American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Who would like to see it possible for leaders - and the troops under them (brigade, division, perhaps even corps) - to have a chance of becoming inactive (ie. temporarily fixed) on a turn by turn basis? We've already got fixed units and leaders can already fail their command test, so it's basically a matter of combining the two. I'm sure there's a similiar feature already in the WW2 engine.

Such a feature would mean that a player would no longer always be able to coordinate attacks with different formations - although presumably units within 5 hexes and LOS of the enemy wouldn't be affected. Since each leader would be more/less likely to become temporarily inactive depending on his ratings and the proximity of superior officers (and whether his superiors had gone inactive for that turn), this would be an excellent method of representing poor leadership and play-balancing battles between large, ineffectual armies and smaller but better organized ones.

In addition to the leadership ratings, perhaps there could be a base probability of inactive status for each side modifiable in the pdt file, so that (say for a battle like Antietam) a "C" leader on the Rebel side might have 10% of going inactive, while a "C" leader on the Union side might be assigned say 15% (or maybe even 20%) probability.

Mid-game fixing would only be on a turn-by-turn basis if a leader fails his test. So the following turn the troops under his command might be active again but another nearby division might become fixed instead.

These temporary fixed troops would be just like other fixed units - able to fire and chance formation/facing but unable to move. Also, they'd automatically unfix if within 5 hexes of visible enemy. Thus, any troops already close to the enemy and involved in combat wouldn't get fixed, although troops in the rear and out of actual sight of the enemy might get temporarily fixed.

For instance, troops on the march or attempting a flanking manoeuvre but not in proximity to any visible enemy might become fixed on any given turn - this would represent an unexpected delay or confusion of orders, etc. It might also allow the other player the chance to respond to this approaching threat (if his own troops aren't fixed the following turn!)


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

Why would a unit or larger formation become fixed ?

<center>
Lieutenant General John Corbin
Commanding officer
Army of The James
USA</center>

It would represent a breakdown or delay in communications, a leader dithering or temporarily misinterpreting an order, etc.

For instance, how easy (in this time before radios) was it for different divisions to conduct coordinated assaults?

The game engine allows a player to move all his troops freely and launch coordinated attacks with troops from different formations. But in reality this would have been much harder to achieve by an historical ACW general.


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

Easy? It would seem that going in in succession rather than jointly was the rule, and a coordinated assault a rare exception. A prime example for the former is the series of attacks on the Reb Left at Antietam which were repelled in succession while jointly they would couldn't have failed to smash Jackson's corps to pieces. Other examples abound.

Pickett's charge I guess could count as a rare example of a coordinated attack by several divisions. But then these were ideal conditions.

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

Richard,

I agree with your line of thinking and have brought up a similar idea several times....with no response....so I suppose we are in the minority regarding this [;)]. The HPS ACW system allows the 200 foot general far to much control over his army, the turn based system would be much improved with some type of constraints on movement. The EAW system does have a optional rule for movement disruption which causes a check each time a unit in line formation moves one hex, there may also be a terrain modifier too...it seems like moving through woods or up-down hills causes more disruption. The interesting thing about this check is you never know when it will happen along a units movement path.

My thoughts had leaned to just units checking for movement each turn and also having several possible results, such as hold, half movement, regular movement and a bonus movement (say +20%). Having leaders also check is an interesting idea. I don't think whole groups such as divisions or corps need to be checked, by checking leaders you would effectually slow down the "group" they command because units moving outside the fixed leaders command range would take a greater chance of becoming fixed next turn.

Two points I would disagree with;
1.) Having units within enemy LOS or within 5 hexes forgo the check. This was the time commanders had even less control over their troops so units failing to advance on the enemy or retreating is realistic.

2.) Having units that are in column formation and moving along roads taking a movement check, At the very least have a bonus modifier so that such units would have a much smaller percent chance of failing the check. Leaders had the most control over their troops while marching along roads, as troops deployed in line formations and engaged the enemy leadership control was lost.

<center><font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">

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

Robert,

Good points. But if this features is going to be incorporated into the HPS engine then it needs to be workable.

1./ Fixing units within LOS or 5 hexes of the enemy - this should certainly be possible to code in. But it would need play-testing to see what impact this would have on gameplay. Presumably the units would still be able to fire and/or change facing if fixed.

2./ Units marching along roads in column being less likely to fix. This would make sense, but can this exemption be coded in? Ultimately, it would be up to JT and so might be something that would need to be added later on.

3./ The EAW line movement disruption - The two engines are very close so it should be quite straightforward to bring this feature across as an optional rule. I'd welcome it, but how many other club members feel this would be a worthwhile feature? The EAW line is a closer order formation than an ACW line and thus more likely to disrupt when moving, so perhaps the ACW probability of disruption should be lower.

4./ A further option worth considering that would be quite straightforward to implement - merely by modifying the pdt - would be to increase the movement costs for line movement compared to column movement. That would reflect the greater control of leaders over troops in marching column than in line of battle.


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

Gentlemen,

Instead of having the units beign Fixed in place, how about having the AI take control of moving those units that fail the leader command check. Who knows what they would do? It would add a since of uncertaity that orders will be carried out and accounts for local cammander taking the initative for better or worse. I would also recommend that any change be made equally effective to both the North and the South. Instead of making the South even more of Supermen, as has been suggested by a Southern Gentlemen. One might make the case that the South had better commanders in the early part of the war, but by Gettysburg I do not believe that was true any more. US Grant would not have conceeded such a fact. Clearly in the West the South made their share of command blunders in the early part of the war. Something that is fixed to the Officer rating would be better; is not that what the command check takes into consideration any way. My two cents worth.....

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda




Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
XXV Corps, AoJ

OK... Now I understand the original post... A good idea in theory.

Joe

Are you sure you want the A/I to handle moving of troops ? I have watched the A/I do very strange things with troop movement.

<center>
Lieutenant General John Corbin
Commanding officer
Army of The James
USA</center>

The possibility of the A/I handling those troops that go out "of control" is an interesting idea that might be worthwhile pursuing as an optional rule, but it's likely to result in some very unpredictable actions. So I'd far rather just have my units temporarily fixed - at least that way they won't do something really dumb!


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

Movement restrictions due to command limits are difficult to implement without unbalancing the games since they inherently favor the defender. Also, coming up with a system that won't allow the failure of a leader to be exploited unreasonably by the other side is difficult. It takes a lot of careful thought to make workable rules and even more play testing to be sure they really work as expected and don't just introduce a whole new set of problems.

That said I would suggest a modification of Richard's suggestion. Use an action point system. Generals that you have enough action points to assign to them would be able to do coordinated actions with their formations. This allows a Jackson to make a coordinated attack as part of a plan by Lee. Those that you don't have enough action points to activate would then fall back on the random system. A number of board games used some variation of this system quite effectively.

Another system is the Wellington's Victory method using Army Morale. Each army was given an initial Morale number. Each turn the number of brigades moved where subtracted from this number. When the number reached zero the morale rating of all units were reduced one. And, I believe each hour after that they were reduced again. This forced a player to have to choose between massive short offensives or conserving strength for a long battle.

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

<font color="beige"></font id="beige"><b>Richard,

thoughts on your points,

1./ As now used a fixed unit can fire and change formation/facing and is released when fired on, so a unit being "fixed" within enemy LOS would still defend itself and would have the chance to move the following turn if it had been fired on or if released by the 'turn movement check'(TMC)(for lack of a better term for what we are talking about)

2./ I don't know if it can be coded in, if the engine can check map or terrain locations that a unit occupies then it would only need to check for units that are in column formation on a road hex and not TMC them.


3./ I agree that for the ACW the use of line unit disruption might only be used in wooded terrain where there was a greater chance of units becoming disordered/disoriented, here again it would rely on the HPS engine recognizing the hex terrain a unit occupies.


4./ I'm not sure modifying the pdt would gain any advantages here, columns on roads currently have a greater movement than line formations and it does not address the problem of total control over all units.


Kennon,

"Movement restrictions due to command limits are difficult to implement without unbalancing the games since they inherently favor the defender."

This is true and really the reason behind my suggestion, the HPS engine tends to lean toward the offense when turn based movement is used, the phase based method levels out the defense/offence some what but at the cost of playability.

My concern with an action point system or a starting army morale number is the lack of unpredictability within the frame work of predictability.

The HPS games provides this sense of unpredictability when checking for disruption, routs and fire combat, melee results.
But <u>movement rate is known each and every turn</u>, even disrupted or routed units have a fixed in stone movement rate. I get no sense of unpredictability when moving....I can count the movement costs from point A to B and know that my line will move there with parade ground skill.

