American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I have yet to purchase any of the HPS Nappy games for lack of free time to play them (gotta cut back on the CW games! Ha!) but in reading the descriptions, they sound much better than the HPS Civil War games in terms of maps, campaign features, options, new rules, etc. In almost every way, they just sound better. Is that just my imagination?

I was reading some about the Jena-Aurstadt Campaign disk today and shaking my head thinking - when are we going to get an 1864 Overland Campaign disk like that? The Jena disk sounds very impressive - well beyond anything we have for the Civil War. I know there are a ton of options for Gettysburg, but so many of the options seem impossible to get to and I seem to wind up playing the same few battle variations over and over again. Vicksburg locks us into the same path every time with only one battle that offers any chance of being competitive (the last battle) and the rest are Yankee cakewalks. Peninsula is stuck in one area and gets repetitive (but I like it anyway). Shiloh seems a bit better but I haven't played enough campaigns in that one to know how varried they can really be.

In all, it just sounds like the Nappy games have better replay value in general. Please correct me if I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. Or rather, I hope I am not wrong and that eventually we will catch up with CW titles that will rival the Nappy games in complexity and variation.

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><

Better is a relative term. The Nappy games are very good and at this time I prefer them. Could be because I played the ACW titles so much. Took me awhile to get use to the hex spine facing and it is still a problem to visualize. I think that the games have more to learn and work with. Real Skirmishers, a few more formation options, and the Cavalry charging is a lot of fun. A lot more to master.

They are all well worth trying. I have Wagram, Waterloo, Eckmuhl, Russian campaign and have not been disappointed with any of them. Waterloo is my favorite at this time. Love that big Waterloo campaign game. Enjoyable with either side.



Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

<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>
<br />I will put in a plug for the ACW series. These guys do alot of work on these games.

I just happened to have gone nuts with the map editor in my last title! Ok, so if you want to play a battle anywhere east of Halle, north of Dresden and south of Berlin you can find a map for it!

But that shouldnt steal any glory away from what these guys have done in the ACW series. Doug's Gettysburg game has tons of maps as does most of the rest of the series.

Col. Bill Peters, The Boise Rifles, II Corps Artillery, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No, I don't mean to take away from the ACW designers. The maps we have in the ACW games are great - not half of north central Europe great - but great for what they are for. In Gettysburg alone we have enough maps to cover nearly all of Northern VA, Central MD, and Southern PA - just not all on a single map, which is probably a good thing since it would probably crash most PCs to try and take all of that in at once.



Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><

I haven't played Napoleonics in a long time. In fact, the last time I really took a look at a Napoleonic title was Waterloo at Tillercon. I guess the ability to create all those clouds of skirmishers caused my eyes to glaze over. I'm sure there are many wonderful features in the Napoleonic games, and the period itself was unique in that infantry, artillery and cavalry had complementary strengths and weaknesses. Then there were all the different unit types and colorful uniforms and tactical formations. But I think the ACW games have more flexibility. Cavalry doesn't disrupt every time it hits a rail fence, units in the same hex can have different facings, and most infantry units have greater range. BTW, in many ways I liked the old SSI game better; particularly the cavalry routine of preplotted charge and countercharge. Please forgive me if some of my observations no longer apply to HPS Nappy games as I haven't fooled with them in a long time. Some things I liked were that artillery fire affects all units in a hex, and that while units disrupted at the drop of a hat, they almost automatically reformed. I think I prefer the hexside facing to the hex spine facing, but I'm not sure which would be more valid historically.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I'm presently playing the Jena-Auerstaedt 500+ turns scenario and it is really a great game. Better than ACW games ? Not really. The HPS Gettysburg campaign have many huge maps with lots of room to manoeuver and with more variations than Jena-Auerstaedt.
...and the Richmond map from HPS Peninsula, wow !!!

I enjoy both series, equally. I want more !!!




Col. Harold Lajoie 2/I/AoM, CSA.

I love both the Napoleonic and ACW series of games (and the Early American series too). Yes the Napoleonic games are more complex (and for me more mentally demanding), there are more different unit and formation types, and there is more of a learning curve involved in mastering the tactics, but all in all I still enjoy the ACW games just as much. Like Bill I'd like to see the no melee elimination rule in the ACW games, but I never tire of either system.. The one thing that does stand out though is the huge single map campaign scenarios that the Napoleonic games offer (alongside the linked campaigns on smaller maps). If you like lots of manoeuvre and planning then they really are great fun, even if they do take a long time to play. The really encouraging thing to note though is that both series are constantly being improved thanks to the designers taking a keen interest in the views of the gaming community.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/XXAoC.htm"]XO, Army of the Cumberland[/url]

I'm still confused about the logic of the "no" elimination rule. The manual says very little. If a unit is completely surrounded, all 6 sides, and is defeated, the unit will still stand it's ground. Are there exceptions? For example, let's say a defending unit is 150 strong and is surrounded by a combined total of 1500, the defending unit loses 50 or 75 in the melee, now with the "no" elimination rule in effect, the unit will not surrender, and will stand it's ground with its remaining troops, 75-100 men. Is that correct? And retreats are just ignored, fight to the death? Please explain. If I'm to push this for the ACW, I want to understand the concept and logic, exceptions, etc...

