American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Many have indicated that the current <i>No elimination</i> rule used in the nappy system should be imported to the ACW engine.

Let me know if we have a consensus, or concern

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<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 />Many have indicated that the current <i>No elimination</i> rule used in the nappy system should be imported to the ACW engine.

Let me know if we have a consensus, or concern
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That can be PAINFUL![;)]

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

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

Is that a yes vote?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ernie Sands</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 />Many have indicated that the current <i>No elimination</i> rule used in the nappy system should be imported to the ACW engine.

Let me know if we have a consensus, or concern
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That can be PAINFUL![;)]

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

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

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

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Hi, Rich,

I think I have made my views clear in other threads, but since this is dedicated to the question, here goes again.

I don't really care for the Nappy version, but but there is also a Panzer Campaigns version. If I understand the Nappy version, a unit that loses a melee and can't retreat simply doesn't. In the PZC version, a unit that loses a melee but can't retreat is penalized by losing a number of prisoners in addition to their melee losses. I like that better. Historically, I think a unit that lost a melee and couldn't retreat would surrender within twenty minutes. General Barlow cited the blitzkrieg tactics that have hampered using single phase as the justification for no elimination, but his house rule I think actually deals with that problem more effectively. If melees could all be programmed but not executed until the phase button was hit, it would go a long way toward making single phase a more viable system. And if the defending units fired some final protective fire during the melee process, that would be fine too.

I agree that a unit ought to be able to retreat forward into an open hex under weak ZOC.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I vot yes to having it as an option.

Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade <b><font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">

Captain Walker,

I'm not familiar with the Nappy or the PZC systems. It does seem that if a body of men were completely surrounded they would probably eventually surrender (my apologies to General Forrest -- present company excepted [:)] !).

Can you spell out exactly what happens with the Nappy version you are asking about? Does the 'no elimination' rule apply to routed units as well?


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Lieutenant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army

Captain Walker,

Never mind -- I just read the other thread.

It sounds like an excellent option, to me.


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Lieutenant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army

Bill,

I already had Jena loaded, but hadn't really played it.

VERY NICE JOB!!!

OK, a few observations and a question or two.

First, what optional rules do you check?

If I only check N.E., it's virtually impossible to kill a large unit until it actually runs out of men. I surrounded a 858 man unit with 6 large French units. Even when routed, they stood their ground until death.

If I check only N.E. and Isolation, the unit will also fight to death unless routed, then it can be overrun.

I thought you could capture artillery in the nappy system, but I couldn't see how. The are destroyed when successfully assaulted. No capture. Is this correct?

Multiple melees, that's interesting. I don't understand it. I would have thought that very unlikely in so short a time/turn duration. Especially when one considers it should be simultaneous movement (using a little imagination).

I wish the manuals had more detailed information (for all series) A lot of time it's trial and error. I know the ACW because I play it everyday, but imagine new players. A tough learning curve. And I mean for all these games, not just ACW or Nappy. Or maybe I'm just slow. Some things you just have to know, because there is no mention anywhere.





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

I'm not familiar with the Nappy or the PZC systems. It does seem that if a body of men were completely surrounded they would probably eventually surrender (my apologies to General Forrest -- present company excepted [:)] !).

Can you spell out exactly what happens with the Nappy version you are asking about? Does the 'no elimination' rule apply to routed units as well?


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Lieutenant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I vote No!! These games are really good as they are but there is room for change. I think there are many more considerations such as command control that could be addresss rather than trying to fix blitzkreig tactics by making changes that are just as unrealistic ie. I think a unit totally surrounded would more than likely indeed have surrendered.

It goes to strategy-Civil War Generals were VERY concerned with being cut off and planned accordingly.Even being flanked was devastating.

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia

<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>It goes to strategy-Civil War Generals were VERY concerned with being cut off and planned accordingly.Even being flanked was devastating.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are right but in the current game engine a unit with secure flanks and in a well structured battle line can get surrounded and eliminated with no opportunity to respond/react/withdraw all within one turn - which in my opinion is very unrealistic. This is made even more unrealistic when units in column use road movement right next to the enemy to achieve the surrounding. A weaker but well formed defending battle line should take losses and be forced to rout away rather than have its units surrounded and captured as soon as it is engaged. Of course if the defender chooses to leave units in exposed positions or gets totally outmanoeuvred, or the attack is continued over several turns then units will get isolated and routed and will still be eligible for capture - but it takes a bit longer. The NME rule doesn't prevent the surrounding but it does prevent the quick elimination, and encourages more historical tactics - only in my humble opinion of course.

I vote yes, but make in a optional rule (as in the Napoleonic games).


[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"]XO, Army of the Cumberland[/url]

It's certainly not so important to get this feature for the ACW series as it was for the Nappy series, but I'd suggest including it as an optional rule.

NB: While it's potentially useful for the ACW engine, I'd rather see Nappy style detachable skirmishers and the cavalry breakdown / recombine feature. Also the EAW X line formation too.


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

The only way I would advocate detachable skirmishers is if it could be programmed that they have a leach. I mean, they could NOT travel more then 2-3 hexes away from their parent unit. The engine would not allow it.

Letting small skirmish units run all over the map is not an option.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />It's certainly not so important to get this feature for the ACW series as it was for the Nappy series, but I'd suggest including it as an optional rule.

NB: While it's potentially useful for the ACW engine, I'd rather see Nappy style detachable skirmishers and the cavalry breakdown / recombine feature. Also the EAW X line formation too.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

An alternative OOB with skirmisher size units is an option.

But only units of certain size should qualify to have a skirmisher group.

Would that be an balanced option for most?

<center>Colonel Edward Stewart
[url="http://www1.webng.com/Bonemash/EdStewart.html"][/url]

2nd Brig, 3rd Div,
III Corps, ANV
</center>

I am not really in favor of a No Elimination rule for ACW. I would prefer the existing ZOC and Isolation rules be adjusted so elimination would be more difficult.

The reason I say this is there are times when an isolated unit should be an easy kill. I have seen situations where some minor regiment that happened to route the wrong way and get behind your lines require brigade size formations to eliminate them. Because of the value of wagons and artillery that usually has no defensive capacity, small isolated units can cause damage all out of proportion to their size. And, without ZOC and isolation rules are very difficult to eliminate.

I would prefer making the requirements for a unit a be isolated more difficult (two turns and/or more checks in other phases for removeal).

Skirmishers can open a whole new can of worms. While Nappy games must have these type units they also cause all kinds of problems because of the lack of restriction on their movements. They can also severely shift the game balance for some scenarios. If added to ACW type games they need to come with severe penalties for being out of command so they can't swam across the map.

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

Would this work as a compromise?

1) Allow forward retreats

2) Cause a one turn delay for the effects of isolation

As for independent skirmishers (forgive my bluntness), <b>it ain't going to happen!</b> At least not as long as my opinion has any weight.

As for an alternate OOB, it someone wants to create one for any of my current titles, or the two that are coming soon, feel free to send them my way. I'll examine them and most likely include them for a future patch release.



Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"