American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I think it would be better if the screen refreshed every time you moved a hex so that you could see as you moved. The problem isn't ambushes in woods but ambushes in the open. Ambushes in woods should happen when players don't take proper precautions (deploy skirmishers). Also, units in woods probably ought to be invisible but vulnerable to fire. Perhaps a question mark would appear when they fired. This would allow ambushes like Iverson at Gettysburg or Posey at Bristoe Station while preventing ambushes in the open.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Gentlemen,

Most of the disagreements with these suggestions appear to be with the weak defensive fire. What if, coupled with these changes, the chances for opportunity fire were greatly increased? Also, on the 'fire-or-melee-but-not-both', how about having the A/I roll another dice -- if the unit failed its morale check, it stopped and fired (no melee possible). That way it wouldn't be up to the player to decide.

Just more food for thought.


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 Department, Colonial American Army

Most comments seem to focus on his first suggestion. I'd like to address the second.

If the engine were modified to give units action points instead of movement points then units could act realistically, i.e. fire then move, etc.

The easiest method, imo, is to give units the number of action points as there are seconds in a turn. A twenty minute turn would then have 1,200 action points. At this point one takes a drill manual and calculates everything a unit does, and charges accordingly.

Use multipliers to charge poor trained or disrupted troops to do the drill, etc, etc.

Establish a routing within the engine that everytime action points are spent a unit could become disrupted, the percentage chance based on unit training, fatigue, cadre loss, terrain, etc.

To do it right a complete engine overhaul would be needed, but to do something like this would only require allowing a unit to move after firing (not meleeing). Then altering the pdt file. Of course just using minutes might be a simpler method.

Just food for thought.

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

What really needs to be adressed, and should have been in effect since the Talonsoft days is the ability for calvalry to fire while mounted, atleast pistol range.

Either use column formation for this, or add an in line mounted charge, because dismounting with pistols is suicide against rifles.

Fld. Lt. Bryan Gentry

1st corps 2nd brigade 3rd calvalary

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tony best</i>
<br />instituting a pin result that would cause a unit to lose any remaining movement points and prohibit it from meleeing

I am a big fan of the "pin" result. Obviously from Terrible Swift Sword

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Absolutely. Likewise count me a fan of TSS's "engaged" result, which adds yet another level of <i>drama</i> and interest to our combat results, if only because the melee combat result is left in doubt for at least another combat turn - inviting more troops on both sides to be funneled in to and fed to the 'chipper'.

Denny
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)



<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

Gentlemen.

I'm not 100% certain where my 2 cents will fit into this topic - if at all - but here goes! [;)]

One minor frustration that I find regarding the realism of these games, particularly in the HPS series, is the total inaccuracy engendered by the Chequerboard Defence - a unit in every 2nd or 3rd hex.

As an example . . .

In "Real Life" a unit (lets say an entire Brigade), would take control and concentrate on and around High Ground. In quite a few instances, hillsides were invested by Defensive forces, whilst valleys or gorges were left lightly defended or totally unmanned, the belief being that an attacker would be slaughtered, were He to advance upon or between 2 Defensive Brigades holding the High Ground. The Offensive Commander - once appraised of the Enemy's dispositions on the sides of the valley, would demure from advancing thru' the Valley. Thus the Valley was denied to one side and defended by the other without a single Soldier entering the Valley. The Defender had won the "Battle" by Manoeuvre - rather than by Force of Arms.

The "Answer" to this tactical problem - as employed by Us Wargamers - is the Chequerboard Defence/Offence - which can result in (at an effective distance of 125 yards per hex) in a Brigade of 2,000 men(broken down into let's say - 5 Regiments), holding ZoC over a line 1875 Yards long or 1 mile and 105.6 Yards.

If the Attacker sends 5,000 men against one regiment in the Defensive Line - He will find his Advance TOTALLY stalled by a group of men Defending at a fraction of his Attack forces' strength.

True - a certain degree of accuracy will occur during the Game/Battle - as the Defender will only be able to hold back the advance for a short period and the Defender runs the risk of losing the Regiment concerned. By maximum stacking - the Attacker can bring the fire of 3,000 men to bear on the Defending Regiment and will in all likliehood be able to over-run their position.

