American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

You are, of course, correct in saying that "The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" - I assume you are referring to the main manual named 'user' in the manuals Folder for each game.
However, there is also a file in the Manuals Folder named 'cwb' that may help shed a little more light on the issue in respect to the Optional Rule 'Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates' (afterwards referred to as HFRR).

Ashdoll Ren is also correct in saying that "fatigue is irrelevant to march" and then goes on to mention a need for it. I generally agree that there should be something along these lines but feel that it would be problematic to introduce.
Should such a thing be introduced equally for all or on an army or unit basis? There are many instances where some armies could easily endure forced marches better than others (e.g many of Napoleon's campaigns, Jackson's 'foot cavalry').
Should it be related to unit quality?
Should it be related to the location of the battle? For example, one aid to Jackson in the Shenandoah was his excellent mapmaker who could not only provide Jackson with details of paths unknown to the enemy but their carrying capacity under different conditions.
Should terrain effect it?
Should it be an Optional Rule or built into the game system as a given?
So, in an ideal world we should probably have such a thing but I foresee many problems in introducing it. There are already other, more unrealistic issues, that should probably be addressed ahead of that one. Is it realistic to be able to set up 20 guns across the 125 yard width (of a hex) and begin blasting away? The obvious dangers are apparent to say nothing of the smoke that would obscure any sighting after one firing of such a line of artillery. Is it realistic for units (sometimes very large ones) to utilise the benefits of road movement and then cramming up to a thousand of them (in road column) in a 125 yard stretch of road before setting off again next turn in perfect order to continue to march in road column to wherever they're going? It'd be complete chaos [see here for a (non-JTS/WDS) discussion on road column length (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=505514)].
I think we'll have to live with no fatigue for marching around the battlefield (although you can't recover from fatigue while doing so [WDS v4.0 excepted]).

Another Optional Rule can also come into play where Fatigue is concerned, Rout Limiting. This is another rule that I've found is checked as a matter of course. Never any arguments, it is just done. I believe that, from a simulation viewpoint, it is better to have it unchecked (although I can recall playing one game where this was the case - at the prompting of my Union opponent). I consider it more historically accurate to have it unchecked. I also believe that having it unchecked often benefits the CSA side over the USA side because the CSA generally has better rated leaders and higher quality units which can assist in rout recovery.

Nope.

In low and medium fatigue, it is in the elastic region so it can recover faster when pressure disappears.

In high fatigue, it is in the plastic region so it recovers very slowly and remains high fatigue for a long time even if the pressure disappears.

I read both manuals. And I understand there are black boxes in computer games more or less.

"The fatigue rules are vague to some extent In the Manuals Folder" I mean the concept of the rules, 'fatigue', in specific rules is a little disordered and inconsistent, and works not well enough on some points in games now. It is a design problem.




I am also a board wargamer. I think most issues you mentioned have better solutions in the boardgames I've played. At least, better than JTS/WDS. (I have not played a game having special rules for the smoke in the linear tactics era. Or it has been taken into consideration in the firing charts and resolution? But there are some proper restrictions for over-stacked infantry and artillery indeed. Like, you can stack a lot of infantry and artillery in one hex. But only limited little strength can fire because of the front width. )

WTF?

I also tested fire combat and found that the 1 to 6 fatigue per casualty has been around since at least 3.0. It's just the manual that was updated for 4.0. I don't see any entry in the change log to indicate when it was actually changed.

It doesn't seem to be a helpful comparison when discussing abstract representations of civil war regimental cohesion with computer game rules.

I've also played a lot of boardgames. I doubt that it is taken into consideration in firing charts as they remain static and do not change as firing explosive weapons continues from the same position. I've never seen smoke represented in boardgames although it is often a factor in miniature wargames.

In my own "old fashioned wargame manner", I will continue to follow the principle that if a unit gets seriously fatigued, I'll withdraw it from the line, if possible, and hope that it recovers somewhat to rejoin the fray. It will probably continue to be a cause of my defeats, but what's new lol lol lol.

It is a pity to hear the program is not in accordance with the manual. Though it won't shock me anymore, we can hardly check if all things go as manual said...



Yes, an analogy is usually dangerous for serious discussion. And I've given my direct feedback on our issue without analogy in the former posts. And still insist on my thoughts. But the analogy is interesting.




No experience with miniature now. I saw cotton (?) seemingly was used to indicate fog in ACW and naval miniature, but first heard that they have rules on fog indeed. Interesting.
The whole fire results may have been lowed down because of fog. (?) More complex and dynamic fog rules may be costly for boardgames, which needs more rules, more maker counters, and more space. Some WWII tactic boardgames do have rules for smoke, including floating away and dissipating.




LOL. The discussion here is just some of the minor details. It is one of my funs in wargames to consider and to discuss the mechanics and math. But, anyway, just drop the tedious posts, and enjoy games, Karl! I agree with your "old-fashioned wargame manner".

Indeed I understand, I too love the mechanics but the math just gets beyond my simple mind lol, although a figure of 2.56 minimum ratio for melee purpose seems to have stuck in my head for some reason lol lol lol.

Why that ratio? Because it's roughly a 75% chance of winning?

I made a calculator that can tell me the expected results from any combat. As soon as I finished it, I barely used it. The most important thing I learned in doing so was the actual rules of the game. Now I can pretty much eyeball a given combat and tell whether it's a good outcome for me or not.

A quick reference sheet would help newcomers learn the game math well enough to compete on a level playing field. I consider making one myself. But the lack of common PDT values between games, especially artillery values, makes me think it may not be worth it until the PDTs are standardized and sanitized.

I think the ratio Karl wants to mention is 1.67 (5:3).

Compare the total modified attackers' strength to the total modified defenders' strength and express a ratio. If the ratio is more than 5:3, the attackers will have an advantage. In other words, the probability of attackers winning will be more than 50%, if the ratio is more than 5:3.

So, yes, it is easy to judge if the probability of winning a melee is more than a coin toss in JTS/WDS ACW. But I will still avoid a just 50-50 melee in most conditions.