- participation could be voluntary.



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

Campaign Shiloh has a lot of scenarios of various lengths, a couple of which I have played. Many are what-if, and some pretty neat optional rules such as a density modifier have recently been added. I still think the artillery effectiveness is overrated, but I guess you can always modify the parameter data if you don't agree with it.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Well, Gentlemen ... I am genuinly surprised by the intensive debate my little rambling post has triggered. One thing is sure, the art of discussion is definitely not in decay in the club!

Some brief remarks from my side on a few points:

1. In lamenting the decline of the "roleplaying clubs", I didn't mean to say that roleplaying is (or was) the most important characteristics of this club. I just needed a convenient label to distinguish it from a mere ladder club or gaming zone. I tried to define what I mean by that in the opening paragraph of my initial post.

2. I was amazed to see so many grizzled old generals &c. return to the tavern to tell their third-person tales. [;)] I have certainly re-discovered the concept of actual roleplay myself in the process and have learned how much it contributes to creating an atmosphere beyond the sober everyday issues of games and boards. However, when I was lamenting the demise of the roleplaying clubs, this actual, time-intensive roleplay of elaborate tales woven around comparatively simple messages was not really what I was thinking of in the first place. Rather, it was the much more simple concept of taking the ranks and other attributes provided by the club seriously and using them in everyday communication, in preference over a internet community board style based on first names or even board user names which emphasizes the sober, technical side of an internet community rather than the historical, roleplaying aspects. Hence I don't think splitting the community in a minority of "roleplayers" and a majority of "gamers-only" is what we want. I believe a minimum of roleplay that doesn't make any additional time demands and hence can be sustained by every member, if he so chooses, is what will keep the concept of these clubs alive.

3. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong. The club has not changed (much), the world around us has. The people who want to support a club of this sort which demands additional time investment beyond just playing games (and discussing them) have become relatively fewer, those who just seek gaming opponents and some point/rank-based incentive for keeping playing have become relatively more, as internet communities have become more common and more numerous. I bet that in 1997, most members of this club were just that and maybe of the NWC as well. Today I know literally scores of people who are in practically all the wargame.ch clubs, and often also the Blitz etc. That must invariably mean that a single club cannot claim the same importance and the same amount of time.

4. Since I don't think we are doing anything wrong, I definitely don't believe that we should try to become something different. The club works well as it does. We just should take care not to be made into something different against our will. The one thing that we should take care not to let happen is that the ACWGC becomes another Blitz or Strategy Zone - a board plus ladder. Once the purpose of the club could be defined primarily by General Breen's statement "I am not a fan of 'role playing'. I enjoy competitive games", it would become just that. Now I don't for a moment believe that this is the whole extent of what the club means to General Breen; for that he is doing a way too excellent job as a corps commander in the AoS, rallying his officers as best he can, and what he does there is roleplay pure and simple! But let me take the statement at face value for a moment, because I believe it describes the motivation of a majority of the wargamers out there.
The truth then is that for these pure gamers this club can be the right environment only if it changes its nature fundamentally. For everyone who thinks that way, the Blitz and similar ladder clubs are always a much better choice because they offer gaming and game discussions without any additional demand on the members' time. Just in having command positions, musters and all that we are already requiring an involvement that, for a pure gamer, is rather tiresome and unnecessary. Thus, without ceasing to be what we are, who we are, we cannot compete with the ladder clubs anyway on this field. So why even try? I believe we ought to be willing to remain different, and emphasize that we are.

5. So I think my bottom line is this. The club doesn't need changing. It's great as it is. But it should make a conscious effort to remain what it is. Everything that brings us closer to the ladder clubs--for instance abandoning the battle/maneuver distinction, for instance making roleplay (in the above-defined minimum sense) even less important--makes us a little more unnecessary in the face of all the huge ladder clubs out there. If we accept that we are just a place to meet opponents and discuss the games, we accept our own redundancy. We are that, too--but more than that. And the other part is what makes us different, and what makes us worthwhile even in 2006. Let us emphasize it, let us advertise it, let us fight for it. Let us dare to be different. If that means 50 new members less, I think we shouldn't care. We'll never beat the Blitz anyway.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />Well, Gentlemen ... I am genuinly surprised by the intensive debate my little rambling post has triggered. One thing is sure, the art of discussion is definitely not in decay in the club!

Some brief remarks from my side on a few points:

1. In lamenting the decline of the "roleplaying clubs", I didn't mean to say that roleplaying is (or was) the most important characteristics of this club. I just needed a convenient label to distinguish it from a mere ladder club or gaming zone. I tried to define what I mean by that in the opening paragraph of my initial post.