Now - this occurence is quite common in these Games and DOES pertain to a certain degree of "Realism" - given that in RL, 3,000 - 5,000 men will in all likelihood sweep a Regiment out of their way. (And in all likelihood capture all/most of them)

HOWEVER, given the Military methods and the caution regarding the welfare and integrity of their Commands exercised by Commanders of the ACW Era, the Chequerboard Offence/Defence is wholly inaccurate.

In a Battle at HPS Gettysburg - both Myself and My Opponent have both bemoaned the fact that - irregardless of the enormity of the Map being used . . . . we both have extended lines from the Interior of the Map, out to the Map Edge. Fighting miraculously spares the areas immediately outside the confines of the Map. While the confines of a limited area are necessary for the Games to work . . . the distortion caused by these confines and the Game Engine are readily apparent and generate an almost compulsory "Gamey" situation of continuous Lines along the Chequerboard model.

2 Solutions that I imagine would detract from the necessity of forming extended Lines - between point A and Point B (ACW speaking - usually (Real Life)untenable dispositions), would be imho:

1. Extended yet diminishing Zones of Control

2. A "Border" of 5 - 10 Hexes, along the Map Edges - where little or NO ZoC is allowed.

Diminishing Zones of Control: - The Defensive Regiment holds total ZoC in the 3 Facing Hexes - as is the case now. 50% ZoC for the next 3 Hexes and 25% ZoC for the next 3 hexes. As the Enemy approaches - he loses 25% of his MP's upon entering 3 Hexes away, 50% in the next Hex and finally - should He advance to the Contact Hex - 100% MP's.

This would mirror AND Enforce upon the Attacker - ACW-style caution and prudence in the deployment of his forces.

It would also ensure that the Defender can deploy his Brigades - concentrated in Force, as per tactics of the Era - with out being obliged to "string out" - and by consequence weaken, His Defensive Line. By leaving gaps in his Defences - he will be at a slight disadvantage - in that He will not be able to totally halt the Enemy's advance upon the Gaps in his Lines . . . BUT, it will enable him to slow it and give Ground with the minimum of Casualties and He has the option to close the gaps judisciously, as circumstances develop - historically speaking - the preferred Methodology used by ACW Commanders. At present. the Defender is forced into making a stand with often inferior numbers of men to effect the same result and inevitably, loses men in the attempt. This also adds to the unhistorical Casualty rates atrributed to these Games.

This brings the Art of Manoeuvre back into the Games and reflects the preferences of most Commanders of the Era - forceably, thru' Game Engine Mechanisms - reducing the Options of both sides in some areas and increasing them in others. The areas reduced are those that are prone to "Gamesmanship" and those that are increased are more Historically accurate.


Map Edge - Reduced ZoC - Hexes:

With this option, the Defensive/Offensive values of these areas of the Map are altered considerably. Being at the extreme edge of either sides' Lines - the Game mechanisms would need careful scrutiny and no doubt alterations over time, to perfect them.

The Principle, as I see it is as follows:

From the Attacker's viewpoint - these Hexes are still important areas regarding attempts to Flank the Defender - within the confines of Map Edge limitations. At present, the Defender only needs to extend his Lines to Map Edge and sit there. A weak Regiment can exert ZoC and prevent a much more powerful Force from advancing around to the Defensive rear. (Complete denial of the Manoeuvre at best - from the Defender's viewpoint - a Delaying Tactic, at worst). The artificiality of Map Edge aids the Defender and hinders the Attacker in an improbable manner. In order to reduce the usage of what in effect is an exclusionary and infinite ZoC, outside of Map Edge - Reduced ZoC in the "Border" area would produce more Historically accurate defence of the Flanks in this area AND again, reduce the Game induced Requirement of the Chequerboard.

The Attacker, in maintaining Full or near full mobility in these hexes, whilst reducing the Defenders ZoC strength, would encourage the Defender to establish his Defensive Line Flanks nearer to the Interior of the map and away from the "Border areas" where his defensive capabilities are slightly weaker.

Finally, should an Attacker launch a massive Troop movement along the Map Edge - the Defender has the option to attack - or - to deny Free Passage to his Rear - or - more Historically, adjusting his Battle Line to meet the impending Threat or to withdraw from the area.

Again, the Art of Manoeuvre, as employed by Commanders of the Era, would be "Hard-wired" into the Game Engine - in a manner that cannot be overlooked thru' Gamesmanship.

As another consequence - it would bring a little pressure to bear upon scenario Designers to remove Objective hexes from Map Edge and to place them away from Map edge . . . thus making the Capture/Defence of these Hexes, a 4 dimensional task for the Players - rather than the rather 2 or at best 3 dimensional tasks they become thru' current Game Engine Mechanisms. Having captured an Objective Hex - the new Occupier would be forced to consider His Defence/Retention of same, in a more realistic manner than at Present.

Pat.


Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Major General.
Carroll's Corps,(II)
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia.
C.S.A.Cabinet Secretary

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

Dear BG Patrick Carroll,

You Said:

"As another consequence - it would bring a little pressure to bear upon scenario Designers to remove Objective hexes from Map Edge and to place them away from Map edge . . . thus making the Capture/Defence of these Hexes, a 4 dimensional task for the Players - rather than the rather 2 or at best 3 dimensional tasks they become thru' current Game Engine Mechanisms. Having captured an Objective Hex - the new Occupier would be forced to consider His Defence/Retention of same, in a more realistic manner than at Present."

I agree whole heartedly......(I am not talking about exit hexes those are essential). What is the use of having a gigantic map if you have to defend the boarder. As far as the checkerboard defense is concerned I use it mainly to screen probing Cavalry, I do not believe it will stop an infantry division, slow them down yes but not stop them. I believe our engagemnt at HPS Gettysburg is the best example we have of how it is to be in command of an army during the civil war. It is not a canned battle with lines extending from one edge of the map to the other (like in the TS Games). Here you need to position your forces to cover the objective hexes maximizing the use of terain and position your troops to support one another. I Love it! Thank you HPS Game designers.

Lt Gen Joseph C. Mishurda





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

Quite often objective hexes are used to represent an army's supply base or supply source.

My preference is to place a whole lot of wagons with provost guards and let the players worry about protecting their own supply base. This creates many, many problems, and some players don't like having all those wagons to move about. That's war isn't it?

Of course this method works best if Supply Points are worth Victory Pooints. It's been a year or so since I've fiddled with JT's ACW engine, so I've forgotten if this feature exists in it.

If it does then giving the players 100+ wagon park for a Gettysburg sized game will most definitely give players something to worry about, create a slow moving target to aim for or defend, and help players understand why thier historical counterparts did what they did. Commanders worried more about logistics than they ever did about if this rgt is in column or line. Something gamers need to do more often, imo.

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

Hi Joe!

Yes! We are agreed on quite a number of points;

1. The HPS Engine is more realistic than the TS Engine could ever be.
2. Exit Hexes are essential to some scenarios.
3. " What is the use of having a gigantic map if you have to defend the border.?"
4. " HPS Gettysburg is the best example we have of how it is to be in command of an army during the civil war." (I would also add HPS Shiloh - I have limited experience with this Engine - but, so far - have been impressed with it.)

I also agree that on balance - the Chequerboard disposition will slow down the advance of an Offensive . . . very occasionally, it will repel a weak-ish Offensive thrust. However, from the Defender's viewpoint . . . and more specifically biased . . . the CSA's viewpoint - the Delaying Tactic of the Chequerboard, proves materially, too expensive in Manpower and Arty - particularly in longer scenarios and Campaigns.

Union Players are well aware of this and whether fully aware of what they are doing or not, frequently launch Divisions and/or Corps, in Chequerboard formation, along vastly exaggerated Lines of 1 and even 2 miles length. I see nothing wrong in this, as the Engine allows it - however, I do see something wrong with it from an Historical perspective.

Huge Frontal Assaults were rare enough in the ACW, (and were - unfortunately - mainly a Tactic employed by the CSA).

In these Games - both in TS and HPS - it is all too familiar to the Rebel Player (when on the Defensive), to watch the Union mass his available forces and bludgeon his way thru' all before Him. Defence for the Reb becomes a Strategy of delaying the almost inevitable Breakthrough - in the hope that He can retain possession of his Objectives until the Scenario reaches it's time-limit. ( Quite often this minor Target can be achieved by the CSA Man - but, He loses to a Major Defeat- based purely on the Casualties He has suffered acheiving a Tactical - (some may call it Pyrrhic) - Victory.!!!! [xx(]

Conversely in scenarios where the CSA are shouldered with the onus of Attack, should the Reb revert to Historically preferred Tactics, concentrating his Brigades into attacks along a very short Front - he may reach a satisfactory conclusion to his initial thrust and break the Union Chequerboard Defence - but will inevitably be surrounded by multitudinous numbers of heavily populated Regiments and suffer a Reversal and usually, an Annihilation!!

Whilst satisfying the Wargamer - who of course is on the winning side - this set of circumstances does not satisfactorily placate the "Historical" urges of some.

Once again I applaud the Design and efforts of the HPS team . . . but, query again, if my suggestions would merit further study and effort on their part.

Pat.


Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Major General.
Carroll's Corps,(II)
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia.
C.S.A.Cabinet Secretary

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

Col. Meuleveld,

Some thoughtful propositions.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Change: When a unit moves into the zoc of an opposing force only one-half of the units remaining movement points are lost.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Of course, I don't favor losing any MP's for simply moving into a ZOC. On the other hand, if one attempts to move through and / or withdraw from an enemy ZOC, Berg handles it by triggering additional (but, always optional) defensive "Withdrawal" and "Retreat" fire. Thus every time a unit attempts to move through / leave a ZOC it triggers an optional round of defensive fire. If the enemy becomes "disrupted" and/or "pinned" it may move no further that turn while, of course, still incurring a number of casualties.

If, otoh, no pin / disruption result occurs, it may continue to try and slip through yet another ZOC and/or go on its merry way.

The beauty of such a model is that all combat result odds for causing an enemy pin / disruption, etc. increase proportionally with a defensive unit's increasing number of strength points. Under Berg's model, powerful battle-lines, hence, possess a far more compelling/effective ZOC (far and away!) over Mr. Tiller's 25 man 'gaggles', which astoundingly (and a-historically) wield as effective and 'compelling' a "0" modifying ZOC influence as his 1000 SP regiment. This somehow just aint right. [:0] <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Second, as play is now, when a unit fires on an opposing unit, the firing unit cannot move again in that turn.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well, it all depends on the game design. In Mr. Tiller's game, borrowing heavily from Berg's original TSS, the offensive fire phase only comes after all friendly movement has ended.

OTOH, if you played SSI's early (VGA 4 color - yuk) "demi-brigade" series of ACW games or Landrey/Kroegels' wonderful "Battles of Napoleon" using the same system, all units were provided a number of "activity points" (AP's) with which to 'spend' on normal movement, forced-marching, fire, and melee. If one chose to allocate all AP's for troop movement, they'd have nothing left over (i.e., not enough <i>time</i>, during the turn) to execute fire let alone melee! I continue to admire the sheer beauty and effectiveness of such a system. Yet, even in this series, units that stop to fire their muskets, may move no further in the same turn, Col. Meuleveld, although, they may of course still elect to melee an adjacent enemy unit, assuming sufficient AP's to do so. Even so, your idea of a move/fire/move/melee/etc. routine doesn't seem out of the question.

But, I confess for my money, I'd still prefer to see more "simultaneous movement plot" designs being developed for the pc. I-Go / U-Go was for all intents the only practicable option for boardgame design, whereas the pc can successfully track the simultaneous movement for all sides while, yet, providing the "friendly" FOG-of-War challenges, etc., that all the current rash of games virtually ignore to the bone.

Field Lt. Shoeless
1st Provisional Army of Tenn
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)


<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

Hi, Shoeless,

Battles of Napoleon was indeed a wonderful game, except for the graphics. The cavalry routine actually had pre-plotted cavalry charges and countercharges, which depended on morale checks. When they occurred, infantry in their path took morale checks and, based on the results, formed square, kept their original formation, or routed. Those old SSI games had a number of other features I wish they would adopt today, and that was twenty years ago for a 64k computer!