What would happen if you moved a unit toward said point B and it suddenly stopped dead in it's tracks half way there [;)] </b>

<center><font color="blue"><b>Maj.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">THE CALVERT LINE</font id="yellow">

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

John,

I think having the AI Take command of your troops that fail a leader check would add a previously unavailable dimension to the game, the lack of TOTAL CONTROL. Those of you who have played The American Civil War Game (strategic level) would be familar with giving your commanders orders and watching them do something else instead. It would require you to move your Corps commander to the troubled Division before they go wandering all over the battle field. or to real them back in. It will give those Corp Commader and Army Commanders something to due besides rally troops in the rear. Or an action point system alloted to each command.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda



Lt General Joseph C. Mishurda,
"Killer Angels"
XXV Corps, AoJ

Gentlemen,

These seem like interesting ideas to me, and I like General Mishurda's modifcations, as well. Anything that removes absolute control makes the games more realistic, in my opinion.

I've been thinking about Shiloh (I have one game and one campaign going on there right now) and the Confederate problem of hungry soldiers dropping out of ranks to loot captured Federal camps. I wonder if any thought has been given to making 'camp' a terrain feature, like abatis or marsh, that would automatically disrupt any unit moving through it? (Personally, I would prefer them being like marsh so everyone knows where they are. It's really frustrating when you're on defense and disrupt one of your own units by moving it through your own abatis. Shouldn't the defenders have a pretty good idea of where they left the silly things?)


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - General, Chief of the Armies, Confederate States of America & Cabinet Member
CCC - Ensign, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army

HPS's Turn Based system is a shining example of an attempt to limit movement (idea here being opportunity fire would disrupt movement) being a total failure and actually having the opposite affect (Panzerblitz). Like wise, having any movement taken over by the games AI would be a failure without significant improvement to the current AI (an AI that likes to attack lines of infantry with limbered artillery isn't going to cut it).

A system based strictly off of officer quality to initate movement also will fail. The armies of the time could and did execute coordinated attacks. Most failures at the brigade level due to officer quality were failures to adapt to the changing situations once the attack started. What is needed is not so much a random movement system as a way to keep the player from coordinating attacks across the whole army. Some type of action system on top of a random check system makes this workable. A pure random system that reduces attacking to an attempt to move units with endless starts and stops will make a joke out of a divisional attack and, more importantly, fustrate the player to where they just won't play the game any more. So you have to have balance between limited the players control and completely taking it away.

A good example of effective use of an Action Point system is SPI's game on Antietam. They gave McCellan the ability to only activate two Corps (I believe) at a time. This quite nicely reproduced the battle without having to have fixed units. The Union player had the choice of following McCellan's plan of attack starting from the right but could choose other patterns. But he couldn't order the whole army forward at the same time. Likewise if the Reb did something unconventional the Union player didn't have to watch troops move past fixed units that could even respond.

I think an Action Point system on top of a random Command Check system will give a good balance between playability and limiting the "200 foot" general. Also, the two systems can be blended in a number of ways to create the effects you want. For example Action Points could be used to just temporarially increase the Officer Ratings for the Command Check. This would leave you the chance of a brigade not coordinating without reducing a division to impotence. Also one can play with the affects of failing a command check. Does it mean no movement, half movement, no forward movement, etc. Action Points can be used to modify these affects rather than or in combination with the Command Check.

In addition any system needs to be evaluate on its affect on both the attacker and the defender. If the attacker is reduced to attacking by brigades is the defender going to be limited in his ability to respond to the attack? If the Union blows a hole in the Horseshoe will Lee have the command ability to rush troops to save the line?

One also has to keep in mind that we don't really play these games as the Commanding General but rather has the division and brigade level commanders. Otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to see the map and have to implement orders by email and wait for someone to send a message back telling us how well it went. Ken Miller's multiplayer game comes nearer to this kind of system than any other. The "Game Master" executes all the movement and fighting.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by notso</i>
<br />Gentlemen,

As you go down this path of making excellent suggestions for making the games more historic and realistic, may I suggest that playability and having fun may be the driving factors in the development and production of these games?

Just a thought gentlemen … just a thought.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Excellent point, Sir.




<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio

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