American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gentlemen,

I guess what I would like to see to fix what I see as the problem is:

1) Allow the supply wagon to be a moble supply source. If you get trapped in a large enough area to include your supply wagon, perhaps your troops should not be surrendering so easily. Nobody is on your flanks because you can form a complete circle.

2) Have the degree of force reduction (currently at 25 % Effective) when isolated related to the quality of the unit. I could see quailty F boys surrending quickly (25% Effective), but not the crack veterans (they should be at least 90% effective).

3) Have the isolation determined at the begining of your opponents turn. This would allow for a moments hesitation, 20 minutes to grasp yes we are surrounded and for near by troops to come to your aid before your men lay down their arms. An alternative to this would be to have levels of isolation (100%, 75%, 50% then 25% Effective) with each trun they remain isolated.

I have no problem with routed (or out of amo) isolated units being overrun.

Been giving it much thought. Do these sound resonable?

COl. Joe Mishurda



Joe Mishurda, The Cast Iron Division
2nd Div. XXV Corp, AoJ

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jmishurda</i>
. . . An alternative to this would be to have levels of isolation (100%, 75%, 50% then 25% Effective) with each trun they remain isolated.

Col. Joe Mishurda

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

Col. Mishurda,

I like the idea of the 'increasing levels of isolation effects' you mentioned, maybe with unit quality figured into the equation. Of course, surrounded & isolated units don't surrender automatically now unless they are routed -- you still have to blast them into submission. I think your main concern is about their reduced ability to fight, and some sort of 'increasing levels of isolation effects', so the longer a unit was isolated the worse it fought, might be appropriate.


Your humble servant,
LGen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - Lieutenant General, First ('Grey Line') Corps, AotM
CCC - Corporal, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army

Here is a vote in favor of Col Mishurda, at least from a historical
perspective. From Thermopylae to the Chosin Reservoir units have been
isolated with no noticeable impairment of combat efficiency. For a
particularly stirring account, check out Camerone, where a company of
about sixty French Foreign Legionnaires held off two thousand Mexicans
for hours, inflicting hundreds of casualties. That was on April 30, 1863. And there was no supply source; the mules with the extra food and ammo ran off at the start of the fight. Who saw "We Were Soldiers"
and "Blackhawk Down?"

From what I have read of the Civil War, it was rare for a regiment to be captured on the battlefield. Three were captured at Chickamauga because they didn't get the word when Thomas pulled out. There was the Hornet's Nest, as has been mentioned earlier. About half of Milroy's Division was captured after 2nd Winchester, and most of the green Union force at Richmond, Kentucky, after their retreat was cut off by
cavalry. There may be others I am not aware of, but I think the vast majority of unit surrenders occurred when commanders of garrisons of isolated posts made a calculated decision that trying to hold out would no longer be worth the cost in blood; not in the heat of battle.

The other point Col Mishurda brings up I also agree with. Currently,
if a unit routs, he can't get away from his pursuers. That doesn't make much sense. When the Union army routed at 1st Mannassas, they got back to Washington in a lot less time than it took them to get to the battlefield. I think routed units should move at least as fast as
marching units; maybe faster.

All of which does not detract in the least from the exploits of
Lt Col Nathan Bedford Peters. Bravo!

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA