American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

I view objective hexes as a necessary evil to account for historical realities that can't be reflected in a scenario due to the limitations of the game.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

You know from a scenario designers' perspective, and to be blunt, but honest, I couldn't necessarily consider that every designer actually had a firm grasp on the VP/objective point value assessment. It isn't as easy as just picking out a few values- it also involves how those might interact (and -do interact) with victory levels; never minding anything else that accrues points- for example, losses (or unit exits).

Yeh sure I am overly aware that publishers get the benefit of doubt for coming up with some finely tuned balance. Frankly, I never recall seeing any sort of point accounting in the tests- so essentially - it's going to be someone's best guess. No one complains (much) in a test (assuming a test was held) - then it just gets 'gone with'.

I work with numbers in my professional life, so I guess you can say that I might be taking it 'too seriously' -but I disagree - to the point where, look there just 'ain't' no formula out there -the methodology behind it, simply varies with each individual designer (and I am not talking about user designed stuff -although I am sure it is present there too).

...for what it's worth, of course.

The other very important reason that Objective Hexes exist in the game is the AI. The AI in any single player game needs some way of distinguishing the strategic importance of an area or hex and therefore the designer will assign values to hexes in 'instruct' the AI on what should be most important to it (high VP value = high importance, low VP value = low importance). Of course, once this is known, you can 'trick' the AI to some degree as you immediately have some idea of its battle plan.

In many battles against real-life opponents, I've found Objective Hexes to be of secondary importance to me. In larger battles [which I prefer] this is usually more so because playing as the CSA my primary objective is to kill Yankees, not sit around guarding some point on a map. I can worry about that later because if the game goes the distance it is the person who holds it at the end that gains the VPs, not the one who may have held it for 90% of the battle.
I also like playing the few scenarios where there are no Objective Hexes. In such games the real-life opponents decide what is strategically important during the battle. The chances of variable strategies in such games are high because each battle will depend more upon the moves by both players than on any pre-determined Objective. However, seeking out 'good ground' and relying on sound strategic principles as they apply to terrain still apply but it is up to the opponents to 'see' it and then use their skills to outmanoeuvre each other with that in mind.
An opponent and I (who have both played historical Chickamauga) have recently embarked upon Chickamauga 047, a meeting engagement where the map begins with not a single unit on it. I expect the AI would have a difficult time playing such a scenario. My opponent and I have sighted each other but ended the first day with not a single casualty, a very rare occurrence for our battles. With night move restrictions in place it is unlikely for there to be any casualties until the sun rises on Day 2. I expect it may then be very bloody.

Another option that is used by the games to help 'balance' a scenario is the use of Variable Objectives. These Objectives award VPs to the player who holds them at certain points in the game. You do not lose those awarded VPs when you lose the hex, just miss out on the VPs applicable since you lost it. Your opponent, of course, then gets the VPs while they hold that hex. A good example is Shenandoah 075 Lynchburg - a fun battle with challenges for both sides.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

Yeh well 'balance' is an interesting concept- but it also requires a lot of familiarity with events or conditions outside the scope of how someone has applied an engine.

Or put differently it is the difference between chess, and what actually happened at Hastings in 1066 (or pick a battle) ... checkmate in reality was terminal.

---In your Chickamauga example Paul- the AI is never going to be able to handle a meeting engagement with a large map and nothing on it. I preferred (and will alwys prefer) designing meeting engagement scenarios with big maps for maneuver - as it is essentially how battles developed.

Now - that is basically what I am talking about too - with a meeting engagement there are going to be lot of variables -which make getting testing fairly tough to get a read on consistently. For me, my own methodology is basically trying to work out combat modelling testing (in my case - I had to come up with an OOB and army structures from scratch as my own project I was on - it did not marry up directly with the model of Army/Wing/Corps/Division/Brigade - and conceptually in the period I was working with - basically you had to come up with some sort of equivalent.

That's basically why you put together something and come up with a few generic testing situations -to allow both sides to bash the crap out of each other- and see what happens ( routs, advances, flank effects, charges, whatever) ... basically it also means the formations were also abstracted- especially to fit the default scale in my case ... anyways- point being after you get an idea of what points to apply to what units (and in the engine I was working within - you had to add vps to all units in the OOB file) -so that itself was another level of accounting balance you had to do... before working out the amounts to give to objectives ...

-not to mention then assigning victory levels.

Fwiw- while in principle I would agree with 'variable vp' as a mechanic - I can guarantee you if the other isn't done, that's basically the equivalent of putting a self moving deck chair on the Titanic ... it is not a substitute for what a designer needs to do - although I imagine in some cases it might get marketed as if it is -probably by people that added it to the engine. (IE another instance of 'something new being the latest, greatest') --- a bit like getting a gilded hammer. What's the point of gilding, if you don't know how to use it in the first place?

_________________
~Retired~

Interesting comments.

Like you I prefer the bigger maps for the very reasons you state. They provide more flexibility for players to develop their own strategies to achieve their goals. You simply can't be everywhere [and if you try to be, watch out for someone who can concentrate a force at one point in your line because then you will be in a world of trouble].

The OOB and army structure are also important things to consider. Playing the CSA on big maps in the earlier scenarios is quite a challenge. Maintaining command and control over the entire army is generally impossible when you did not have a Corps structure as you need to manage a combination of 'commands', divisions, and some other 'independent' groupings. Some brigades have cavalry and artillery mixed in with the infantry; in other instances, artillery is allocated to divisions; some artillery will be in an artillery reserve; and some cavalry will be independent brigades. You just have to manage command as best you can and try to have it where it is most needed.

