American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

[:)] A little controversey heh?( and please, just a little!!![:p])

Proposal: cancelation of maneuver points hencefroth ALL fight will be battles.

Reason: Why cant we fight guys on our side for full points? It would double the number of possible opponents making it much easier to match up styles of play ie. speed, geography etc. Sometimes waiting for an opponent on the other side to respond can be wearisome.

As to affecting Army affiliations-yes a bit but really I have to admit I really don`t hate or even dislike the fellas in the other Army[;)]

I realize that the club is based on TWO Armies and I dont want to alter that at all but pragmitism can be implemented without diminishing our loyalties at all.

I call for discussion and then a VOTE!! Huzza huzza!

Field Lt. Tony Best

In support of Tony's proposal, I offer these observations. I have in the past recruited several out-of-club opponents into the ACWGC. Since these former opponents signed on as "Good Guys" (ahem) Union, like me, they seek opponents in the opposing camp, as do I. In consequence, my successful recruitment of non-club-member opponents has resulted in the virtual cessation of gaming between myself and my former opponents once they join the club. In fact, I find that I become better acquainted with my CSA opponents than with almost anyone representing the Union. Unless administrative tasks require me to interact with my fellow Union officers, I have little need to communicate with them at all. Furthermore, the friendly banter and general keeping up with one another that I enjoy with my opponents, with whom I exchange files several times a week, is more enjoyable than the more businesslike and infrequent administrative communiqués that pass between members of the same armies. If there was no points penalty for a maneuver (Heck, we can even keep the maneuver designation), players might be more willing to take on someone from their own side and thereby become acquainted with the fellows say... commanding the other regiments in their division.

General Thos. Callmeyer
4th Bgd.-1st Div.-XV Corps-AoT

The main purpose of maneuvers with the lessened scoring system is to encourage playing Union vs CSA.

So the question becomes do we need to encourage this type of play?

I think we do need to keep the maneuvers, as they are now. Perhaps sweeten maneuvers a little with a slight scoring change, but still keep the maneuvers less that a battle, for points.

Individuals might enjoy playing their friends/aquaintances and want that friendly banter and they can do that now.

The points/rank system we currently have is not so steep that a maneuver or 2 will keep you as a Lt for too much longer if you play a maneuver than battles.


<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

ACWGC Cabinet member
</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 Thomas Callmeyer</i>
In fact, I find that I become better acquainted with my CSA opponents than with almost anyone representing the Union.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Multiplayer games. No better way to learn to know someone than depending on him to do his job on your flank.

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

I agree with Dierk (a worthy opponent here and at the NWC, but a fellow officer at the CCC) <b>Multiplayer games </b>are surely the best way to keep in contact with players on the same side.


Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Tony,
Does the point system really encourage one to avoid a manuever? Not in my case. Points seemed only briefly important (In fact I think the point levels should be raised--I would be happy to be reduced to captain--hey how did you get to be a Lt.---don't you know you should salute when encountering a supperior officer---Hey Tony, I didn't mean that kind of salute[:D]). As such I see no value in changing the system. I just am not as quick to respond to a potential opponent in the tavern--if I find a game which suits me. More so because it seems more sporting to play someone from the other side. Points have nothing to do with in for me.
MG Michael Laabs
3/III A of M

Of course. I agree with Tom[:)]

As to points, I have so little interest that I often dont even register the games I fight but others do indeed care and even a slight reduction is cause for them to seek out only the other camp( which of course, is the whole point of the matter). Anything that reduces competition should be discouraged and the reduction in points does just that,

Tom mentioned lack of contact with fellow Army members and I totally agree. I recocognise what Dierk is saying about multi-player games and from that medium I have some close Union friends but my main contact has been with Rebs and as opponents.( so much so that I joined thier cause[:p])

I don`t see how eliminating the point differential for maneuvers would lesson our Army affiliation. We are not REAL Generals( okay I was[:D]) but guys who want to fight simulated battles and wars. This wonderful club provides that medium but why discourage someone from fighting half the club membership?

Field Lt. Tony Best

When the club sanctioned a Reb playing a Yank as being a battle even if the Reb is commanding the Yankees and the Yank is commanding the Rebels, then they eliminated most arguments for there to be point differentiation for maneuvers. Allowing maneuvers to earn as many points as battles could be a good move (e.g. increasing game play and comeraderie among members of the same army) or it could be a bad move (e.g. eliminate the distinctions between the Yanks and the Rebs, and no longer have a registered game platform that allows one to experiment or to throw a game for training's sake without it counting against their won/loss record (in some armies, maneuvers count anyway)). With hopes that the good would override the bad, it could be tried and if unsuccessful then it could be changed back. Maybe a new training game category could be implemented for those games that isn't to count against the won/lost record.

Brig Gen Ned Simms
2/VI/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.

Personally I don't care one way or the other about the points for maneuvers. As a West Point Training Officer I play training games and often play maneuvers with new officers to give them additional experience. I have also played a few maneuvers with fellow yanks who wanted to play a scenario against another yank before facing a reb at it or to test a scenario or some house rules with another club member. Although I keep track of these maneuvers for myself I only track battles in my record at my personal website because in training games and maneuvers I often adjust my play to make a point to my opponent. While in battles with rebs although I will make suggestions to newer members to improve their play I always play to win.

Lt.Gen.Ken Miller
Veteran's Divsion
VIII / AoS

I think Ned brings up a good point as to training games and I think anyone WANTING to count a game as a maneuver game should be able to do that just as two players from the same side that want to count their match as a BATTLE should be able to do so also.

I dont even think we have records based on one Army versus the other. Its just based on GAME sides whether Yank or Reb.I dont think anyone will be confused as to which side they represent in the club and there certainly isn`t going to be a reduction in "verbal" potshots!![;)].

Field Lt. Tony Best

I am in favor of an incentive to fight the opposition rather than the own boys. It strengthens army morale by giving us a "we" vs. "them" feel & making us work together to improve our performance, it encourages us to identify with our side, our army and our cause (yes, it's only roleplay, for must of us, but still valuable) and to learn to overcome the disadvantages of one side in the games and to capitalize on the advantages. In short, it gives us an identity.

That having said, I agree that the battle/maneuver distinction is too stiff. I have played a lot of maneuvers, in this club and others, and no club except the NWC has a harsher penalty on playing the same side than we have. In most of our sister clubs it's simply that maneuvers don't earn points for the victory level, but the number of turns played counts all the same. I find this is prudent solution; it acknowledges the effort, but keeps the distinction from a "real" battle against the opposition by ignoring the victory level, which really shouldn't count anyway in a friendly maneuver game.

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

I respect all the opinions, for and against, given so far on the matter, but I'm personally happy with the current distinction between playing a Union or a rebel opponent it adds a dimension to the club culture that I enjoy. But whilst I agree with the encouragement and reward for playing the 'enemy' it hasn't stopped me playing Union officers. My longest running campaign game is against a fellow AoC officer, and possibly my toughest battle was against another AoC officer. The AoC has also had internal tournaments and challenges too. And as mentioned by others multi-player games allow one to play with members of the same side. So for me I like the way it is and don't feel I'm missing out too much.

General Antony Barlow
Army of the Cumberland

In part, I see the issue as there are not enough Yankees to satisfy the needs of us battle hungry Rebels.....For statistic purposes, of the 692 members, how many are Yanks and and how many are Rebs? How many are active? What defines an active member?

And after playing 5 battles at one time, and presently having three active battles going, I have come to appreicate and I thank those Yankees who have agreed to play what I want. (I prefer old single battles and lesser known scenarios) I have also experienced playing 25 plus hours a week just to keep up with the battles. That's way to much time to spend fighting.....You ought to see my grass!!!!So right now I'm in a comfort zone but still I want to play more......

I will not battle against a Rebel, it just ain't right. The Club needs more Yankees willing to battle....isn't that part of this issue?




Fld.Lt.R.E.Daley
1st Corp of the ANV
3rd Calvary Divsion,
3rd Brigade
"We are the Midnight Riders"

Agreed - many excellent points made here. I guess in the end I like the proposal that manuevers and battles be treated the same except:

i) no win/loss bonus/penalty;
ii) no battle star/ribbon/award.

I think this creates a wonderful duality in that manuevers are then only marginally different from an OBD perspective, but at the same time the "battle" distinction of ribbons still encourages and recognizes battles with the opposing side.





Lt Gen Mike Kaulbars
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS

Sir,

If it ain't broke don't fix it. I like the distintion between a battle and a maneuver. I really enjoy the fighting the opposition. Knowing that I am fighting for the true cause "Freedom" motivates me in my battles.[:D] In my maneuvers, frequently against a new Lt, I take the time to point out what and why I am doing on the field to help sharpen their skills. They play the manuever to learn not to gain points. I also learn the Reb perspective in each maneuver. I really enjoy playing an opponent who has honed their skills form one perspective, but may not know what I am going to do. Otherwise it gets too much like chess and you reconize "oh that is the four move check mate".

BG Joe Mishurda

Joe Mishurda, The Cast Iron Division
2nd Div. XXV Corp, AoJ