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

The following features would be highly desirable:

<b>1./ The PzC action point system linking firing, movement & melee.</b>

The more a unit moved the less volleys it would be able to fire and the less action points left to launch a melee assault. Thus stationary defenders will be able to get in several volleys, whereas attackers won't be able to use up the full movement allowance, fire and then melee too.

At this point, JT is reluctant to introduce an action point system to the pre-1900 games. Perhaps a petition with a lot of names attached might change his mind?


<b>2./ Pinning fire from the Squad Battles series</b> - this would representing attacking units getting pinned down and unable to advance further that turn. They'd stop and fire back instead. So a realistic feature and one that would help strengthen the defender.


<b>3./ Mounted Cavalry skirmish ability</b> - like the "deployed skirmishers" system, cavalry would exert a similar ZOC to restrict enemy movement and enhance visibility, thus preventing the cavalry accidentally bumping into an enemy unit. <i>Since this feature already exists in the game engine, it should be fairly straightforward to allow mounted cavalry this ability too.</i> So, for those of us who aren't currently satisfied with how cavalry operate, this is clearly the sort of topic that could be brought up at Tiller Con II.


<b>4./ Mounted Cavalry firepower</b> - probably only for pistols and shotguns. Currently Rebel cavalry armed with these weapons are at a serious disadvantage when facing Union cavalry armed with carbine or repeaters. This would help restore the balance a bit.


<b>5./ A pre-plotted system</b> - this would probably involve a lot of recoding, although a replay feature already exists, so maybe it would be a possibility at some point. Eventually, I suspect the replacement of the traditional "I-go, you-go" turn-based system with a more sophisticated simultaneous movement system will occur. Perhaps it's still a few years away, but maybe "when" will depend largely on how many gamers start requesting it. While probably too soon for next year, this might be the sort of issue to consider bringing up at Tiller Con III or IV.


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

I think it's obvious that the ZOC thingy stopping all movement is crappy.

The very best system was the "World at War" series where ZOC stopping a unit could not be predicted with 100% certainty. The game engine factored in many variables including:

-size of both units
-morale and experience of both units
-night or day
-fatigue of both units
-ammo status of both units
-leadership of both units

And when all that was factored in the result may be a complete stop (like the HPS system), a partial loss of MP's or no loss of MP's at all.

It was a little like our current melee system. Guaranteed results are at the exteme end of the spectrum. Sure 600 men will usually blow by a 25 man unit, but 400 moving into the ZOC of 150??? No guarantee as to what might happen given all the variables. They might blow by, or be stopped cold, or something in between.

It made it VERY interesting for both attacker and defender.

And yes, General White, it would be great if we had a simultanious movement system. But this is nothing new. The World at War system was not I go you go but simultanious and it was around in the 90's.

Gen. Doug Burke
XX/AoC/USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But this is nothing new. The World at War system was not I go you go but simultanious and it was around in the 90's.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Greetings General Burke,

I do believe that what General White was inviting (rightly calling for) was, <i>a more sophisticated simultaneous movement system (quote/unquote) . . . </i>, the key point herein being "more sophisticated"?

In other words, while not a new concept, the World at War Series was based on a division-level scale of play, whereas a grand-tactical, regimental-based ACW/NAP wargame might prove a still more challenging task, posing possibly more sophisticated sets of challenges to the game-designer / pc-programmer?

Field Lt. Shoeless
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA - Retired
1st Provisional Tenn Army

<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Those old SSI games had a number of other features I wish they would adopt today, and that was twenty years ago for a 64k computer!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Hi Major General Mike Mihalik,

Amen. The Chuck Krogel (game design) and David Landrey (pc programming) fit hand-in-glove with pc capabilities of the time . . . proving that even without a gigabyte of ram, virutally unlimited hard-drive space, not to mention a pc-express video graphics state-of-the-art card, they could nonetheless produce intelligent, highly detailed, scenario-driven / expandable wargames under the over-stretched if ubiquitous SSI banner no less. ==Denny

Field Lt. Shoeless
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA -- Retired
1st Tenn Provision Army




<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>