I think the Variable Objectives are just another tool that designers have available to them. In the scenario I mentioned it seemed to work well in the two times I played that one. I'd imagine if that tool was used badly, it could corrupt a scenario and make the battle a silly 'rush for the centre' or for some other point on the map for no other reason than 'it is there'.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

A very interesting subject, and views, which I am following closely. I am however conscious of the exalted 'company' discussing the matter and which far exceeds my pay grade as a lowly Lt Col

General Swanson's comments hereunder however rang a 'ominous' bell in a not too distant contest whereby command control was virtually non existent. Not alone were Commanders widely dispersed, entire divisions were also, at the outset ! Objective hexes were not the objective, merely attempting to maintain control was the ultimate challenge.
The OOB and army structure are also important things to consider. Playing the CSA on big maps in the earlier scenarios is quite a challenge. Maintaining command and control over the entire army is generally impossible when you did not have a Corps structure as you need to manage a combination of 'commands', divisions, and some other 'independent' groupings. Some brigades have cavalry and artillery mixed in with the infantry; in other instances, artillery is allocated to divisions; some artillery will be in an artillery reserve; and some cavalry will be independent brigades. You just have to manage command as best you can and try to have it where it is most needed.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Major General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee





Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

I prefer scenarios on big maps that use objective hexes of decent point size and exit objectives. I like the variety of being able to win via those two methods in addition to VP through inflicting casualties, as well as a mixture of all three. I am not as much a fan of the slug fest maps with no or negligible objective hexes.

I think the Gettysburg scenarios are much better designed in this regard. The Overland scenarios seem to take the latter design route and it leads to unsatisfying situations. For example the Spotsylvania scenario allows the CSA to turtle behind the river and force a draw by default due to a lack of exit objectives for the Union.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

Yes, scenarios with differing methods of victory can be good fun to play. However, I think some of the scenarios with no or negligible objective hexes can also be good. For example, the Chickamauga 047 I mentioned earlier. Day 1 of that battle finished with not a single casualty on either side, it was all manoeuvre. Day 2 has finally seen some action and increasingly so but only in one small sector of the battlefield so far.

I've found a lot of the Gettysburg scenarios very difficult for the CSA to win. The CSA is simply overwhelmed by vastly superior numbers in many of the 'big map' ones.

In Overland you may look to some really big battles (e.g. 417-640528_Fourth Epoch /280 Turns, 002-631127_Mine Run Campaign_12 /128 Turns). In Peninsula there's the massive '08a_Hist_7 Days Campaign /407 Turns'. That one is a big command and control challenge for the CSA. Unusually it also has the CSA with the larger number on men and the USA with better quality units.

I believe there is one title with smaller [medium?] maps that can still provide a similar challenge to the 'big map' scenarios; JTS's last title, Shenandoah. There are a number of scenarios with well-considered Objectives that are aided by having a smaller number of units on its maps permitting manoeuvre possibilities similar to the 'big map' scenarios.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I only have four titles and about two years of multiplayer so my experience of the scenarios is relatively limited.

Big is relative, as you pointed out. I should have specifically stated I prefer having room to maneuver.

You can see a difference in our preferences because I often find the maneuver game to be more fun than the actual fighting.

re: Gettysburg I have asked myself the same whether the CSA is at a perpetual disadvantage. I remain undecided, particularly after having been soundly beaten by saavy CSA players and having done not too bad with the CSA myself. From what I have seen so far, many of the Gettysburg battles are built around the same structure as the historical Gettysburg battle: CSA needs to take advantage of their relative strength on the first day while the USA gradually gets stronger if they can hold out. Even within that pattern there is variation; one of the Pipe Creek scenarios has the entire CSA on the map early on day 1 while the USA situation is very disadvantageous but still playable. I highly recommend that variation but I am not sure which it is. Many of the big battles also add an extra cavalry division to the CSA OOB, which helps offset the numbers.

That said, the Gettysburg scenario design is a great example of the use of victory hexes and exit objectives combined with maps big enough to allow maneuver. If the CSA doesn't push to decide the fight on the first day, there are still interesting options. They can achieve local numerical superiority and hit the USA in detail. If the USA concentrated so as to avoid that, the CSA can march around them to victory so long as they effectively screen their units from view. I believe the intention behind the huge Gettysburg maps and the distance between objectives is precisely to work against the USA's numerical superiority. Artillery in the Gettysburg game is also weaker (referring to pdt values) than in other titles, which undermines the USA's advantage in that.

I played a Gettysburg scenario that was a day and a half or two days of nothing but cavalry skirmishing and maneuver to encircle half the Union army with all of the CSA army. The actual fighting at the end before my opponent conceded lasted only about 15 turns. A very satisfying and fun game from my point of view, especially my opponent's 'Oh shit' moment when he realized what had happened and was about to happen.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

I tend to agree that the maneuver element of a game is a lot more fun than simply lining 'em up and shooting 'em down. Effective maneuvering requires much thought and indeed effort I believe and adds so much to the eventual shoot 'em up phase.

I loved your comment "especially my opponent's 'Oh shit' moment" as it struck a chord, I suffer many such moments

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Major General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee





Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

The few Pipe Creek ones I've looked at in the past looked very scary for the CSA.
Gettysburg itself is always a difficult task for the CSA, simply due to the large disparity in numbers and, unlike the real battle, arrivals and numbers are known to us wargamers. I'm currently playing a customised 'Revised Gettysburg Day 2 MP'. Real-life Day 1 results are assumed to have been different, Objective Hexes are different and there are some Exit Objectives so it's quite a different battle on the same map. I'll be interested to see how things go, it's early in the game so impossible to tell at the moment.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia