American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<i>"or the two that are coming soon"</i>

sure Rich, I'll start working on OOB's for the two titles that are coming soon. However, I'll need to know what those two titles are.[;)][:D]

Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864

On the subject of detachable skirmishers, the Nappy engine has the following:

1./ Independent "S" skirmisher units (ie. with no parent body)

2./ Light (and also guard) infantry that can break down completely into skirmisher companies

3./ Line infantry that can deploy a single skirmisher sub-unit

4./ Restricted line infantry (and also militia) that can't deploy any skirmishers at all.

In contrast, the less flexible ACW engine only has the last one (ie. 4./ restricted units). <b>This distinction between the Nappy and ACW engines has been around since the BG days</b>.


Now I can quite understand that some folks are rather disturbed at the prospect of hordes of detached skirmishers running all round the map.

But there's no reason whatsoever why incorporating Nappy style skirmishers into the ACW engine would produce this result - <i>unless of course a scenario designer deliberately wished it.</i>

It would still remain quite possible for an ACW OOB to contain <i>absolutely</i> <b>NO</b> units capable of deploying skirmishers, since the Nappy engine has both restricted and militia units.

On the other hand, incorporating Nappy skirmishers would make the ACW engine a lot more <i>flexible</i>, since a scenario designer could, according to his requirements, add:

1./ A handful of "S" skirmisher units or light units able to break down fully into skirmishers. (Creating tiny say 25 man piquets with the existing ACW engine won't have the same effect, since these units will still have flanks/rear and will still block LOS)

2./ A moderate number of units able to deploy skirmishers

or (say for a scenario with a small number of units on a heavily wooded map) even

3./ The ability for most/all units to deploy skirmishers.

So, clearly, since no OOB would <i>have</i> to have any skirmishers, <i>there can no disadvantage whatsover </i>in incorporating the Nappy style skirmisher system into the ACW engine. On the other hand, permitting the option of skirmishers into the OOB would make the engine a lot more flexible.

Some advantages of having skirmishers would include:

1./ The ability to "see" beyond the edge of a wood. The ACW skirmisher system only allows a unit to "see" 2 hexes ahead, which means that units in a wood can't detect a stack of enemy units two hexes beyond the wood. However, a detached skirmisher sub-unit could move to the edge of the woods and see everything beyond without the need to move an entire unit forward to the edge.

2./ To help protect the flanks of units moving through a wood. Again the ACW skirmisher system doesn't permit this.


I agree that a skirmisher leash (for detached skirmishers, but not for independent "S" skirmisher units) would be a very useful improvement. Ideally, such a leash could be set in the pdt at 1-3 hexes from the parent unit. Routing skirmishers would automatically rejoin the parent unit and would be unable to move away again until rallied.


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

I just finished creating an "alternative" OOB for one of my new titles. Each brigade will have 4 independent skirmish units of 25 men each. I will not create any scns using these skirmishers, but the OOBs will allow other designers to do so.

Now, can anyone site an ACW historical occurance of independent skirmish units that travelled far from their front line?

Regardless, this type of activity has the potential to destroy any semblance of ACW combat.

A 3 hex leach would be the only engine change I would consider. Parent unit would have to have 100 men at all times. In the case of a rout, the skirmish unit would be removed and the men added to the parent unit with an increase of 100-200 FA to the parent unit.

But even with the above, I would still not like it.





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

Well Rich if you tell what new game your working on I'm sure I could better help you on this question. [:D]

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"

It's middle 19th century wargame located somewhere in North America.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />Well Rich if you tell what new game your working on I'm sure I could better help you on this question. [:D]

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"

<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"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Would this work as a compromise?
1) Allow forward retreats
2) Cause a one turn delay for the effects of isolation
As for independent skirmishers (forgive my bluntness), <b>it ain't going to happen!</b> At least not as long as my opinion has any weight.

As for an alternate OOB, it someone wants to create one for any of my current titles, or the two that are coming soon, feel free to send them my way. I'll examine them and most likely include them for a future patch release.

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1 - Would definitely help make the ZOC kill more difficult. Even better would be to add displacement of enemy units if they weren't large enough compared to the surround unit as well.
2 - This would work too. It would give a player a turn to rescue the unit.

As for skirmishers, I agree with you, independent skirmishers just weren't used in the CW due command control problems. Only when positions were relatively static were they deployed any further than within calling distance of their parent unit. One alternatives might be a three hex zone for units deploying skirmishers. If Nappy type skirmishers are ever added they should be tightly tied to their parent units so they would be unuseable if detached.

As for alternate OOB's I was thinking of one for Newts' Union Mills battle.[:D] It would be a blast for us Rebs.[^]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

I agree that a tight <b>skirmisher leash </b>would be essential if detachable skirmishers were ever to be contemplated for this engine. Also, rather than a 2 or 3 hex leash, I'd probably suggest that this should mean that the sub-unit needed to remain <b>adjacent</b> to the parent body and, ideally, effectively remain part of that parent unit without the ability to completely detach or operate independently.

So, perhaps the real answer might be to refine the existing ACW skirmisher system, so that - instead of skirmishers being abstract - an actual sub-unit is detached and moved into an adjacent hex. Then, <i>rather than operating independently</i>, like Nappy skirmishers, the sub-unit would effectively remain part of the parent unit and would move whenever the parent unit was moved, remaining in the same position relative to the parent unit, whether to the front or on the flank.

