American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Hi All,

Granted I am pretty new to the club and the ACW series by John Tiller; hence I am not any good yet, but I am not new to PBEMing at all. Please inform and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems a few of the campaign battles ans stand alone scenarios are very much one sided, that in favor of the CSA. Granted, this could be due to my initial decision making on the decision screen, but am I alone here?
I'm getting hammered in the Corinth Campaign playing as the Union trying to Defend Iuka. I must be out numbered at least 4 to 1 and the Rebs have 38 turns to take over the small town, which is in the middle of a fairly small board?!?!?....that's a bit much. I tried an Atlanta scenario about a month back and my opponent agreed, playing as the Rebels, that "22-Allatoona Oct 5th V.2 /17" was heavily in favor of the Rebs and again, having an ample supply of turns was the reason he defeated me. We also tried " 02 Carthage_hist scn /52" from Ozark with the same unbalanced results. Has there ever been any balancing of scenarios and or campaigns in this series, such as you would see in John Tiller's Campaign Series? Just curious.
Again, it's clear my personal play needs work as a newbie, but simple balancing of the scenarios might make it a bit more interesting, especially cutting down on the vast amount of turns in certain scenarios/Campaigns. Ok, done complaining LOL
Thanks in advance for veteran knowledge of this series.

The battles were not always balanced and we already have way more info than the real life Gens had. I feel the overabundance of info is more problamatic than force balance. I am sure you will be flooded with rebs saying the balance in many battles favors the Union. Have you tried a campaign, there you can retire or diminish losses in unbalanced fights to preserve forces for the next encounter and overall things should balance out.

Yes, there are plenty of scenarios (Carthage is one of them) in which the best player in the club couldn't whip the worst player in the club if given three opportunities to do so - and there are plenty of those for both sides. They normally don't get played much except in a campaign or when an opponent throws you a sucker punch. It's always best to review a scenario before accepting play of it (except in a campaign where you don't have a choice) unless you are familiar enough with your opponent to know that he wouldn't sucker punch you.

Often times though, it is not the scenario but the way that we play the scenario that allows us to sucker punch ourselves. For example, at many Iuka scenarios, the key is not for the Union to hold Iuka but to realize how hopeless their situation is and to exit the map in a campaign game at the Union Exit hexes. The Rebs have the task of seizing the VP hexes (easy enough for them to do) and cutting off and destroying as many of the Union units as possible before they exit. The outcome of the game still rests with how well each side accomplishes those tasks because the Union gets as many points for exiting their own men as the Rebs would get for destroying them.

The subject of balanced scenarios is a tough one. There are too many variables to firmly designate any scenario as being balanced. Some of those variables are the options that we can select to start a game, what happened in previous scenarios when we're in a campaign, and of course player ability is another. Any scenario deemed balanced by you today is subject to becoming unbalanced with the next HPS patch. It's also strange that most of us consider a scenario balanced if we can win it most of the time but have a bit of a hard time doing so.

This is just touching the tip of the iceberg so the next logical question is how on earth does a fella get to know all of this stuff. The best way is for your Division Commander to teach it to you. I would bet a sizable amount of money that your Division Commander would show you more of the ropes than you would care to know if you corresponded with him before you accepted your next battle/campaign.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Thanks David and Ned!!! I appreciate the responses!!

Of course Ned had the advantage of being there in person.

_________________
General Mark Nelms

3/2/XX/AoC "Blackhawk Brigade"

Union Military Academy Instructor

Mark, there you go again insinuating that I am old – okay, really really old. I’ll have you know … Zzzzzzzz … pass the beans and what were we talking about? Oh my goodness, sorry about that, apparently I’ve already had enough beans. Does anyone have a room spray on them?

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Ned, there are times that you become a veritable fount of both common sense and studied information, and this is one of them! I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe the issues and thinking of what constitutes a "balanced scenario" in quite the thought-provoking way you've just done.

"It's also strange that most of us consider a scenario balanced if we can win it most of the time, but have a bit of a hard time doing so."

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

It's easy. A balanced scenario is one I win. And unbalanced scenario is one I lose.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

You must play a lot of balanced scenarios since the way I hear it you don't lose very often.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller



The McKeesport Union Guard

3/1/II
Chief of Staff
AotP

Hi, Lt Feathler,

It is true that a lot of scenarios are unbalanced no matter what, but for many other scenarios, the balance is greatly affected by what optional rules are used. If you don't use manual defensive fire, for example, you will be playing single turn, which is a disadvantage for the defender. There is a thread somewhere where General Whitehead did a great job of evaluating all the options. As you decide which options you prefer, you will probably find many scenarios that are reasonably balanced using those options. I believe you will also come to identify opponents who share your preferences and level of competence and establish an ongoing relationship with them. That is when you will realize the true potential of this system, and if you want design your own balanced scenarios or modify existing ones to improve play balance.

Here is the General Whitehead post to which I referred.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9936

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA