American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Adding time based VP hexes to the game system would be a significant improvement. It would give scenario designers a very useful tool for controlling the flow of longer scenarios. Even three day scenarios like those in Gettysburg would benefit from using such VP hexes.

As for the 1390 turn Overland scenario, it is hard to fix. You could add large VP hexes scattered around the outer fortifications which would make Rebels falling back to early to them a risky solution. However it is achieved, any thing that forces the ANV to fight outside of defensive works that can't be out flanked is a automatic Union Major Victory. The Union army is just so large that given a day or two it can surround any position the ANV attempts to hold except Richmond intercity.

Anyone who doubts that I will be happy to demonstrate in battle as the Union player.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

No engine change required.
All you need is a unit that occupies a victory location if the requirements for it are fulfilled.
So if you want to reward a player for holding Spotsylvania longer or the other player for capturing it earlier you setup a victory location, place a Confederate unit in the hex below, a Union unit in the hex above and who ever fulfills the victory conditions can occupy the victory location.
I toyed around in the editor, didn't exactly went like I wanted as I though you could add objectives that belong to no side, anyhow all that would be done now is to properly name them in the scenario

Look at the screenshot I did, the one fulfilling the requirements simply occupies the location.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

I don't quite see how that creates a time based VP hex. It is still all or nothing.

The idea of a time based VP is that if you place say a VP hex in Spotsylvania it will be worth 10 points per turn to the side holding it. Initially it is held by the Rebels. If they prevent the Union army from taking the hex they will accumulate 13900 points for that by end of game. Odds are they won't hold it that long. For instance if they hold it 250 turns before losing to the Union advance they will receive 2500 points toward victory that won't disappear due to the Union occupying the hex. The Union on the other hand assuming they hold it the rest of the game will receive 11400 points for the hex.

Scatter enough of these around the map at key points and you have created a scenario that must be won by holding terrain as long as possible. Right now the current VP system can't reproduce this. You can do it with player made rules. Just ignore the game's VP system and make up your own.

One other thing is probably needed is garrison units. They would be say 100 to 200 man units that can only be used to garrison VP hexes. The reason they would be needed is that one side could saturate the country side with small cavalry units that would run around flipping VP hexes. Although a case could be made for forcing the Union to garrison all these hexes as they advanced but the Southern side would still have a problem because they don't have combat units to spare. Probably adding more fixed Richmond defense units to occupy them would work.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Well it is time based if you simply allow the occupation of the VP if certain conditions are fulfilled. Of course not on a daily base but I guess it would be enough if such VPs are awarded if locations are held for a considerable time longer or conquered much earlier, not just 2-3 days.

I think if you adjust such VP conditions you could force the scenario into more historical lanes, so that locations are held or conquered close to the dates it historically happened.

Of course such a manual VP system demands a bit form the players but as I said, player who dare to play this huge scenario will surely not have trouble with such a system.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

A manual system would work although it would be tough to play test. About a year for each attempt.

Still has the problem of balance. Anything that forces the ANV to stay out of the Richmond defenses means it will be wiped out to the last man. Still no takers on me demonstrating that.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Gen Whitehead
I suppose the reason you have had no takers so far on a mana a mano Overland is because nobody disagrees with you, especially moi, since I built the sucker. It is always, as Lee said, a matter of time. A person of exceptional tactical ability (not me, to be sure) would make for a higher degree of difficulty, but the ANV still standing at the end of X number of turns is an impossibility.
I wish there to be an understanding of historical play. When I refer to playing historically, I do not mean an outcome matching actual events, or that the historical battles end up taking place on May 5, May 8, May 12, etc. Historical play, to me, means using methods that were realistically used in 61-65. The game engine also has a hard time replicating that, as we know. Instant radio communication, practically unlimited LOS, the ability for small units to act independently far from base or support, and God's eye overwatching it all, make for your prediction to be even more inevitable.
I would consider playing such a game, not to give Kennon the opportunity to say he is right, once again, but just expose more of the flaws in the design, of which some may be fixable, and have some fun in the meantime.
John Ferry
Commanding, 20th Corps

I also noted your suggestion for garrison units. Great idea! I was just thinking, if we had a bunch of objs stretching back to the Rapidan there would end up being a cat and mouse game where the rebs steal them back, and then the yanks have to return to kick them out. I think we'll see something in an update regarding garrisons.
Input welcomed from all players of the monster!
John Ferry
Overland co-designer

I also noted your suggestion for garrison units. Great idea! I was just thinking, if we had a bunch of objs stretching back to the Rapidan there would end up being a cat and mouse game where the rebs steal them back, and then the yanks have to return to kick them out. I think we'll see something in an update regarding garrisons.
Input welcomed from all players of the monster!
John Ferry
Overland co-designer

Be happy to show you the flaws. With me as the Union that is. Playing the Rebel requires one to enjoy being beaten soundly. Just send me an email.

Of course the fundamental problem that is very difficult to build into a game is that you don't have to worry about your Corps, Division, Brigade, and Regiment commanders just ignoring your commands and doing something stupid instead. Lee had a compact veteran army with solid commanders. Grant had a dysfunctional and highly political command with an unwieldy army that had no confidence in it's commanders. There is no way to duplicate the ability of Lee to bring superior numbers to the point of contact against a foe that out numbered him 3 to 1. Nor the tendency of the Union forces to give up any attempt at tactics once they got blocked and engaged.

When I run into a good position I start hunting the flanks while pinning the main enemy force in position. Eventually I will find it and I will have them out numbered four or five to one. Even "F" troops can win at those odds. This is basically what Grant did but only after he slaughtered a good number of his troops establishing that the Rebel position was a good one.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Well the last posts make seem to reveal the dire need of some kind of Command & Control system.
The Napoleonic series lacks this too and Bill Peters had the idea of such a system:
http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11937

Bill had also the idea of limiting the reaction, what is surely an interesting point in a game with huge forces and spread out detachments, look here:
http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.p ... 59&start=0

If something similar could be done here and if such systems would be adjust to mirror each sides problems the course of the campaign and the battles in it would surely be very different.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

Takes a lot of trust on a computer game. These type rules work very well on a face to face board game like what Three Days of Gettysburg does.

At one time there was a computer program for supporting PBEM board games that would record the die rolls so the other side could verify that the player did apply the results. But I lost track of it. It may have worked in conjunction with a web site.

HPS could at some point add such a command system to their games as an option. It could fix divisions and brigades or significantly change their movement, command ranges, and morale based on rolls. It is something very difficult to play test for balance. Command systems tend to favor defenders no matter how they are implemented. For example, in Pickett's charge the Union only has to stay put, they would like to get initiative to out flank the attack but it isn't critical. The Rebel wants to advance with four divisions all in coordination and supported by artillery and infantry on the flanks. In reality Lee lost the die roll and only two divisions and a couple of brigades advanced. Players usually don't take those kind of results well.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Ken do you mean products/systems like Vassal or Aid de Camp that support PBEM for boards games?

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

Ned,

Heck, I thought you were already a 100 years old! Very interesting topic and one with good responses!

Warmest regards,

_________________
Respectfully,

Your Obedient Servant,

General Nick Kunz
Commandant, VMI

If I remember right they just take care of documenting the move and combat but don't support it by enforcing any rules or recording die rolls as they happen.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

Indeed, trust is needed, but if you don't trust your opponent why play him at all?
So if you do trust him, I don't see a problem with such a system.

For dice roles this may be helpful:
http://www.pbegames.com/roller/
It can send the results of to a mail address, so either the players or maybe a gamemaster can verify that the result.
Of course a gamemaster able to see both sides would also be able to verify that any results are correctly applied.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."