2. I was amazed to see so many grizzled old generals &c. return to the tavern to tell their third-person tales. [;)] I have certainly re-discovered the concept of actual roleplay myself in the process and have learned how much it contributes to creating an atmosphere beyond the sober everyday issues of games and boards. However, when I was lamenting the demise of the roleplaying clubs, this actual, time-intensive roleplay of elaborate tales woven around comparatively simple messages was not really what I was thinking of in the first place. Rather, it was the much more simple concept of taking the ranks and other attributes provided by the club seriously and using them in everyday communication, in preference over a internet community board style based on first names or even board user names which emphasizes the sober, technical side of an internet community rather than the historical, roleplaying aspects. Hence I don't think splitting the community in a minority of "roleplayers" and a majority of "gamers-only" is what we want. I believe a minimum of roleplay that doesn't make any additional time demands and hence can be sustained by every member, if he so chooses, is what will keep the concept of these clubs alive.

3. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong. The club has not changed (much), the world around us has. The people who want to support a club of this sort which demands additional time investment beyond just playing games (and discussing them) have become relatively fewer, those who just seek gaming opponents and some point/rank-based incentive for keeping playing have become relatively more, as internet communities have become more common and more numerous. I bet that in 1997, most members of this club were just that and maybe of the NWC as well. Today I know literally scores of people who are in practically all the wargame.ch clubs, and often also the Blitz etc. That must invariably mean that a single club cannot claim the same importance and the same amount of time.

4. Since I don't think we are doing anything wrong, I definitely don't believe that we should try to become something different. The club works well as it does. We just should take care not to be made into something different against our will. The one thing that we should take care not to let happen is that the ACWGC becomes another Blitz or Strategy Zone - a board plus ladder. Once the purpose of the club could be defined primarily by General Breen's statement "I am not a fan of 'role playing'. I enjoy competitive games", it would become just that. Now I don't for a moment believe that this is the whole extent of what the club means to General Breen; for that he is doing a way too excellent job as a corps commander in the AoS, rallying his officers as best he can, and what he does there is roleplay pure and simple! But let me take the statement at face value for a moment, because I believe it describes the motivation of a majority of the wargamers out there.
The truth then is that for these pure gamers this club can be the right environment only if it changes its nature fundamentally. For everyone who thinks that way, the Blitz and similar ladder clubs are always a much better choice because they offer gaming and game discussions without any additional demand on the members' time. Just in having command positions, musters and all that we are already requiring an involvement that, for a pure gamer, is rather tiresome and unnecessary. Thus, without ceasing to be what we are, who we are, we cannot compete with the ladder clubs anyway on this field. So why even try? I believe we ought to be willing to remain different, and emphasize that we are.

5. So I think my bottom line is this. The club doesn't need changing. It's great as it is. But it should make a conscious effort to remain what it is. Everything that brings us closer to the ladder clubs--for instance abandoning the battle/maneuver distinction, for instance making roleplay (in the above-defined minimum sense) even less important--makes us a little more unnecessary in the face of all the huge ladder clubs out there. If we accept that we are just a place to meet opponents and discuss the games, we accept our own redundancy. We are that, too--but more than that. And the other part is what makes us different, and what makes us worthwhile even in 2006. Let us emphasize it, let us advertise it, let us fight for it. Let us dare to be different. If that means 50 new members less, I think we shouldn't care. We'll never beat the Blitz anyway.

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



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


Hmnmm, I have noticed other civil wargaming clubs on the net but in my opinion none compare to this club. If you let it, this club will help you embrace not just the games but the era of the civil war. I have found myself immersing myself in the history far more , thanks to this club. That is, as they say, priceless and I think, unique. But I do think that to bury your head in the sand and say that adjustments don't need to be made is wrong. The fact is, that the number of officers willing to invest even the minimum amount of time it takes to run a division is dwindling. Not adjusting for that could and I think already is hurting the club at a fundamental level. The increase in command responsible positions came when there were more officers demanding those positions. Now there are more officers voting with there actions (or lack thereof) to decrease the number of those positions. I can only speak for the Union side, as I am not familiar with the Rebel condition but it seems all too obvious to me that the Union CoA, the cabinet and the army CoAs need to seriously consider ways to decrease the number of command positions including decreasing the number of armies. Creating all kinds of inane sommittees and subcommittees is dodging the real issue. Tough decisions await you gentlemen, but ultimately, I think those decision can and should be made.

Major General Don Golen
1st Div/ V Corps/
Army of the Potomac, USA!
"The Bucktails"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />Well, Gentlemen ... I am genuinly surprised by the intensive debate my little rambling post has triggered. One thing is sure, the art of discussion is definitely not in decay in the club!

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


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

General Walter,

I, for one, have always tried to sign my name using my rank. (I've sometimes gotten that rank wrong when I've recently been promoted, after so long at at given level [:)] !) Many of my opponents choose to go by their first names when we exchange files, and that's okay by me. I just hope they don't think I'm being uppity by my formality. (Shucks, I cain't even SPELL 'uppity'!)

I was a bit taken aback by the informality within the Cabinet when I joined that austere group early last year. But then I realized the Cabinet represents the civilian aspect of the war, the political 'old boys club' of the respective capitals, and I got used to signing notes to other Cabinet members differently than I do when I'm communicating with the rest of the club. Maybe that's just being two-faced. I prefer to think of it as being flexible [:D]!

However, I do appreciate the increased role-playing your little post has instigated.


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