American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

We had a fairly good response on the thread: “Supply Problems While Seeking Realism.â€

Ross,
Don't quit posting on this. Regardless of the difficulties of implementing them in the games these are good ideas and are worth pondering...
I enjoy more realism and don't mind a bit more micro-management so I would vote for 3, 4 or 5, and 6.
Incidentally, I don't know if you've played the HPS Panzer Campaigns games but they have several optional ways of simulating supply...


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/acwgc_personal_record.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/western_theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

I vote 3,4,5 and 6 also. I am guilty of having horse artillery wandering around from time to time (I often lose it too but thats another story!) and it is unrealistic of them to be able to draw on the main army store whilst on a hill 4-5 miles from the nearest other unit.

Keep posting on this Ross. The designers are very receptive to ideas and who knows, perhaps a change in the artillery ammo situation will come about as a result of this.


Brig. General P. Kenney
3rd Division
Cavalry Corps
Army of the Mississippi, CSA

I vote 3, 4, 5, and 6. Although it looks like the difference between 4 and 5 is just the mechanism for resupply which we should probably leave to the programmers.

I also suggest you add: One to two more levels of AI settings for auto defense fire. Give small arms at least Short, Medium and Long range settings (two Medium preferred). Give Artillery at least a Short(3 hex), Medium Close (4-6 hex), Medium Long (7-9 hex), and Long (10+) range selections. Better yet a threshold system based on chance of damage and threat.

We need to be able to control both resupply and expenditure or neither will work. PBEM requires the use of Auto Defense Fire in order to have reasonable game length. If using this feature forces all weapons to be placed on minimum range we have crippled the game.

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

I am definitely an adherent of "The games are complicated enough and players should not have more details to manage" but even though I don't want more supply wagons to wag around the battlefield, I also don't like the game dispersing my supply for me so I would go 4 and 6.

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/1/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 agree with 3, 4, 5 and 6. To elaborate on 5, I see no reason why a unit couldn't receive a partial resupply if a wagon is low; say, 20 rnds/man instead of 40. Actually, the computer gives us the ability to do a lot more, such as differentiate between the types of ammo available in the basic load (#solid shot, case shot, cannister) as well as calibers available in a particular supply train, but I wouldn't want to give General Simms a headache.[:D] (The real reason is that it would complicate things a whole lot more for us Rebs than them Yanks.)

I do think we need to look at how long a basic load would last. Practically speaking, a regiment would probably expend ammunition at a much lower rate at 500 yds than at 100 yds. Also at a lower rate when it moves in the player turn. At Gettysburg, Confederates expended on average 25-26 rnds per man, as estimated by Confederate Ordnance. I assume this does not include rounds taken from Union prisoners and casualties. Conversely, I Corps AoP figures are 86 rds/man, and Geary's XII Corps brigade 75 rds/man. In all, 5,400,000 rounds were issued to about 90,000 men in the AoP, although how many of these were actually fired would probably be a much smaller figure.

Anyway, I think General Whitehead makes an excellent point about setting ranges for ADF. There is no reason ranges can't be set for each of the five hexes a rifle can shoot. I would suggest that ranges could be set for each unit, with group settings for brigade, division, and corps, and with a default setting of 3 hexes. That would allow the micromanagers to do their thing while simplifying things for the rest of us.

While I'm on the subject, I think there ought to be a target priority in ADF with the closest unit being top priority and infantry taking precedence over every other type unit. Too many times I have watched my infantry waste shots on artillery in ADF with nothing to show for it.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I've usually got enough to worry about just keeping the supply wagons in range now and I don't need more complexity. I'd say 6 at best.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

I categorically vote for #3!

<i>3. Basic Loads: All ranged fire units should be assigned with a basic load and subject to run low/out of ammo to be resupplied from wagons.</i>

This would go the furthest towards eliminating that horrible, random, first fire depletion! I am assuming that "ranged fire units" includes infantry and cavalry as well as artillery. The only thing that I'm unclear about would be whether or not to do it all from a common type supply wagon or have different wagons for the artillery.





Maj. Gen. Jos. C. Meyer
Second Division, 14th Corps,
Army of the Cumberland

I definitely lean toward the "I have too much to worry about already" crowd and I don't want to get into micromanaging supply. However, I agree that the supply rules do leave much to be desired.

I do like options 3,4, and 5 and I like the idea of 6 so that different methods could be chosen. I would have to experience each method in game play and see what the impact really was. I think that these could be worthwhile options for improving game play. However, if I have to get into micromanaging the number of canister rounds or solid shot for each battery, I would keep things the way they are.

Maj Mark Truitt
Truitt's Brigade
Stone Mountain Division
III Corps / AoG (CSA)

Number 6.

Definitely some interesting ideas on how to work the supply, though. #4 has promise, especially if it's an Optional Rule...


General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/

3 & 6.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos

The Union Forever! Huzzah!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I am assuming that "ranged fire units" includes infantry and cavalry as well as artillery. The only thing that I'm unclear about would be whether or not to do it all from a common type supply wagon or have different wagons for the artillery....
<font color="yellow">I favor keeping artillery and small arms ammo as 2 different factors within the same wagon and at levels appropriate to the owning units. Therefore, a wagon could run out of small arms ammo and still have artillery ammo in stock, or vice-versa.
(I would go further and have corps or army trains able to replenish divisional wagons. But that is just a fantasy at present.[8D])
If we could have basic ammo loads and player control of resupply as in 4, 5, and 6, that would go far to please control-freaks and a #1 option toggle for "don't want to be bothered with details on supply" types of players. </font id="yellow">

However, if I have to get into micromanaging the number of canister rounds or solid shot for each battery, I would keep things the way they are...
<font color="yellow">I definitely agree. Furthermore, I don't want to be concerned with small arms varieties of ammo with different factors. (pistol, musket, rifle, carbine, etc). [xx(]
We don't need to concern ourselves with types of artillery ammo.
We already have differences in fire results. Let that stand for differences in effectiveness in artillery blasts. Cannon already loaded with solid shot and seeing enemy infantry charging will fire the solid shot before they reload with canister/grape. Furthermore, their limbers may already be out of canister. [:0]

Staying out of micromanagement, just a single number factor <u>each</u> for artillery ammo and small arms ammo factors will suit me fine. Let's keep the number of wagons on map lower by assigning both artillery and small arms resupply to a single owning unit's wagon.
All this will keep a player more cautious about losing wagons or exposing them to losses from enemy fire. (More realism! [;)]) </font id="yellow"> <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If the designers want to keep it real, they could limit each armies' total ammo supply to what is recorded in the historical records.
When we run out of ammo,..we are out of ammo!
That should affect both armies. [:D] That would almost certainly change our aggressiveness about fighting at every opportunity.
In that case, JEB Stuart's arrival with 125->150 captured wagons would amount to some additional ammo. [?][?][?][:D]

As Ken has pointed out, choices could be extended for ranged fire, but that is a topic for another thread. Resupply options are already complicated enough and I hope that just a few suggestions might be implemented.

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

#1. Yeah, the system has flaws in it, but I don't think the marginal gains would be worth the extra headache in game micromanagement.

Of course, that gets into the old saw.... what is the proper balance between playability and detail, and we'll never all agree on that.

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

# 3 with an implementation of either 4 or 5....This is the #1 change I would like to see in the games.....Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

#3

Would like to see some way of monitoring the ammo supply. I mean having troops circle opponent come up from behind and fire one volley and become low on ammo !! Who would send troops on such a mission with one bullet?

Col. Alvin Baker
3rd Div II Corps
Army of Georgia

csaokie@windstream.net