American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

All

Some of the comments here and indeed some of my Observations as well compels me comment.
1. My definition of winning is Playing a scenario till i see TIME LIMIT reached. To me both players win in that situation.

2. I rarely achieve a major victory. Call it caution , call it historical game play whatever, in the rare cases that i do achieve one
it is due to my opponent playing poorly instead of my desire to crush him. IMO the generals of the day were way more mindful of the condition of their force
than the average gamer is .
3. In deciding to play a player i often look at the number of Major victories he has , to me it is not an indicator of how good a player is but how much winning at all costs is important to him. I.E does he use GAMEY tactics, Replay moves, ect. In short cheat.
4. When Playing for a Minor it allows me to to play more realistic and keeps my opponent more apt to play it thru.

5. If the Major is a result of Objectives gained then so be it , But i never want to lose due to MAJOR Losses in my force.

Lastly When i play an opponent I offer a "Campaign Game" of Sorts.
A. we agree on a number of games to be played Lets say 7 I realize this could take years so its important to find a Good/ Reliable opponent
B. For the First Game we tend to focus on a Game rated Excellent by Blake and one that is Balanced, after that its losers choice.
C. Scoring !! this is key,,,, A DRAW gives each side 1 point. A MINOR nets 2 for the winner 1 for the loser , A MAJOR nets 3 for the winner and 1 for the loser.
In addition up to 1 point for LOSSES OF MEN % difference ,are figured in In this case a Leader is counted as a man regardless of rank :note you will receive the points for rank in the game that will work toward your top level Win Draw , minor ,major. Cannon losses = 25 men
You then add up both sides losses and get a % difference that is awarded.

so a simple example say the game Ends in a draw each get a point . side A loses 100 men , Side B loses 80 the Final score A=1 B=1.2

EXAMPLE 2 Game ends in A getting a Minor so 2 for A and 1 For B however A lost 1000 men while B only lost 650 so the end result A=2 B=1.35

the way get the # is Lower Number divided by higher Number in the above case + .65 then subtract that from 1 so .35
Naturally if one side loses twice or higher than the other side a 1 is awarded the calculation is only needed if losses are less than double

Just my way of squeezing more fun out of the game

_________________
LT. COL. R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division" Coyne's Cavalry Rangers"
1st Corp Army of Northern Virginia

1. I've found that it is rare for my battles to go the full distance. It is often obvious well before the time limit which side has won. When I realise I'm in a position where I cannot overcome a Major Defeat result I concede the game and my opponents often do the same. I am grateful for that in the larger scenarios as it would be very boring to continue playing for many more weeks when the outcome is clear.

2. I do desire to crush my opponent and like to apply General Jackson's advice when asked what should be done about the Yankees. "Kill them, kill 'em all."

3. See 2 above and note that my current battle record is:
Major Victory - 57;
Minor Victory - 6;
Draw - 10;
Minor Defeat - 7; and
Major Defeat - 18.
So, a tendency to the extremes (over 76% is either a Major Victory of Major Defeat). I despise cheats. I try to avoid gamey tactics by introducing house rules in the interests of better historical simulation (e.g. artillery stacking limits, night move restrictions). I would also like to change some of the standard Optional Rules in order to create a better simulation but I doubt many would agree to play under such conditions.

4. See 2 above.

5. I believe the occurrence of major losses in manpower can be served in part by unchecking Optional Rule Rout Limiting. There would then be a greater chance that units would run rather than stand around and continue to take casualties which would also be truer to history.
However, the casualties in the games will always be higher than historical casualties. I can't see how that can be avoided. I rationalise to myself by regarding game casualties as not being just killed and wounded but including others who have lost the will to fight and are therefore ineffective.

Campaigns

I like your ideas on this aspect of gaming. I do feel that the games in the campaign should all be of roughly equal length and scale. For example, in a three battle campaign Player 1 wins a large three-day battle while Player 2 wins two small scenarios the points would deliver Player 2 a campaign victory. That would seem an unfair result.

I did help test out a double-blind campaign idea a few years back. The idea was that you had to use your same force across several battles (you didn't use your entire force in all battles). Casualties would carry over from battle to battle although you would receive a percentage increase (to represent returned wounded and some replacements). The first battle was essentially one Corp versus another (with, I think, a brigade of cavalry). I lost that one and we went to the next one (determined by the moderator based on the previous battle). That was two Corps and some cavalry versus a similar amount on the other side. That was a little more than half-way through when the casualties on the other side were so heavy, and getting worse, that the battle and the campaign were over. There was no way for the other side to continue as they would have been operation with little more than a Corps whereas I still had most of my army intact.

In 2022 we had the Total War Challenge, which was essentially a campaign of mixed battles across the entire Club. That was fun. It was made even better for me as it was also a clear CSA victory:
241 CONFEDERATE MAJOR VICTORIES;
87 Confederate Minor Victories;
135 Draws;
75 Union Minor Victories;
92 UNION MAJOR VICTORIES.
Happy days.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Generals

Thank You for the replies

While i Like playing with Rout Limit off Most Yankees prefer it on i have found

As to Points I guess I play more for the historic aspect of gaming . I want to Rise in Rank in the club But i want to be as good at this game as i can be
and find myself playing a limited number of opponents. one thing i enjoy is Multi player games as well as Talking to my opponent over the Phone from time to time.
If there is ever a time that a Multi Player Game is Being set up and a Southern Player is needed Count Me In.

Also i try to avoid ever commanding the Union as IMO Playing the Yankees and playing the Confederates are different and could lead to bad habits when playing
the South

_________________
LT. COL. R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division" Coyne's Cavalry Rangers"
1st Corp Army of Northern Virginia