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Rich,
The no melee elimination rule is used to discourage totally unhistorical blitzkrieg tactics, and putting the emphasis on hitting your opponent hard and forcing him to retreat or rout - which to me seems more realistic. Of course if the attack continues over several turns then the defending line will disintegrate and some units may get surrounded and forced to surrender if they don't run or get withdrawn, but not straight away. It gives a defender the opportunity to react by retreating or supporting with other units and negates some of the weaknesses of the IGO-UGO sequence. It doesn't prevent surrounding and elimination, especially if the defender leaves units in vulnerable exposed postions, it just slows the process down. If you isolate a unit you get a big modifier for melee during the NEXT turn, and if the defender routs too then they automatically surrender when overrun. The examples you give are valid but in my opinion the outnumbered unit would in reality turn and run rather than allow itself to become surrounded - this can't happen if the unit gets surrounded and wiped out all in the same turn. At the moment I use a house rule that in the NWC is often called 'embedded melee phase' rule. This achieves the same thing but it is better to have things encoded in the game rather than rely on house rules.


[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/XXAoC.htm"]XO, Army of the Cumberland[/url]

One thing I would like to see changed in the ACW engine, is the <i>no forward retreat</i> rule.

As for the <i>no elimination</i> rule, I think that is certainly worth discussing, but I was wondering if anybody is against it, or do we have a universal consensus?

I will start a new thread for this subject.



Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I don't have HPS Nappy envy and enjoy the various series regardless of their differences. But I do feel that there are features in the various series that could usefully be ported over into other series. (So I'm glad that the Nappy engine now has supply points and abattis/trenches and that the ACW series now has weather)

Some Nappy features that might be worthwhile considering for the ACW engine:

1./ <b>Detachable skirmishers</b> (even if only a small number of units can detach skirmishers - but I think this should depend on the scenario, since on a largely wooded battlefield with only a small number of units it might make a lot of sense to allow most/all units to form skirmishers and perhaps count as light infantry. Anyway, having this <i>option</i> would certainly be useful for this engine)

2./ Mounted fire capability - for certain weapon types, eg pistol and shotgun.

3./ <b>Cavalry squadron breakdown </b>- this is far more convenient that having either a few large regiments that can't break down OR lots of small units that can't combine.

4./ Specific pioneer units

5./ Perhaps horse artillery that can fire the same turn it unlimbers.

6./ Some of the optional rules. Not sure about the no melee elimination rule.

On the other hand, I like the ACW 3 frontal hex facing system and would prefer it if the Nappy games used this instead of a 2 hex spine facing. (But this difference goes right back to the BG engine)

Another feature that might perhaps be useful - this time from the EAW engine - would be the <b>extended line </b>formation. Units deployed in this formation would suffer less casualties from enemy fire but would melee at 1/4 strength since spread out. I suspect this should really be the default ACW infantry formation - and having this formation would reduce the casualty levels. <i>Besides, having both regular line and extended line would provide players with more tactical choices and enhance gameplay.</i> So perhaps some folks attending Tillercon will want to discuss this idea?

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

Will you be there?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />I don't have HPS Nappy envy and enjoy the various series regardless of their differences. But I do feel that there are features in the various series that could usefully be ported over into other series. (So I'm glad that the Nappy engine now has supply points and abattis/trenches and that the ACW series now has weather)

Some Nappy features that might be worthwhile considering for the ACW engine:

1./ <b>Detachable skirmishers</b> (even if only a small number of units can detach skirmishers - but I think this should depend on the scenario, since on a largely wooded battlefield with only a small number of units it might make a lot of sense to allow most/all units to form skirmishers and perhaps count as light infantry. Anyway, having this <i>option</i> would certainly be useful for this engine)

2./ Mounted fire capability - for certain weapon types, eg pistol and shotgun.

3./ <b>Cavalry squadron breakdown </b>- this is far more convenient that having either a few large regiments that can't break down OR lots of small units that can't combine.

4./ Specific pioneer units

5./ Perhaps horse artillery that can fire the same turn it unlimbers.

6./ Some of the optional rules. Not sure about the no melee elimination rule.

On the other hand, I like the ACW 3 frontal hex facing system and would prefer it if the Nappy games used this instead of a 2 hex spine facing. (But this difference goes right back to the BG engine)

Another feature that might perhaps be useful - this time from the EAW engine - would be the <b>extended line </b>formation. Units deployed in this formation would suffer less casualties from enemy fire but would melee at 1/4 strength since spread out. I suspect this should really be the default ACW infantry formation - and having this formation would reduce the casualty levels. <i>Besides, having both regular line and extended line would provide players with more tactical choices and enhance gameplay.</i> So perhaps some folks attending Tillercon will want to discuss this idea?

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


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

I'd REALLY like to see an end to leaders drawing defensive fire for movement OR changing mounted to unmounted status...

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

Unfortunately not. A real pity, as I'm sure I'd have had a great time.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rich Walker

Will you be there?

Leaders DO NOT draw fire if moving independently. Even when entering a hex with combat units.

If you are seeing this, what games and version are you playing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dirk Gross</i>
<br />I'd REALLY like to see an end to leaders drawing defensive fire for movement OR changing mounted to unmounted status...

Lt. General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Alan
I think each version captures the differences in the time periods. To me, Nappy games are more difficult to master and play well and I would think that by corrollary would be more satisfying once one had mastered them. They do seem more tedious at times.

I think you will be glad to hear that they are NOT superior games -just different.

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia