American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Option at the start of games that disrupted units cannot move adjacent or into the ZOC of a known enemy combat unit.
Disrupted units already adjacent would be able to remain, but would not be able to move into a new enemy unit's ZOC.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></i>

Hi, Rich,

Personally, I disagree for primarily one reason. That is, I like for units that aren't completely surrounded to be able to try to escape. This won't be possible for disrupted units if they can't move from ZOC to ZOC. I look at adjacent hexes as from center of hex to center of hex, which means they are still 125 yds apart when adjacent. That is why I have opposed mounted cavalry being able to shoot their pistols and carbines at an adjacent hex, though some disagree. I think it is enough that disrupted units can't melee. One thing I would like though is a rout on command, so that units that are in a bind can rout away from danger during the player phase. Kind of like Oates' command at Little Round Top or the French "sauve qui peut." Not a priority though.



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Good Point Mike, I hadn't thought that far.

If we were to keep the concept, we would have to exempt, disrupted units that start in a ZOC. That would give them an out if surrounded, but still restrict disrupted units from freshly entering a ZOC.

Of course, this still might make general withdrawals difficult.

The general concept would have forced players to keep better CC, to help rally disrupted units.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<font face="Book Antiqua"><font size="4"><font color="orange">Rich,

Thanks for always being so receptive to the ideas of us gamers (as you are a fine one too!). I have enjoyed this thread and finally wish to express an oppinion concerning crew kills.

Nothing drives me more crazy than to experience the loss of an artillery crew from small arms fire at hex range greater than 3 hexes. Come on, please someone show me in any book where a complete crew is killed in any battle in the ACW? It just doesn't happen. Most of the time when an artillery battery is fighting they suffer occasional loses which the other crew members replace. When sniper fire or small arms fire gets too heated often times the artillery battery will limber up and get out of the way.

Point is, I am in favor of Rich's #4, lets get rid of crew kills!

Regards,
</font id="orange"></font id="size4"></font id="Book Antiqua">

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

General
Interim Commander
Eastern Theater Command
Confederate States of America</font id="orange"></font id="size4">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Option at the start of games that disrupted units cannot move adjacent or into the ZOC of a known enemy combat unit.
Disrupted units already adjacent would be able to remain, but would not be able to move into a new enemy unit's ZOC.</i>

Personally, I disagree for primarily one reason. That is, I like for units that aren't completely surrounded to be able to try to escape. This won't be possible for disrupted units if they can't move from ZOC to ZOC. I look at adjacent hexes as from center of hex to center of hex, which means they are still 125 yds apart when adjacent. That is why I have opposed mounted cavalry being able to shoot their pistols and carbines at an adjacent hex, though some disagree. I think it is enough that disrupted units can't melee.
MG Mike Mihalik <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If I understand Mike correctly, he wants to be able to move any surrounded,disrupted unit that has at least one unoccupied adjacent hex at least one hex , (surrounded either adjacent with enemy units on opposite sides, or only one adjacent enemy unit that the escape route must take him directly into the ZOC of another two hexes distant enemy unit, which is helping to complete the surround. That is the same as we play now and I have no strong objection nor wish to argue the point, although it eliminates the idea of a heavily engaged "pinned unit" which must stand and fight and cannot withdraw without the possibility of heavy casualties and rout.
Perhaps keeping it that a disrupted, surrounded unit may always move 1 hex will address Mike's concern.

My intent is to realistically cut down the ability to keep an attacking force moving forward if and when units on the flanks have been disrupted, (unit leaders lost, units intermingled, unit demoralization because their neighbor units on their flanks are running away[xx(][B)][:0]) but the enemy are holding steady in their defensive positions. [:(!]
Correcting the problems of excessive combat, casualties, and supply consumption will require handicapping the attacker. Either we are going to try some innovations to limit the ability to attack, or we will never be able to bring those current excessive numbers down.

Frankly, I favor the "options" as much as possible to satisfy both those who love to take on the historical problems and those who just want to slaughter the enemy,[:p] "To Hell with historical accuracy!"
You game designers need to sell to both types of customers. I strongly suspect that your game programming pays you less than hourly minimum wage. I really appreciate your contributions.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA

I know we only have one column formation in the engine, and historically there were many. To accomodate the various nature of the columns used, how about making thier movement equal to units in line?

This would simulate columns with companies in line stacked up one behind the other, or in pairs, needing to keep proper alignment to be effective thereby making thier pace essentially the same as a unit in line. The columns would then only get a movement 'bonus' by being on a road, pike or trail, and I would set the trail movement rate equal to open ground so it would only really be useful in non-clear terrain.

Would this idea slow down the blitz? At least away from roads and pikes it should, and would make columns large, slow moving targets (especially with the density modifier on) as the really were, and not nimble little tank like units zipping in and out of harm's way to deliver a powerful punch.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

Al,

As you know, that's something you could impliment yourself by adjusting the pdt. I suggest you try it, test it and report your results.

I have thought alot about adjusting the overall MPs.

Cav=18
Inf=10
arty, Supply=8

I hesitate because that would break with long established norms.

My pdts already break with other designers by using the following:

1) Supply wagons move as do limbered arty. (Supply wagons move slower in other games)
2) Arty unlimbers with 3 MPs. (Other games need 4)
3) Weapon values vary a little. (some higher, some lower)
4) Night FA higher
5) Night attack penalty higher



Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Where there's a reasonable amount of cavalry, I'd suggest 15 or 16 pts for cav compared to 10pts for inf. In some scenarios where one side's troops are mainly cavalry, it might be better if cav are worth even less, eg. 12pts.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3rd Brig. III Corps
Phantom Cav. Div.
ANV

That might be a bit extreme

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Ross' idea:

<i>Option at the start of games that disrupted units cannot move adjacent or into the ZOC of a known enemy combat unit.
Disrupted units already adjacent would be able to remain, but would not be able to move into a new enemy unit's ZOC.</i>

Comments?

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't like that either for the reasons mentioned about surrounded or nearly surrounded units. It could create pockets of units that would be more susceptible to becoming surrounded.

I wonder, though, why disrupted units have half movement? I've had units attacked and disordered, then they can't escape the advancing enemy in perfect formation as they get enveloped and killed. Shouldn't a unit in real battle be able to slip away faster than an ordered unit marching after them? The Early American War and Nappy series can deal with that by the Line Movement Disruption optional rule, so that pursuing units may disrupt themselves. With no penalty in the CW series, ordered units can zip around like sports cars around tractor trailers. What does "disrupted" represent?

There has been talk about large regiments vs. small regiments. Can't the OOB break large regiments into parts? What if no units were larger than 250 men? So a 750-man regiment becomes, say, 50th Georgia a, b, and c? Similar to batteries are broken into parts?

And, a peeve I have with units in column on roads. I wish the engine could move stacked units at the road movement rate together. If they can end up in the same hex together, they ought to be able to move together. Makes a big difference when moving long columns by road through woods versus through open terrain. And, deployed units negate road movement for units in column on the road. Big problem, again, for roads through woods. Maybe some of the technology that's used for RR movement in the PZC series could apply to roads too? Used to be non-RR embarked units blocked the RR movement in the hex, but it has since been resolved. Maybe these are just limitations in the engine that can't be dealt with this late in the game, eh?

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

Rich,

I would, but I loaned my G-Burg CD to a friend, and it disappeared! [:(]

I am thinking of getting Antietam, as well as replacing G-Burg. Time to play, and tinker is the main issue, however.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

Actually,

Since Chickamuaga, disrupted units move at 3/4 speed (optional).

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>There has been talk about large regiments vs. small regiments. Can't the OOB break large regiments into parts? What if no units were larger than 250 men? So a 750-man regiment becomes, say, 50th Georgia a, b, and c? Similar to batteries are broken into parts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></i>

Hi,

This was actually done in the Norris-Frost modifications to some Talonsoft games. Stacking was 400 men/hex. I played the Perryville module, and the way it worked out was my opponent and I formed into long lines and blazed away until somebody broke. Since every hex had a max stack, there was little melee. It was probably more realistic, but not as much fun, imho. A number of folks liked it though. And I respect Norris and Frost for trying to come up with a more realistic game.



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I don't think having a Disrupted Units can't enter a ZOC would cause any new problems especially if you include a rule allowing ZOC to ZOC movement. This would just stop non engaged disrupted units from joining an attack or a defensive line.

What it would do is prevent an attacker from using disrupted units as filler to allow undisrupted units to advance.

The defender tends to suffer more from routes so it will only affect him if he is trying to hold a position over an extended time without falling back any.

The hoped for affect is that attackers would have to include a little more depth (follow up brigades) in their attacks to keep them going while the original attacking brigades recovered order.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

And the discussion of Disrupts reminded me of one of my pet peeves. Attackers are disrupted but defenders route. This is one of the rules that heavily favors attacker over defender. The worst that happens to an attacker due to defensive fire is he gets disrupted. Odds are next command phase he will recover to continue the attack. But a defender gets routed by offensive fire. Which means he loses his position in the line, runs somewhere well behind the line, and may return as disrupted if he accidently ends near an officer. Even if unrouted it will take a while to get back where the unit was.

My proposal is that all morale checks be for both disrupt and route. In board games this was usually done as if a unit failed the morale check by 2 or less then unit was disrupted but if failed by more unit was routed type thing.

I have never seen valid justification for a defender being more susceptible to routing than an advancing attacker but if there is it could be represented by a check that more favors route over disrupt.

And, taking this concept a little further add a Pin to the outcomes. When a unit fails a morale check make a second check to see if the unit Pins, Disrupts or Routes. Modify it based on unit morale, terrain etc. A Pin result would do like it says pin the unit in place. This was the main cause of attacks failing especially for green units. When they came under fire instead of pressing their attack and closing with the enemy they would stop and return fire. This usually resulted in the getting torn to pieces. Officers went to great lengths to try to prevent this including not allowing them to load their guns because of the natural survival tendancy of going to ground and return fire when fired on.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

Kennon:

Those are great suggestions and I whole heartedly support them.

I don't like the idea of breaking down units any more than they are now. I don't want to move a "30th Georgia unit a & b".

I didn't even like the idea of sectional guns. Now we have single guns running all over the place and players do not even keep 'battery integrity anymore". Why not mix 1 gun from Crenshaw's battery with a similar gun in the "Fredericksburg battery" for instance? There is no penalty. I'm sorry, but batteries kept their guns together and right now it is more advantageous to group guns by 'type' rather than by battery.



Bg. General Gilbert Collins
Army of Alabama
III/I/2nd Brigade