American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Feel free to make suggestions.

To Start (not in any order):

1) Limit stacking in woods. 500 men per hex, only one arty unit. Since many units start at above the limit, those units would be penalized if FP to 50%

2) Give points to attackers spiking enemy guns. No further points awards, including occupation of spiked guns.

3) Alternative to #2, give points to attackers spiking enemy guns, guns then are eliminated from map. If friendly guns are spiked, no points and guns are removed from map.

4) Use arty FA to determine FP effectiveness. This would discontinue the "Crew Killed" possibility and partially simulate arty crews as a separate entity. Example: For every 50 point FA arty increase, arty FP (fire power) would be reduced 10%. Perhaps these numbers could be manipulated using the pdt file.

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

Rich, I always appreciate the designers seeking or proposing new ideas to the players. Here are my comments on what you proposed.

1) Not a bad idea but I wonder if the forest areas of the Wilderness area of Virginia were the same as the forest areas of say, Pennsylvania or Mississippi. Might it be better to add a "dense woods" terrain type that would have this stacking limit, or maybe easier to do, have a higher MP cost and maybe automatically disrupt units that move into them?
2&3) No opinion on this one as I kind of like the rules as they are now but would not be adverse to see these as optional rules.
4) I really like the idea of this one. Don't remember reading of too many instances where artillery batteries were silenced completely by rifle fire but often read of where batteries start suffering severe degradation in effectiveness.

I would think something that might work in conjunction with your idea #4 would be to increase the number of MP costs to limber and move gun sections as the fatigue increases, or at least pick a point where it increases once. This would represent the fewer number of men and horses available to limber up and move the guns. Got a few other ideas rolling around but I want to think about them some more before I decide if they are worthwhile.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
West Point Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

My View:

1)I agree with Gen Mark Nelms, very good idea of making a "dense wooded area"
2)I agree, We should get awarded for this as I hate capturing guns and then having to back off them. I would spike them but I had lost lots of men getting to them, something in return would be nice.
3)this sounds good too, either way I am happy. Just would like to get rewarded some way.
4)Really good idea. I agree with you and Mark has some very good points to strengthem this choice.


I would also like to add, is there any way in getting a PBEM encryption added on campaigns? I am involved in several campaigns and notice too big of a coincidence of being "spotted" while moving under heavy cover and concealment. Coincidence maybe or maybe not. Just my two cents!



<font color="yellow">Colonel Daniel Sheppard</font id="yellow">
<font color="red">"Iron Horse Division"</font id="red">
<font color="black">I Division, I Corps. CO. </font id="black">
<font color="black">Army of Georgia</font id="black">

1) yes real good idea if you think about it the trees are as good as several regt.
2)I agree. It gets pretty expensive taking the guns and we get nothing in return when leaving them.
3)I would like this one more than #2. Less clutter on the battle field. Besides the guns are useless and are nothing but a bad reminder.
4)mixed feelings on this one could go either way.

Capt. Charles Babb
6th Brigade,3rd Division
XXIII Corps
Army of the Ohio

I like that #3 would remove the spiked guns from the map...they still have "eyes" which is bothersome...


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

Rich,

Would it be possible to have proportional stacking for terrain set in the pdt file.

The line entry would be setup just like the height line, and allow designers to set the percentage of the maximum stacking limit they would like to see for each terrain type.

So Orchard could be set at 50%, and Forest at 25%, or Town at 30%, and Building at 90%, etc.

Excessively large units issues could be solved by porting the EXTENDED LINE feature over from the Nap game where you can place a unit into extended line, thereby creating two units that can independently operate, and rejoin whenever needed.

al

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

#1: I like it in principle, but the limit should be that any unit can put only 500 men on the firing line....In other words, all units above 500 would fire only as 500......More realistic I think and likely easier to program....

#2:An Improvement

#3: Better than #2....perhaps either could be an option....It would give us something to argue about before playing....

#4: I like this idea...It is simular to CWG2's treatment of artillery, they made the crew the important thing....as the number of men lessened the effectiveness of the gun lessened....fatigue would do the same thing....The only thing is I think the effectiveness should be prorated over the entire 900 fatigue points, so that a gun does not become absolutely useless at 500 fatigue.....

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

<font face="Book Antiqua"><font size="4"><font color="orange">Rich,

Most excellent ideas! I had just recently experienced several Artillery Crew Kills and just about lost my mind. I have been trying to recall in all of the reading of the ACW that I have done about a complete kill of an entire artillery crew, I just can't recall a single case where all were shot down. Now of course melee attacks were different. It is good to see us heading in the right direction with these issues.

Respectfully,
</font id="orange"></font id="size4"></font id="Book Antiqua">

<font color="orange"><font size="4">Nick Kunz

General
Interim Commander
Eastern Theater Command
Confederate States of America</font id="orange"></font id="size4">

Can we get a shortcut key for displaying the command radius like in the Panzer Campaign games?

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
West Point Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

Hi, Rich,

I think all these options would enhance the system. As I have said before, though, there should be a firepower penalty for crewing captured guns. In addition, I feel that if guns are recaptured before they are spiked, they are automatically recrewed with some fatigue penalty. I base this on Gettysburg, where several batteries were overrun by the Confederates but recaptured before they could be spiked. In "Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg" only 2 Union batteries show losses of 30%-39.9%; 12 were 20%-29.9%; 18 were 10%-19.9%, 20 were 1%-9.9%, and 13 suffered no loss. (Confederate losses for the same categories were 2, 8, 18, 31 and 0. One battery suffered losses in excess of 50%. The losses of seven batteries were unknown.)

