American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

General Ray and I have kicked off, with me using the advice in the JB Hood's big book of ACW tactics - Chapters 1 -22, full frontal assault [:D]

Major General Cam McOmish
Commander Western Theater
Confederate States of America

Gentlemen:

I would like to recognize the fighting ability of Brig Gen T Reneau, AotM. Gen. Reneau gallantly led his Rebel troops in a storming assault against my Union soldiers defending the Round Top and against Gen. Sickles' Corps in the Peach Orchard. The Rebels seized the Peach Orchard and 12 cannon and Devils Den and 6 more guns before their advance was brought to a halt. From then on, it became a battle of attrition but with a growing Union presence. Slowly, oh so slowly, my Yankees were able to rest the initiative away from the Confederates. Nevertheless, Gen. Reneau's men tenaciously held onto their gains until the end. But a final push by the Army of the Potomac recaptured the Peach Orchard and most of the Confederate defenders that had so stubbornly held the place all afternoon. The end result was a bloody draw. The tiebreaker rules might deny Gen. Reneau advancement in the tournament bracket but his display of military prowess certainly won him my admiration. Salute! And a head's up to all my fellow Union officers... this guy can fight.

BG Ken 'Muddy' Jones
5thCav/3rdDiv/XVICorps
Army of Tennessee, USA

Gents,

I am happy to report my forces have denied Nicodemus and that rascally gators attempt at some finery. In our Culps Hill Division (ADF) battle, the defensive fire ripped apart the Rebel ranks. We finished at -1 points, a Union Major Victory by that 1 point!

My congrats and thanks to Colonel Hebert to a well fought battle, I can't help but feel a bit lucky for the optional rules and the result!

Regards,



General Jeff Laub
Eastern Theater, Commanding

Gentlemen <salute>

General Laub did indeed deny Nicodemus an opportunity to advance in the Culps Hill Division after an awesome display of marksmanship.

General Laub, my congratulations and hopes that you do well in the competition. You were an officer and gentleman throughout and it was an honor to meet you in the field.

My regards,

Col Neal Hebert
2nd Division, I Corps, AotM
Adjutant, VMI

Col. Thornton and I have completed our Round 1 game and my Allegheny Blues have emerged victourous gaining a Union Major Victory. Then again I believe Col Thornton was at a bit of a disadvantage as I have played the original BG scenario many times.

Gen Simms, I believe releasing all units on the first turn favors the union player a little. Allows them to reorganize their commands and pull back into a solid line in the center without offering any advantages to the rebel player.

Gen. Ken Miller
AoP

Gentlemen,

Sorry for the silence but I’ve been dealing with unexpected family health issues for the past couple of weeks. In the meantime, the tournament has been raging. The brackets have now been posted up to date with the status that I currently have.

I’m beginning to share Gen Miller’s concern over the balance of the Wheatfield to Round Top scenario because with the results reported thus far, the Yanks have won 11 (6 Major Victories, 4 minor victories, and 1 draw) and the Rebs have won only 4 (4 draws). That certainly does not compare with the almost even record established by this scenario in the BG series. However, there are 20 matches remaining and so it is too early to draw conclusions as yet. If the trend continues, I would propose that we make the first round a mirror match and the same opponents duke it out again from the opposite side. How do you participants feel about that? We combine the two scores to determine the winner. Of course this could be due to the Yanks natural superiority on the battlefield but there would only be one way to find out (mirror match).

As for the fixation of the Union units in the scenario that General Miller addressed, the HPS rules for automatic release of a fixed unit spoiled the capability and purpose of it for this scenario. However, if the results of this round prove the scenario to be unbalanced, then I may do another Wheatfield to Round Top scenario option that fixes specific Union units and has the Rebs entering the field from farther back (would have to extend the scenario length by 1 or 2 turns). Another complaint that I’ve getting is that the Yanks outnumber the Rebs so grossly that the Rebs don’t have a chance. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Union has the precise number of men on the field that the BG game had (and arriving at the same times) while the Rebs actually have a few additional men as compared to the BG scenario. However, that does not eliminate the possibility that a fair game by BG standards is no longer a fair game using HPS options and engine rules.

Comments are not only welcomed but encouraged because there are future tournaments under discussion and the ability to identify short and balanced HPS scenarios for every HPS ACW campaign is vital to making the tournaments work.


Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/VIII/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

I would have a problem with a mirror-match. During the last few turns of my match, when I could see that I would either win or out-point my opponent in the draw area, I "played it safe" . . . If I had known this was to be a mirror-match tournament, with a best-combined score advancing, I would have pushed pushed pushed to run my points up as far as I could . . . This by no means reflects on my excellent opponent. I'm just saying that IMPOSING A MIRROR MATCH at this stage wouldn't be appropriate.



Your Obedient Servant,
Lt Gen Dwight McBride
Ist Division/1st Brigade
V Corps/AOP/USA

General Simms <salute>

Sir, my compliments! I pray that your family issues improve quickly and fully.

