American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

This topic was extensivly discussed in April. The concensus was that meleeing at bridges and in towns was acceptable especially if agreed upon at the comencement of the game. However, two situations were not covered.
1) Should infantry units in column be allowed to attack solitary headquarters during the melee phase? (presume that there was not enough movement to "overrun" it during the movement phase)
2) Should infantry units in column be allowed to atack solitary supply units during the melee phase?
I feel the answer to both is yes since neither is really a melee combat against enemy combat units.
I would like to hear the clubs members views.

Paul Siragusa
Lt. General 2nd Div/II, AoG

I would have to say yes on both parts. Like you said it is not really combat but the process of taking control of the said unit.

Col. Charles Babb
COLD STEEL!
6th Brigade(Cav. Artillery),3rd Division
XV Corps
Army of the Tennesse
"It's a dog eat dog world out there and I am wearing Milk Bone underwear." Norm from Cheers

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by prsir</i>
<br />This topic was extensivly discussed in April. The concensus was that meleeing at bridges and in towns was acceptable especially if agreed upon at the comencement of the game. However, two situations were not covered.
1) Should infantry units in column be allowed to attack solitary headquarters during the melee phase? (presume that there was not enough movement to "overrun" it during the movement phase)
2) Should infantry units in column be allowed to atack solitary supply units during the melee phase?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

IMO, a melee is a melee, so, the column melee against supplies and leaders should not be done.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands, General
4th Brigade, Cavalry Division, XIV Corps,
Army of Cumberland, USA


ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Sir,

Personally, I'd say "yes" everytime to both these questions. Now if the question was: should HQ units and Wagons be left where they can be meleed by units in column", why then I guess I'd have to say "no"[;)]

Respectfully,




[img]<font size="3">Brigadier General Prax Swan, AoG CoR
Officer Commanding
4/I AoG CSA

The War Horse Division
</font id="size3">

In short, yes to both. The exception being that the column should not be running around looking for those units. And as General Swan said, the leaders and supply should not have been left unprotected in the first place....

Lt. Col. M. Cox
4th/2nd/<i>VI</i>
AoS
<i>'Once more unto the breach'</i>

It would be appropriate to be in column formation for "pursuit" purposes but you would have to change to line for the eventual capture.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS Chief-of -Staff,
2nd Division Cmdr, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

"The concensus was that meleeing at bridges and in towns was acceptable especially if agreed upon at the comencement of the game."

Wasn't the consensus that meleeing in column was allowable anywhere, anytime, under any conditions unless something else was agreed upon at the commencement of the game? Many wanted to implement a house rule to eliminate meleeing in column except for at bridges and in towns but it is a house rule that has to be consented to by all participating parties to the game or else meleeing in column (or night attacks, etc) are not forbidden by the game.

Sorry for the clarification but there are some who will mistakenly think that it is an automatic rule without mentioning it at the start of the game.

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

Gen. Simms is right. Column Melee is permissible unless it is disallowed at the beginning of the game.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS Chief-of -Staff,
2nd Division Cmdr, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

I am with Gen Simms on this issue. Anything not expressly disallowed by the Club Rules is automatically allowed unless the two players agree before the start of the game to create House Rules.

My two cents is that the fewer Club Rules there are concerning gameplay the better. That leaves it up to the individual players to decide their own rules and play anyway they like.

Wow! That sounded like an argument for States Rights there! All it needs is a little 10th Amendment reference and it would be complete. Appropriate enough for a Civil War Club.

Respectfully,
Col. Blake Strickler
Commandant of VMI



Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff

The question was NOT (as I read it) that deciding before a game about attacking in column. <font color="red"><font size="5"> The question was IF you have decided that there are NO column attacks in YOUR game, can you attack a lone supply wagon and/or a leader with a column? </font id="red"></font id="size5">

IOW, when to disallow column attacks are ONLY SOME disallowed or are ALL COLUMN attacks disallowed.

The question is NOT, also, whether or not supply or leaders should be unprotected, the question is as I have stated above.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands, General
4th Brigade, Cavalry Division, XIV Corps,
Army of Cumberland, USA


ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Ernie: And what is your answer. I know I answered it.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS Chief-of -Staff,
2nd Division Cmdr, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

Ah, good point Ernie. Then if it is previously agreed upon that there is to be no attacking in column than I would say yes you can still attack defenseless units using column formation (wagons and leaders) despite the rule. But you had better agree upon all this beforehand.

Respectfully,
Col. Blake Strickler
Commandant of VMI



Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Drex</i>
<br />Ernie: And what is your answer. I know I answered it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, you did.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands, General
4th Brigade, Cavalry Division, XIV Corps,
Army of Cumberland, USA


ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Target1221</i>
<br />Ah, good point Ernie. Then if it is previously agreed upon that there is to be no attacking in column than I would say yes you can still attack defenseless units using column formation (wagons and leaders) despite the rule. But you had better agree upon all this beforehand.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My point is that if you agree that you cannot melee IN COLUMN, then there are NO circumstances, except for bridges and towns, that melee in column is allowed.

But, if the players agree to ANY type of rules for their game, then that is fine.[:)]

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands, General
4th Brigade, Cavalry Division, XIV Corps,
Army of Cumberland, USA


ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

My Take on Column Melees:

1. In-Column Meleeing SHOULD BE included in the Club's House Rules as a forbidden Tactic by default, unless demanded by the structure of the Game - Town, Bridge and some Ford Hexes.

2. In-Column Meleeing SHOULD NOT be allowed against Supply Wagons . . as Historically, they would have had a Military Escort and as such are not 'defenceless', regardless of how they are depicted within the HPS Engine.

3. In-Column Meleeing SHOULD be allowed against Lone Officers, as there is historical precedence of Lone Officers carrying out reconnaisance or being 'cut off' from their Commands during Battle - Zollicoffer being one example that comes immediately to mind . . . there are others I am certain.

The application of such a universal House Rule would be dependant upon what each Player wants from the Game.

I personally would like the Game to reflect the Period depicted - in as Historic a manner as possible. If a Player wishes to play the Game purely as a Game - whereby, 'if the Game allows a particular movement/action, then anything goes' . . the onus should be on Him to establish that before He begins the Game.

As Things stand . . . Every Player has to remember to stipulate his own preferred House Rules, each and every time He wishes to begin a game - which to my thinking is an impractical situation.

The Club has as a stated aim - to reflect the Historical Period and Tactics of the Era in which the Games are set. Therefore - imho - Column Melee, limited to a practical level, should be the Norm (therefore, a permanent Club Rule) and deviations into 'Column Melee where the Game Engine permits it is fair' gamesmanship, should be regarded as 'personal preference' and the onus should be placed on the Player wishing to defer the Club Rule, to present his case to and reach agreement from, his prospective opponent.

As Things stand - everyone has to establish this factor before any game proceeds. At least with a Club Ruling on the Subject . . . . the necessary bargaining regarding this subject would be decreased.

With Respect,

Pat.



Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Lieutenant General.
Highland Division.
II Corps.
Army of Georgia.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

"Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose."