American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Can someone explain to me how you actually get VP's for captured or destroyed enemy supply points? Even using this rule I never seem to see any VP's garnered for enemy lost SP's. For example, I'm currently involved in a Game of Gettysburg, the three days, where I captured two Reb supply wagons at 100% strength. The VP table shows that I captured 800 SP's for the sum total of 0 VP's. So what have we done wrong at the game start that no VP's are being awarded for SP losses?

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
I Corps
Army of the Potomac
[image]http://tmg110.tripod.com/federal/us-1c3d.gif[/image]

I've never received any VP's for supply captures/kills. I recently completed a Peninsula game where I captured/killed hundreds of Reb supply points and got zero points. When I saw that happening I realized that the only advantage to taking away supplies was in denying them to my opponent.

General Jeff Bangma
Commander, Army of the Potomac

All VP values are set by the scenario designer. I'd bet that since you're talking older scenarios, those values simply weren't set (since they weren't an issue)

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

<font face="Book Antiqua"><font size="4"><font color="limegreen">Gents,

I know what you mean, and I would bet that Gary is right, because in one of my current Campaign Vicksburg battles, the points show up for lost supply.

Respectfully,

</font id="limegreen"></font id="size4"></font id="Book Antiqua">

<font color="green"><font size="4">Nick Kunz

General
Commanding,
II Corps, Army of Georgia
Confederate States of America</font id="green"></font id="size4">

Ah, now that does make sense. This has always bothered me, but now I understand. I guess I assumed that the scenario's would have been changed to accommodate the change in rules.

I do thank you all for your input, it helped a lot.

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
I Corps
Army of the Potomac
[image]http://tmg110.tripod.com/federal/us-1c3d.gif[/image]

What would have to happen is that the designer would have to open every last file in the scenario editor and make two very specific changes (Union VP and CSA VP), and save it. It's a very simple fix, until you consider how many scenarios are on these disks (especially Gettysburg).

A further complication is the risk of those VP unbalancing scenarios that were balanced for "no supply VP"

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

Thanks Gary for putting this into perspective. For those of us who don't do programming things always look easier than the realities of the situation. As one enters a forest, they may see trees, but it is tough to visualize what one will have to go through to complete the journey to the other side.

Col. Bill Spitz
3rd Division
I Corps
Army of the Potomac
[image]http://tmg110.tripod.com/federal/us-1c3d.gif[/image]

I actually bet a savy programmer could do it without a lot of fuss. [;)]

But that is not why I am writing.

I think all scenarios in every HPS game should have points for supply losses.

It would end those tiresome players who still bring wagons almost right behind frontline, when it is not needed as 5 hex is the supply range.

It would mean the games would become more realistic and the baggage train could finally be used as a mobile gold mine. The possibilities are endless and players would respect the supply wagon instead of it being a useless unit.

Fixed VP on hexes are okay, but think of supply wagons as mobile VP hexes, plus useful for supplying units.

I have read a lot of books, and the baggage train was not just some lame wagon driving around like in our games. It usually had a quartermaster and train guards. I have seen some new scenarios starting to have this and that is great! 2nd Cane Hill (for example)

I could go on and on. The positives are endless, the only negative I see is getting the scenarios fixed.

How can anyone argue against it?

We allow points for leaders, cavalry, cannon, infantry, why wouldn't a supply wagon be valuable in its own way.



<font color="gold"><b>Brig. Gen. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman, <font color="limegreen">Sharpshooter</font id="limegreen">
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/paw/Wakeman.html"]OBD[/url]
Kansas Dragoons
<font color="beige">2nd Cavalry Division </font id="beige">
<b>XIX Corps, AoS,<font color="gold"> USA</font id="gold"></b>



Cartographer

I know some of the Gettsyburg scenarios do include the supply point VP, scenario #007 for sure. Which of the rest do is a trial and error check. Also, there are those 20,000 additional scenarios that were not issued as part of the original CD. My bet would be that none of those were changed.

As for the VP for supply rule I really don't like it. It never solved the problem that it was intended to solve. In Gettysburg it is almost irrelavent. No Union player who wants to win allows the Rebs to capture wagons. And no Southern player is going to win if he loses his own. Maybe in some of the really short scenarios but most supply is to tight for the Rebs to waste or the Union to help them with.

What it was intended to fix, using wagons to block fire, roads, etc., is still possible at little cost. You just use wagons that are low on supply since they can't resupply anything but very small regiments. HPS should have awarded the VP for destroying wagons not supply points.

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

I don't suppose you'll give them back, Yank.....?

<center><font size="3"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="black">Major General Tom Phillips, CSA</font id="black">
<font color="red">The Brus</font id="red"></font id="Comic Sans MS">
<font color="yellow"><font face="Times New Roman">III Corps</font id="Times New Roman">
<font face="Century Gothic">Army of Georgia
</font id="Century Gothic">
</font id="yellow">
</font id="size3"> </center>