American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri May 09, 2025 8:42 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2025 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
A new update is out.

The big change is that guns now have a maximum stacking limit of 12 guns per hex. A good improvement, although still not historically accurate.

The new User Manual shows how this was achieved:
"When a hex contains guns, then each gun counts as 80 men for the purpose of stacking. Thus, if the Max Stacking value is 1000 men, then a hex can contain no more than 12 guns. So, the total number of guns can vary from scenario to scenario."

Why 80 men? I suspect that was chosen to reflect that some scenarios have a stacking limit of 800 men (rather than 1,000). In those scenarios the maximum stacking would be 10 guns.

Other changes in this new version seem mainly concerned with AI issues.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2025 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Tennessee
Without experimenting too much with it, just on paper, I really like the change.

You could stack 700 men with 6 guns in the previous versions in one hex. That hex is unconquerable unless the men rout.

Now, you can only stack 520 men and 6 guns in a single hex.

Ignoring a whole bunch of variables... in a straight up melee of 1,000 attackers vs. 700 defenders (with 6 guns) your chance of success is about 34%. Again, ignoring a bunch of variables!

In the new version the same melee would be 1,000 attackers vs. 520 defenders (with 6 guns) and your chance of success will be about 65%.

Modifiers are your friend. Anyone who plays defense should tattoo that on their mouse hand.

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

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2025 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
Blake wrote:
Without experimenting too much with it, just on paper, I really like the change.

You could stack 700 men with 6 guns in the previous versions in one hex. That hex is unconquerable unless the men rout.

Now, you can only stack 520 men and 6 guns in a single hex.

Ignoring a whole bunch of variables... in a straight up melee of 1,000 attackers vs. 700 defenders (with 6 guns) your chance of success is about 34%. Again, ignoring a bunch of variables!

In the new version the same melee would be 1,000 attackers vs. 520 defenders (with 6 guns) and your chance of success will be about 65%.

Modifiers are your friend. Anyone who plays defense should tattoo that on their mouse hand.


I don't think that's quite right. I don't want to blab about it here so I'll send you a separate email.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2025 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
Sorry, there's a slight delay. The artillery change seems to work for stacking but not melees.

Further details to MDT later.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2025 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
I tested it out a bit more.

The stacking limit definitely works.

Artillery attacked in melees doesn't exactly align with Manual specifications. The Manual says:
"Each defending Artillery gun counts as one third Stacking Point (this depends on Parameter Data Strength Point setting but would normally work out to 8 men per gun)."
The Defend Force number (the guns) works in an odd way.
Example
I had three guns (a one-gun and a two-gun battery) in a hex. Game said: "Defend force of 19 (actual 60)". The 'actual' was correct as the Strength Point was 20 for that scenario. The Defend Force should have been 20 (one-third of 60) on an overall calculation.
If guns are considered individually and fractions are kept it should still be 20. If guns are considered individually and fractions are lost it should be 18 (3X6).
If guns are considered on a battery basis and fractions are kept it should again be 20.
The only way I could get to 19 was to consider guns on a battery basis and lose all fractions. Thus:
1/3 X 20 = 6.67;
1/3 X 40 = 13.33.
Lose all battery fractions so 6 + 13 = 19.
That seems to be the way it works as I tried it elsewhere.

I can't see that WDS explained why they changed the stacking limit to 12. It's a step in the right direction in the interests of better simulation but I'm sorry that they didn't go further and reduce the number to 8 (the maximum possible in real life, under ideal conditions).

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2025 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:20 pm
Posts: 237
Location: USA
Having 8 as a "hard" number -- historically correct or not -- would work against the 6-gun Union batteries. The CSA could stack 8 with their organizationally smaller units. Don't know if this was part of WDS thinking, but to be "fair" would require reworking Union OOBs. Their chosen approach allows flexibility in design.

_________________
MG Robert Frost


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2025 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
Robert Frost wrote:
Having 8 as a "hard" number -- historically correct or not -- would work against the 6-gun Union batteries. The CSA could stack 8 with their organizationally smaller units. Don't know if this was part of WDS thinking, but to be "fair" would require reworking Union OOBs. Their chosen approach allows flexibility in design.


8 is the absolute maximum possible in 125 yards under ideal conditions in real life. A couple of Union opponents proposed a six-gun limit for our games which is more 'normal' (and was fine with me). Should we encounter an eight-gun battery (a rarity) they were just treated as the oddity they were and allowed to exist and operate as such.

Of course, guns occupied a lot more linear space when limbered. You're only going to get two complete limbered gun teams in each 125-yard stretch of road. Still, for some simplicity (and to aid playability) we would say eight, or six, guns per hex at all times.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2025 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Tennessee
I like the number 12 a lot.

It is easily divisible by 4 or 6 which are the normal battery sizes of the two sides. I can't prove it but I bet you dollars to donuts that was a factor in the decision. As Robert Frost said, if they chose 8 or 10 then the USA side would be at a disadvantage in most scenarios because of their 6 gun batteries. Better to just make it 12 which satisfies most people (you will never satisfy everyone!) or at least doesn't anger them too much. Proponents of 20 guns per hex can live with 12 and proponents of 6 or 8 guns per hex can live with it also.

Well... maybe not Paul... but the rest of them can :mrgreen:

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

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2025 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Tennessee
Blake wrote:
...I bet you dollars to donuts...


Actually... since donuts are now more than a buck maybe that needs to be the other way around. I bet you "donuts to dollars."

And now I want some Krispy Kreme Donuts. You Yankees and your "Dunkin." :roll:

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

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2025 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
Blake wrote:
I like the number 12 a lot.

It is easily divisible by 4 or 6 which are the normal battery sizes of the two sides. I can't prove it but I bet you dollars to donuts that was a factor in the decision. As Robert Frost said, if they chose 8 or 10 then the USA side would be at a disadvantage in most scenarios because of their 6 gun batteries. Better to just make it 12 which satisfies most people (you will never satisfy everyone!) or at least doesn't anger them too much. Proponents of 20 guns per hex can live with 12 and proponents of 6 or 8 guns per hex can live with it also.

Well... maybe not Paul... but the rest of them can :mrgreen:


LOL.
Anything that aids better simulation I am in favour of; anything that departs from it I oppose.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2025 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 638
Location: Ireland
I suggest we have had this discussion previously and it did not end well, as I recall. Therefore as Blake says, let us eat donuts instead, and drink coffee of course too, and let all be right in the world :shock:

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Major General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2025 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 760
Karl McEntegart wrote:
I suggest we have had this discussion previously and it did not end well, as I recall. Therefore as Blake says, let us eat donuts instead, and drink coffee of course too, and let all be right in the world :shock:


The last time artillery stacking was raised as a topic was almost five years ago in June 2020 when JTS still owned the games (https://wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21705&hilit). It was raised by a Union Member who opinioned that: "It would seem that a good new optional rule would be to limit artillery in a stack to six-to-eight guns (to take into account 4 gun batteries) instead of allowing death stacks."
The discussion appears to have been conducted in a civil and informative manner.

I do agree that Americans should eat up and drink up as things like sugar, coffee and hamburgers are going to get more expensive there real soon.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 5:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1333
Hadn't thought of this before, but this change will adversely affect density as well!

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Version 4.05.3
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 8:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: USA
Quaama wrote:
Robert Frost wrote:
Having 8 as a "hard" number -- historically correct or not -- would work against the 6-gun Union batteries. The CSA could stack 8 with their organizationally smaller units. Don't know if this was part of WDS thinking, but to be "fair" would require reworking Union OOBs. Their chosen approach allows flexibility in design.


8 is the absolute maximum possible in 125 yards under ideal conditions in real life. A couple of Union opponents proposed a six-gun limit for our games which is more 'normal' (and was fine with me). Should we encounter an eight-gun battery (a rarity) they were just treated as the oddity they were and allowed to exist and operate as such.

Of course, guns occupied a lot more linear space when limbered. You're only going to get two complete limbered gun teams in each 125-yard stretch of road. Still, for some simplicity (and to aid playability) we would say eight, or six, guns per hex at all times.


A good argument for using guns in sections instead of batteries.
Historically they were often deployed in this manner, a lot of times batteries would be divided to support several defensive positions.
Many of the ACW/Nappy miniature systems I play mount guns as 2 gun sections.

Players complain about too many units with 2 gun sections but it allows both sides to deploy the same number of guns in a hex regardless of battery size.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller

Image

The McKeesport Union Guard

3/1/II
Chief of Staff
AotP


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group