With regards to the scenario, the force ratio is approximately that of the Battleground scenario, so that in itself would not seem to be the major issue.

In my review of the two scenarios I noticed that the major differences were the absence of fixed units (both sides), which has already been addressed, and the victory conditions as far as the number of points required for the Confederates to improve from their opening at a major defeat. I'm not certain how the victory conditions were determined for the HPS scenario, however I provide a comparison of the two versions:

Battleground Gettysburg 06h "Wheatfield to Roundtop"
Major Defeat: 0
Minor Defeat: 250
Minor Victory: 500
Major Victory: 800

HPS Gettysburg !Historical 1.2_06c "Wheatfield to Roundtop"
Major Defeat: 0
Minor Defeat: 250
Minor Victory: 1250
Major Victory: 2000

The Confederate player would need 376 points to advance with a draw in the Battleground scenario, however 751 points to advance with a draw in the HPS scenario. Why the increase of 750 points to achieve a Minor Victory and of 1200 points for a Major Victory? How many of the completed battles would have had different results with the old conditions?

I also agree that it's too late to introduce another battle as mirror play, however if in the end the results are heavily in favor of the Yankee officers I'd propose scrapping the first round results and using the round two scenario for replaying the opening brackets. We've all played unbalanced scenarios before, both to our advantage and disadvantage, and the DoR results would remain unchanged.

My regards,



Col Neal Hebert
2nd Division, I Corps, AotM
Adjutant, VMI

Col. Hebert brought up some good points. Can we just rescore the first game per the BG criteria?

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
Commanding 2nd Div, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

I do not feel that we can just rescore games that were already played using the HPS scoring criteria. The Union commanders played knowing that they had 750 points to play with and not 375. I do like Col Hebert's idea of just scraping the first round and starting again with the 2nd scenario. I feel this first one is unbalanced in favor of the Union. I do not want to have to fight just Union players in round 2.

Brig Gen Shaw,
4th Brigade, 2nd Div,
XX Corps, AoC, USA

Gentlemen <salute>

My highest respects to General Ringbloom, however I do not believe the scenario results should be rescored. It is what it is and we all went in knowing this. I don't understand why the conditions for my fellow officers was raised while that of our opponents remained the same, however I do take some satisfaction being one of the four Confederate officers who have advanced with a "draw" with a score of 950 points. I believe this would have been a major victory under the Battleground scoring [:D]

General Shaw <salute>

Sir, my compliments! I appreciate your comments and feel this may be the best way to proceed in order to avoid any controversy.

My regards to the gentlemen of both armies,



Col Neal Hebert
2nd Division, I Corps, AotM
Adjutant, VMI

Ned I hope all is well in your personal situation.

After having played two opponents who IMO were every bit my equal in terms of skill, I have to conclude the results were influenced by the scenario itself for the reasons already discussed. Therefore, I like the idea of starting over using a mirror system. I have found that mirror matches should be done simulataneously in order to preclude an advantage being gained by one player or the other. If we do have a mirror system I would want paticipate in onlyb one division due to time constraints.

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS

"Forward Bucktails"

Lt General Simms,
Ned,

I do like the idea of the "Mirror Match" but I also recognize that not everyone may be able to work another game into their schedules and as Lt General McBride mentioned... some folks may have decided to play it safe and that could skew the results a little.

But I "guarantee" that no Reb Officer was playing it safe in this scenario as it was everything we could do just to obtain a Draw as an End Result! [B)]

I would be in favor of scraping the First Round entirely and restarting again with the 2nd scenario as Brig. General Shaw and Colonel Hebert had suggested.

Perhaps this might be a good time to bring this up... <i><b>but wouldn't it be a really good idea if we had some sort of Tournament Review Board within the Club?</b></i> It could be a certain number of CS Officers and US Officers who would preplay and examine the suggested scenarios for an ACWGC Sanctioned Tournament just to ensure that it's a good scenario and match for all the players involved. If needed... they could make recommendations and tweak things a little bit to before rolling them out for official tournament play. Of course, nothing is ever perfect and it certainly hard to create the perfect scenario but I think this would go a long way to making everyone's tournament experiences better.

I would certainly volunteer my services to playtest scenarios and I can think of many qualified Officers on both sides of the Club that would be good at such playtesting. If we had enough Officers involved... we could spread the work between all of us.

Just some thoughts anyway...

General Roger Hulinsky
Cmdg, AotM
Confederate States of America

I would like to second General Hulinsky's suggestions. The officers chosen for the Tournament Game Review Board should be Veterans of good standing of at least 5 years. We need men who have played alot of these games to make the best choices. However, this tournament should continue as is with the second game as the new first.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
Commanding 2nd Div, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

General Hulinsky <salute>

Sir, my compliments! If "playing it safe" is the same as "holding on for dear life", then I am guilty [:D]

my regards,

Col Neal Hebert
2nd Division, I Corps, AotM
Adjutant, VMI