American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Since the games are supposedly trying to simulate Civil War combat on a rather abstract level, in at least theory if you repeat the historical actions for both sides then the game should more or less repeat the historical result. No one ever really does this because you can read about the result but you do use it for comparison to see if you can come up with a better strategy. Pickett's charge executed with exactly the same poor coordination of divisions isn't really much fun.[:D] But you might want to test Longstreet's suggestion of turning the Union left and its nice if the game is accurate enough for the result be informative.

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

Mr. Slepetz,

I think you miss the point. To play historically, does not mean you have to do EXACTLY what they did, it does mean you do it in a manner they would've done had they chose to do that.

Trying to outflank the Union army with a corps would be something they may have tried to do. Sending a single regiment around the flank, and into the rear of the army to just pick off stray officers, and wagons would not.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trying to outflank the Union army with a corps would be something they may have tried to do. Sending a single regiment around the flank, and into the rear of the army to just pick off stray officers, and wagons would not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This should be inherently taken care of by the risks vs. rewards of strategy. If a player loses his leaders or wagons then it is his fault for not protecting them and/or not using reconnaissance parties on his flanks from which units may try to maneuver. I would love for my opponent to try sending a single regiment on such a raid against me. Not only would he not achieve his goal, he is likely lose that regiment in detail.

Lt. Col. Brad Slepetz
III Corps
AoG

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by slepsta</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Trying to outflank the Union army with a corps would be something they may have tried to do. Sending a single regiment around the flank, and into the rear of the army to just pick off stray officers, and wagons would not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This should be inherently taken care of by the risks vs. rewards of strategy. If a player loses his leaders or wagons then it is his fault for not protecting them and/or not using reconnaissance parties on his flanks from which units may try to maneuver. I would love for my opponent to try sending a single regiment on such a raid against me. Not only would he not achieve his goal, he is likely lose that regiment in detail.

Lt. Col. Brad Slepetz
III Corps
AoG
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have to disagree with you there, Col. Slepetz. We have far fewer "free" men in these games than would have existed in real life. We often find ourselves with no cavalry, and what we do have must stay bunched up in single large units, and our infantry is all in line units. In reality there would have been scouts, military police units, flank guards of small cavalry detachments, etc. If we had all of those same units available to us in the games, then by all means try anything because there would be a reasonable chance that the opponent could at least know something was up and send larger units to investigate. Without those scouting forces, however, it leaves the games open to unrealistic results due to lack of information and visibility.

Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by slepsta</i>
<br />I cannot think of anything more boring, nor would I have ever joined this club ... I can read books for the history.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How much history are you willing to give up? By tinkering with the pdt you can alter alot of the variables, to increase range and fire power (M16s), speed (trucks), morale, etc. Why not light sabres for the Cav?

The game engine is a good, but imperfect attempt to model historical realities, which allows some abuses.

A lone leader cutting off retreat on a 125 yd frontage? Must have a 50 cal machine gun at least. Supply vehicles coordinating with combat units? Must be trucks with radios I guess, because ACW wagons sure couldn't do it, and so on.

So the introduction of some house rules to more accurately reflect the historical capabilities is not a question of recreating history exactly, so much as providing the opportunity to <u>alter </u>history in a way that may have been possible had you been in command at the time.

Naturally Lee could have won at G'burg if only he'd had a Mech Inf Div or a tactical nuke, but Lee could not have had either.

The question is can <b>you </b><u>alter </u>history and win at G'burg with approximateely the same contraints as Lee had? The game engine does it's best to provide you with the opportunity to find out; a few house rules can make it an even more realistic alteration of history.

Otherwise, fun or not, it isn't the ACW ...

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

Mike,

When I say that I do not want to recreate history I was referring to restricting my tactical play to match historical use. Things such as keeping a brigade in a continuous unbroken line, using cavalry only as dismounted soldiers and reconnaissance, and limiting malees and ZOC kills. I am perfectly comfortable with the use of rifles and muskets for firepower, horses and legs for movement, as well as all the other utilities used during the time.

And to answer your question of can I alter history with the same limits that Lee faced? Not a chance in hell if I can only fight historically.

I must admit, though, that the idea of cavalry with lightsabers is something I would love to see. [8D]

Lt. Col. Brad Slepetz
III Corps
AoG

Mr. Slepetz,

You're saying what we're saying just getting tripped up on the word 'historically.'

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

Hi Men!

Up Late last night, fell outta bed 10 mins ago, caffeine intake beginning now . . . . apologies for my vagueness in what I'm about to suggest.

Regarding Mike K's comments - Supply Wagons . . . . .

Could it not be "Hotwired" into the game engine that SW's are manoeuvred under the constraints of Commander control (or whatever that HPS Function is called?)

You decide where you are gonna Manually position your brigades and "order" the SW's to rendevous at Hex xx*y. The SW's set off as ordered.

Conditions change and Your Brigades end up heading for another part of the Battlefield.

You MUST send fresh orders to the SW's. You can't manually direct them elsewhere. Or they can only move 1 hex per turn under Manual Control?

You then haffta hope that the courier reaches the SW's before the Enemy does and that they Obey the Fresh Orders in time.

You could end up with all your SW's in a Field, with no support and the Entire Enemy army robbing Your Sandwiches! LoL

A Per centage ratio could be included in the Hotwire - governing whether the SW's receive Your New Orders or Not or When . . . . as the case may be.

A bit like per centage likliehood of Reinforcements arriving on the battlefield as per the Scenario Schedule?

Pat.


Colonel Patrick G.M.Carroll,
Commanding
II Corps,
Army of Georgia.
"Spartan Southrons"
C.S.A.

" When My Country takes it's rightful place, amongst the Nations of the World, then and only then, let My Epitaph be written. "

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Up Late last night, fell outta bed 10 mins ago, caffeine intake beginning now . . . . apologies for my vagueness in what I'm about to suggest.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[:D]

I don't think that it would be done, as if you could do that with supply wagons, extend that concept out to include any (all) subordinate commands and you might not be able to have an AI that can handle those movements, well.

We had a game, using the Tessier system in the NWC where human commanders gave orders to the Game Umpire and the umpire actually moved the units. He used a system of percentages that the orders be carried out and that they be obeyed by lower commanders. The concept was well done and there have been one of 2 attempts to use the same process in the ACW.

It is an interesting way to play, but I do not see it implemented into the games.

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

ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">

Brad

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by slepsta</i>
<br />When I say that I do not want to recreate history I was referring to restricting my tactical play to match historical use ... Not a chance in hell if I can only fight historically.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But it begs the question of what is "realistic" in the sense that it could have been done were it not for the mindset of the day, and what is merely the result of the limitations of the game engine but nott atually possible (for eg as Lt Col Lynn discusses) and hence completely ahistorical?

And if one's stand is "if the game allows it, then ...", I have to ask how is it ACW then? and if one is not concerned with historicity, why not play with the pdt and create Panzer Gruppe Jackson? It's possible under the game engine mechanics ...

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ernie Sands</i>
We had a game, using the Tessier system in the NWC where human commanders gave orders to the Game Umpire and the umpire actually moved the units. He used a system of percentages that the orders be carried out and that they be obeyed by lower commanders. The concept was well done and there have been one of 2 attempts to use the same process in the ACW.

It is an interesting way to play, but I do not see it implemented into the games.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's the re-introduction of human interaction into the games what makes this style of play so thrilling. Why the hell do my subordinates behave so stupid and never follow my orders? Why the hell does my superior not heed my advice and put all available reserves in my sector? Why on earth does our attack dissolve into incoherent minor actions when everybody goes off on his own?

The only thing that I would wish to see in the engine to make this style of play perfect would be friendly fog-of-war, so that every commander only sees what his own troops see. That should be quite possible, as it is already there in the Naval Campaigns games by JT.

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