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Mike,

There is already a FP penalty for firing captured arty. It's 50%

BTW, I don't think I've seen arty with a FA of 500, that's why I proposed the 50/10 ratio.

Changes have to be fairly simple in concept, too many this and that's will kill the idea. So sorry if they seem simplistic, but that's how they happen.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />Hi, Rich,

I think all these options would enhance the system. As I have said before, though, there should be a firepower penalty for crewing captured guns. In addition, I feel that if guns are recaptured before they are spiked, they are automatically recrewed with some fatigue penalty. I base this on Gettysburg, where several batteries were overrun by the Confederates but recaptured before they could be spiked. In "Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg" only 2 Union batteries show losses of 30%-39.9%; 12 were 20%-29.9%; 18 were 10%-19.9%, 20 were 1%-9.9%, and 13 suffered no loss. (Confederate losses for the same categories were 2, 8, 18, 31 and 0. One battery suffered losses in excess of 50%. The losses of seven batteries were unknown.)

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

A solid yes to 2 or 3. Captured and recaptured guns were becoming a play balance problem in games with high gun values(Gettysburg). Course the Yanks might prefer the old way[:p][xx(]

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia

1. Might have a problem with regiment size without breaking some regiments down into companies. A large regiment shouldn't be punished because it can't extend into two hexes. Would prefer more realistic limits on how many men could fire out of a hex (120 yard front) and stacking target penalties. In woods a line couldn't form with the same density. For example in clear hex only 500 men could fire and forest this might drop to 250.

2. Definite yes. When enemy guns are spiked or their crews killed the attacker should get some VP. This would force a player that knows he will eventually occupy the ground from being overly agressive with his artillery.

3. Like the idea of removing these artillery spies but there is a problem in spiked guns were not permanent. The side holding the battlefield at the end could usually recover these guns within a day.

4. I don't like the FA idea. Better would be to treat gun and crew as single entity. Counter battery fire would take out a gun. Infantry fire would likewise kill a "gun" but in its case by killing the crew that served it. Better yet, give us artillery crews. 25 men per gun. A six gun battery would have a 150 man crew counter in order for it to operate at full strength and morale. As that crew took casualties and fatigue the gun would proportionally decrease in effectiveness. If the unlimbered gun routed it would be the crew that runs. A crew would only operate its original guns at full effectiveness, other guns at lower but not as low as infantry crewed guns. Add artillery officer too. Give Gen. Hunt something to do[:D]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

You guys don't need to limit yourself to the 4 I mentioned. Only one other idea has popped up. The command radius button.

As for Bill's comment, do you guys agree that it would be unhistorical. We certainly don't want that. The only reason I suggested it was for more historical accuracy. Using common sense I assumed that heavy woods would mean less effective fire per 125 yds. Keep in mind that it is too late in the series to add an additional level of woods. JT won't do it. As has been mentioned before, open or clear hexes aren't intended to be seen as treeless terrain. Some light woods could be assumed.

I believe the spy factor of spiked arty has already been removed. I know it's should be with Antietam. Try testing and let me know.

Number 3 was intended to remove clutter and not take the risk of blocking road hexes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />1. Might have a problem with regiment size without breaking some regiments down into companies. A large regiment shouldn't be punished because it can't extend into two hexes. Would prefer more realistic limits on how many men could fire out of a hex (120 yard front) and stacking target penalties. In woods a line couldn't form with the same density. For example in clear hex only 500 men could fire and forest this might drop to 250.

2. Definite yes. When enemy guns are spiked or their crews killed the attacker should get some VP. This would force a player that knows he will eventually occupy the ground from being overly agressive with his artillery.

3. Like the idea of removing these artillery spies but there is a problem in spiked guns were not permanent. The side holding the battlefield at the end could usually recover these guns within a day.

4. I don't like the FA idea. Better would be to treat gun and crew as single entity. Counter battery fire would take out a gun. Infantry fire would likewise kill a "gun" but in its case by killing the crew that served it. Better yet, give us artillery crews. 25 men per gun. A six gun battery would have a 150 man crew counter in order for it to operate at full strength and morale. As that crew took casualties and fatigue the gun would proportionally decrease in effectiveness. If the unlimbered gun routed it would be the crew that runs. A crew would only operate its original guns at full effectiveness, other guns at lower but not as low as infantry crewed guns. Add artillery officer too. Give Gen. Hunt something to do[:D]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. Col. 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">There is already a FP penalty for firing captured arty. It's 50%<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, Rich,

Are you saying that the 50% penalty includes the differential between riflemen manning guns versus firing their rifles? I never looked at it that way before, but it makes a certain amount of sense.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Better yet, give us artillery crews. 25 men per gun. A six gun battery would have a 150 man crew counter in order for it to operate at full strength and morale. As that crew took casualties and fatigue the gun would proportionally decrease in effectiveness. If the unlimbered gun routed it would be the crew that runs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi, General,

This is certainly the ideal, but I think the FA solution is better than killing guns with infantry firepower. Also better than what we have now, imho. The recovery of fatigue would represent the augmentation of depleted gun crews with details of infantry, although there would be no corresponding loss to the infantry. But for me it is an acceptable compromise until I win the lottery and hire my own programmers to design the perfect Civil War game.[:D]


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA