American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Hi, General,

In the battles you reference near the end of the war, I believe the game outcome would be the same with or without the isolation rule. Here is an account of the Battle of Saylor's Creek from the perspective of the Confederate Naval Brigade. It sure doesn't sound like the effects of isolation to me.

http://www.csnavy.org/saylor,creek.htm

My experience with Kelly Ross is that he will use his numbers superiority to extend zoc around my army until suddenly it becomes neutered by units it can't even see. That sound historical to you?

But I won't belabor the point. We obviously disagree, and I will continue to play without isolation or hard ZOC while you do otherwise. Isn't having choices great?

MG Mike Mihalik
2/3/I/AoMiss/CSA

Isolation rules are there to represent a single regiment or small group of regiments getting completely cut off from their lines. In such a situation where they are cut off and outnumbered most commands surrendered rather than dying to the last man which is what we would do in these games if there wasn't an isolation rule. The game uses this in combination with ZOC's which represent the fact that regiments really extended across 400+ yards not 125. Unfortunately in these games one size fits all so 25 men get the same affect as 900.

Most scenarios the forces aren't in such disproportion that one can surround the other just by extending its flanks. If it can you are so out numbered that you are going lose anyway. Isolation just makes it quicker.

The one size fits all does create problems with ZOC and Isolation rules. Plus the oddities of how the Isolation rule is implemented creates problems. For example, because Isolation is only detemined in the command phase units can be overrun later even though they have reach their lines.

But overall Isolation and hard ZOC fix more problems and prevent more ahistoric play than they create.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1st Marine Btln AoM (CSA)