American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

If this awful artillery disruption by routing through is not fixed. I hate this rule. I know only people who hate it. Since all routing units seem to conspire to divide, take as many different paths through as many different batteries as possible to disrupt as many guns as possible, artillery becomes next to unusable near the frontlines. Yet in Ozark, for instance, it has to be near the frontlines, or nowhere. On open ground you can put it further back, it's totally useless but at least it doesn't get disrupted.

Why on earth could this horrible rule not be made optional instead of mandatory? Much as I love the Civil War, this could make me cease playing the HPS ACW games. The rule kills it. Artillery was useless before, but now it's a positive liability.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

I totally agree. The routed troops are like heat seeking missiles that seek out and disrupt the guns. They even go out of their way do this. The sad fact is I have read numerous examples of Civil War troops using guns to rally on and make a stand and have never read about troops disrupting crews to where their fire was greatly diminshed. Three famous examples come quickly to mind, the Hornets Nest at Shiloh, the Cornfield at Antietam, and cedar Creek (even before Little Phil's return). I feel this is a real detriment to the HPS ACW system and can't believe it hasn't been addressed yet. [:(!][:D]

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
II/VI/AoS
"Forward Bucktails"

Barkeep! See that man in the corner who looks down - I'll buy his next round. Send it over with my condolences.


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

And if you compare this routing rule to The Gamers' ACW Brigade series, there you get a bonus modifier if stacked with unlimbered guns....[}:)]

Gen Lars W
1/XIV
Army of the Cumberland
USA

What I have found is that you have to have a stack of eight. It doesn't have to be eight artillery, just eight units, and a routing unit can't go over the top of them. I know that is a gamey solution and not at all in keeping with Civil War tactics, but neither is deploying 1000 men in a 125 x 125 yd hex. I differ with General Walter as to the effectiveness of artillery though, having had my lines shattered in both full Peninsula and full Gettysburg by Yankee artillery. It probably doesn't make as much of a difference in the Ozark battles as there is not nearly as much artillery and a lot of the Western artillery is 6lbers, at least for the Rebs. I think the Gettysburg tables for artillery is just about right. BTW, artillery won't rout if a unit routs next to them like infantry does; it has to go over them to affect them. Even if it is stacked with the artillery and routs, it doesn't seem to affect the artillery.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Gentlemen. [:D]

I have noted that this topic or something similar appears quite regularly on the board. And I have also noted that in general, it is the Yanks that complain about it. P'raps this is a particular problem for the Union - seeing as fewer Rebs seem to be bothered by it?

Could it be that it is so nettlesome to the Union, because it is the only advantage that the Union have against the noble Secessionists? Hmmmm? [:p]

That and generally speaking, more bodies to pile before their Opponents lines?? [B)]

Whilst unquestionably Unhistorical . . p'raps it is a crude device used by the Designers to weigh a little, measure a bit and balance the scenarios? [;)]

After all . . . again generally speaking . . . the Union should have won the War within 24-30 months. That they didn't was down to Confederate Generalship (occasionally), Confederate Luck (rarely), Confederate Tenacity and Union Ineptitude (mostly). [:o)]

Until the Union put Grant - a man of unstinting ruthlessness and singularity of purpose, (not to mention a pathological disregard for the Humanity of his Enemy and Her Citizenry) - that the Pendulum swung inexorably to the Union's favour.

With genuine Respect Chaps . . . . I can understand the frustration of a Battery disrupting thru' no fault of their own - (or Yours, as their Commander in Chief), but surely . . losing a Battle because of a Rout in a section of your Army . . . . does it not sound to You, on second hearing . . . as a tale of "The One that Got Away"???? [:D]

Pardon My Mischief Gentlemen . . . . Please! [:o)]

Pat. [:D]

Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Brigadier General.
Carroll's Corps,(II)
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia.
C.S.A.Cabinet Secretary

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
I have noted that this topic or something similar appears quite regularly on the board. And I have also noted that in general, it is the Yanks that complain about it. P'raps this is a particular problem for the Union - seeing as fewer Rebs seem to be bothered by it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Because your supermen don't rout, that's why.



Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />What I have found is that you have to have a stack of eight. It doesn't have to be eight artillery, just eight units, and a routing unit can't go over the top of them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, I know the trick and use it in big battles, but in Ozark you have so few artillery with each division that you can't do it except by either reducing your frontline infantry strength inacceptably or else unhistorically concentrating the guns of several divisions in one big battery which then is also pretty useless because of the nature of the ground. I would much prefer if the game would not force me to adopt such solutions.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
I like your comments but cant agree that the designers or John for that matter wanted this to balance the game. The root problem that Dierk is talking about has to do with complaints heard round the world about the OLD rout routine which then were corrected and put into the engine and thus we have the rout problem of today.