Perhaps each unit would be able to "detach" up to five 25 man sub-units, to cover the 3 frontal hexes and also the 2 flanks, provided of course the main unit didn't go below 100 strong.

It would also be useful to have independent "S" skirmisher units to represent piquets. These wouldn't have flanks/rear, wouldn't block LOS or be able to restrict the movement of enemy units in that way that a normal unit can. Obviously, the number of "S" piquets would depend on the scenario, but I'd imagine they wouldn't normally be very numerous.


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

I quite like Rich White's notion of having the skirmisher leash embedded in such a way that the skirmish unit is adjacent to, and always moves with, its parent.

I also like Kennon's idea of a Newt Gingrich style Union Mills OOB.

I also like it that there are 2 new titles coming. Woo-hoo!! I mean Yeeeehaaa!! [8D]

Oh, I'd just as soon not see "no melee elmination". The soft ZoC's have greatly reduced the most ahistorical of tactics which were featured in the BG games. Let's not totally eliminate though the merits of aggressive leadership.

<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 agree that a tight <b>skirmisher leash </b>would be essential if detachable skirmishers were ever to be contemplated for this engine. Also, rather than a 2 or 3 hex leash, I'd probably suggest that this should mean that the sub-unit needed to remain <b>adjacent</b> to the parent body and, ideally, effectively remain part of that parent unit without the ability to completely detach or operate independently.

So, perhaps the real answer might be to refine the existing ACW skirmisher system, so that - instead of skirmishers being abstract - an actual sub-unit is detached and moved into an adjacent hex. Then, <i>rather than operating independently</i>, like Nappy skirmishers, the sub-unit would effectively remain part of the parent unit and would move whenever the parent unit was moved, remaining in the same position relative to the parent unit, whether to the front or on the flank.

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

Gen. Den McBride
Congaree Swamp Rifles
"Fightin' for The Cause since '97"
III Corps, ANV
C.S.A.
swampfox_csa(at)yahoo.ca

First, I support the no elimination rule as optional based on how Bill has described it. Having had large stacks of strong infantry cutoff and surrounded by 50 man cavalry units so that one larger unit could melee from the rear and eliminate the entire stack (ignoring the fact that the infantry would have mown down the oncoming cavalry like ten pins before they were close enough to melee...) I would be happy for a more realistic elimination rule.

As for skirmishers, if the skimishers have no melee ability and have no ground holding ability (cannot be used for ZOC kills, etc.) then I don't see a problem. I do support the 3 hex leash idea. CW skirmishers didn't go off all over the place, but having a squad, platoon, or company out on detached duty was not uncommon - think of the armies camped along the various Northern Virginia rivers - there were always small units guarding fords, etc. while the main units stayed in camp a mile to the rear, etc. But on the battlefield they stayed together and skirmishers rarely were more than a few hundred yards away from the parent unit. A three hex leash would be just over that 300 yard range, and would be realistic.

Regards,

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

God Bless <><

Let me just say this - all historical accuracy aside:

I <b><font size="4"><font color="blue">LOVE</font id="blue"></font id="size4"></b> getting ZOC kills!!![}:)][:p]

Don't take ALL of my fun away...[:D]


General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by laubster22</i>
<br />Let me just say this - all historical accuracy aside:

I <b><font size="4"><font color="blue">LOVE</font id="blue"></font id="size4"></b> getting ZOC kills!!![}:)][:p]

Don't take ALL of my fun away...[:D]


General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Just because my earlier post was talking about you doesn't mean it is personal. [:D][:p]

New proposal: Only Rebs should be allowed to make ZOC kills. Yankees should have to fight us to the last man for every inch of ground. [;)]

Regards,

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

God Bless <><

No, no, no[xx(]

The correct rule is:

Yankees surrender automatically when meleed from any rear hex they being cowards.[:p]

Rebels when surrounded become beserkers and attack surrounding units at 10x their current strength and +5 on Morale.[:D]


LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

In the Napoleonic games there is an optional rule in which if a skirmisher is blocking retreat, the retreating unit will overrun it. What if something like that was in place. Maybe something like: In order to block retreat the blocking unit has to be at least 50% of the retreaters strength or the blocker is displaced.

Major General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

Currently, Leaders, supply wagons and limbered arty cannot block a retreat.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Thayer</i>
<br />In the Napoleonic games there is an optional rule in which if a skirmisher is blocking retreat, the retreating unit will overrun it. What if something like that was in place. Maybe something like: In order to block retreat the blocking unit has to be at least 50% of the retreaters strength or the blocker is displaced.

Major General Jon Thayer
Old North State Divison
3/III
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
<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"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the Napoleonic games there is an optional rule in which if a skirmisher is blocking retreat, the retreating unit will overrun it. What if something like that was in place. Maybe something like: In order to block retreat the blocking unit has to be at least 50% of the retreaters strength or the blocker is displaced<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, General,

I appreciate your reasoning, but I don't think it is practical in
an igo-ugo game. A lot depends on disruption, morale, and fatigue.
I think the current restrictions on wagons, limbered artillery and
leaders is the best we can hope for. Even if such a plan were feasible, I wouldn't require more than 10%, because the defending unit would have its hands full trying to repel the attackers,
who would almost have to be more powerful than the defenders to be able to win. Actually, I don't have any tactical examples of how this worked historically, as combat was more fluid, and units would usually take countermeasures if they saw the enemy moving to surround them. But plenty of POWs were taken at places like the Mule Shoe, Nashville and Gaines Mill when the lines gave way, and they must have been taken somehow.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA