American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Back in the old days, SSI put out a couple of WWII games called Kampfgroup and Battlegroup where you plotted orders and there was a delay in their implementation, but these were simultaneous movement games.

I think the idea of battlefield stragglers is valid historically and would enhance the game. The problem is that a high quality unit would lose fewer stragglers than a low quality unit under similar circumstances. At Shiloh, for example, there were an awful lot of Union stragglers because the units were green, while I'm sure most of the casualties of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg were "hard" casualties. The "hard" casualties for the 26th NC were 647 out of a regimental strength of 843. Although that includes some missing, the figures were probably based on musters after the battle, so they were absent for the duration of the battle.

I believe that disrupted/routed ought to have full movement allowance, but am grateful for the increase as it is better than what we had. But I could understand an increased cost for facing and formation changes for a disrupted unit since it would conceivably be more difficult for their leaders to control them. And the reduced firepower and inability to melee should remain as is.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

"However, what if a program(s) were written that whichever command unit on the map that is senior would represent the player (that is us opponents) for that side, and that his movement instructions for distant subordinate units (out of command radius) would be implemented on the following turn, a time delay representing the time that a courier would need to transport those orders?

A player would have immediate control for movement and combat only of the units within his immediate command radius. It might be done in phases that only those units would be moved and fought, then next phase, same turn, his other units would move toward their selected destinations."

Actually that sort of exists now. Try the "Command Control" option on the battle startup. Trouble is the AI controls all your troops, you just give orders similar to what the AI scripts do. Prepare to watch limbered artillery charges.[xx(]

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

<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>"... some type of activation system ..."</i>

Should be feasible, since units/formations can start out fixed, presumably with the probability linked to the leader checks at the start of the turn.

However, I suspect this would need to be an optional feature, as it probably won't be popular with a lot of gamers - not much fun having an entire corps suddenly fixed for a turn, or even a brigade at a crucial moment. It would effectively give the opponent an extra free turn on that sector of the battlefield.

Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You can't really use the "Fixed" unit system since it is a one time until released thing. An Activation system would have to be command based similar to what is now done to pass command points down the chain for disruption removal except it would pass down the ability to move and fight.

The old SPI board games usually used a "chit" system where a commander was given a certain number based on his command ability. These he could distribute out to his Corps commanders to increase their command points. Then the Corps command points were used to activate divisions. The number of Chits used depended on the complexity of the action (attack, defend, move, retreat, etc.)

But no matter what system is used it will require a new program management layer to be added to the existing HPS games.

Interestingly, it could be added through "house rules" easier. I believe there use to be some email support sites that handled die rolling so one might be able to come up with a method for implementing it. Another method is the "Game Master" system like Ken Miller's multiplayer game.

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

Hi, Rich,

We discussed ADF priorities in phased play, so that units would DF against the closest unit and not ADF supply wagons. When you have infantry adjacent to your artillery, you don't want it firing somewhere else, which happened to me in a Gettysburg game.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<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,

We discussed ADF priorities in phased play, so that units would DF against the closest unit and not ADF supply wagons. When you have infantry adjacent to your artillery, you don't want it firing somewhere else, which happened to me in a Gettysburg game.

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

It would be nice if the ADF was given a little bit of AI. Have it evaluate targets based on potential threat to the unit (can fire on it and is powerful enough to do damage) and whether the unit has the potential to inflict significant damage on the target rather than the current system of pick randomly from whoever is directly in front of you. Also, they need a threshold system so ammo isn't wasted firing at targets they can't damage significantly.

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