In the Napoleonic system we have units routing all over the place. This is the old rout problem of the ACW series. The new fix was supposed to remedy that - it does - your units dont end up behind the Reb lines as often anymore.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually my complaint is not that they rout through my units, but that after a recent (Ozark 1.01 I believe) patch they started disrupting everything they rout through. They should disrupt infantry alright; there is plenty of evidence of this happening in the war. (The fighting north of Iuka comes to mind.) They shouldn't disrupt guns. First, it just doesn't happen; guns in battery don't just "disrupt". (How would that look like, anyway?) Secondly, artillery is already nearly defenseless and useless even if in good order; being disrupted all the time, with fire effectiveness again halved and movement allowance not even sufficient to limber up and move a single hex, it becomes positively sitting VP for the enemy. Combine that with its excessive VP value in HPS Gettysburg, and the bottom line is that artillery is best left at home. Why should I drag useless VP onto the field just for the benefit of the enemy?

The one thing I can't understand is that a rule that affects gameplay so drastically has not been made optional. Maybe because nobody in his right mind would use it?

As long as this nonsense rule is in the game and not optional, I think it's Nappy and Panzer Campaigns for me, and if I miss the Civil War (and I will), probably back to BG. A pity, because I like the campaign format so much.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

While I'm not nearly as "at the end of my rope" as General Walter, I do agree this is an issue that needs to be considered.

Frankly, this is one of several factors that makes it foolish in game turns to use Artillery in a historical manner. As one of the primary branches of the armies, that points to a fundamental problem with the engine as we have it. While I realize that no engine can be perfect, an engine that forces you to play in radically unhistorical ways is a problem.

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

(Cough) poppycock (cough)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eireb</i>
<br />Gentlemen. [:D]

I have noted that this topic or something similar appears quite regularly on the board. And I have also noted that in general, it is the Yanks that complain about it. P'raps this is a particular problem for the Union - seeing as fewer Rebs seem to be bothered by it?

Could it be that it is so nettlesome to the Union, because it is the only advantage that the Union have against the noble Secessionists? Hmmmm? [:p]

That and generally speaking, more bodies to pile before their Opponents lines?? [B)]

Whilst unquestionably Unhistorical . . p'raps it is a crude device used by the Designers to weigh a little, measure a bit and balance the scenarios? [;)]

After all . . . again generally speaking . . . the Union should have won the War within 24-30 months. That they didn't was down to Confederate Generalship (occasionally), Confederate Luck (rarely), Confederate Tenacity and Union Ineptitude (mostly). [:o)]

Until the Union put Grant - a man of unstinting ruthlessness and singularity of purpose, (not to mention a pathological disregard for the Humanity of his Enemy and Her Citizenry) - that the Pendulum swung inexorably to the Union's favour.

With genuine Respect Chaps . . . . I can understand the frustration of a Battery disrupting thru' no fault of their own - (or Yours, as their Commander in Chief), but surely . . losing a Battle because of a Rout in a section of your Army . . . . does it not sound to You, on second hearing . . . as a tale of "The One that Got Away"???? [:D]

Pardon My Mischief Gentlemen . . . . Please! [:o)]

Pat. [:D]

Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Brigadier General.
Carroll's Corps,(II)
"Spartan Southrons"
Army of Georgia.
C.S.A.Cabinet Secretary

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Major General Don Golen
1st Div/ V Corps/
Army of the Potomac, USA!
"The Bucktails"

Granted I am rather new and unexperienced to the series, but I do agree with Gen Walter.

The other thing I have issue with is the pathing it takes. I don't mind the routing troops it runs thru disrupting. However when there are no enemy troops on the flank why would a routing unit take a path 2 hexes directly behind (makes sense) but then make a sharp 180 degree turn for 2 hexes (disrupting the 700 odd troop stack it has just hit) then make another sharp 180 degree turn to continue in its original direction. Apart from the 700 stack all other stacks were forming a front line aprox 6 or 7 hexs behind routing unit.
That is just an example from a couple of days ago and not the most extreme example I have seen either.

Maj. Paul Sharp
2nd Div - XIX Corps
Army of Shenandoah
"Defenders of the Right"

OK..

straight up question to HPS gang...

Why has this not been addressed ?


Lieutenant General John Corbin
Commanding officer
Army of The James
USA

Since it was introduced in a patch, I reckon someone at HPS finds the present system useful, John. [B)]

All I ask is that it be made optional. Please! Then we can all play the way we want and must not suffer from a highly contentious and very very annoying "innovation" unless we choose to. Afterall, Rout Limiting was introduced to satisfy the needs of what is probably a minority of (PBEM) players and it is much less contentious. Let everyone play the way he wants. Right?

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

I've felt that artillery defeated in melee should take casualties but not be automatically eliminated. Instead it should be retreated in a limbered disrupted state to represent hitching up and going while under rifle fire instead of manning the guns to the bitter end. A strong enough melee can result in the latter case too. A form of this has been incorporated into the PZC games for unlimbered AT guns.

Major General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC