American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Is it just me, or does everyone else think that there are less Minor Victories/Defeats than Major Victories/Defeats in the play of these games? Is there an undeniable built-in psychology about simulating these battles and campaigns with pixelated troops that allows us to push things more assertively to a final conclusion regardless of the outcome? Or do you carry some of your own understanding of the historical aspects of Civil War combat into the play of your own games? Are you prone to maybe push too hard sometimes for those few extra points that make the difference between a shaky major and a solid minor, or maybe spurn a DRAW as a valid result?

Or is it the way that the point systems are all set up?

_________________
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)

I've noticed the same thing. I think its because so many games end before time runs out that there are so few minor victories. When one side really begins to get hammered they throw the towel in usually. I have surrendered at a Minor Defeat status and taken the Major because I could see the handwriting on the wall.

I play the games for fun, and if for any reason the fun is gone from a game I offer a major to my opponent just to end it, points having no meaning to me, this seems the best way out.

I need to play David more often... chances are we'll both surrender and confuse the heck out of one another.

How would whuppin' a high ranking reb ever not be fun?

You beat me one time and I never hear the end of it.... the Peninsula... I remember it well....

I haven't played an ACW game in months ...and maybe only a couple or so this year. The "Fun" versus "Frustration" finally tipped over into the latter and I decided to take a break from the ACW arena.
Goodness knows what my record of results looks like, I don't think I've ever checked, but I think the reported bias tending towards major victories / defeats is the result of player habits rather than the game system.
I've always been intrigued to know how I'm judged as an opponent on the Rebel secret intelligence files.

The most enjoyable games I've played have been the ones with big scale movements on large maps where planning and counting hexes has been crucial to proceedings. The trouble is that opponents, other than the very inexperienced ones, rarely make real mistakes than can be seized upon and punished in these games. The cat & mouse aspect is fun but I was finding I was rapidly losing interest once the firing started.

As I see it the "gamers" and the "technicians" will always win out over the "historicals" ...and that leaves a cautious, historically minded player like me feeling disappointed with game progress much more often than anything like surprise or shock or confusion. In fact I don't recall a time where my opponent tried to do anything that the 70 hex eye-in-the-sky didn't spot so far in advance, that it made the sense of attempting it questionable ...and ultimately the game takes on a kind of clockwork feel to it?

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

A good question and no easy answer. I tend to get either really whupped or, on a rare occasion, score a major victory. The "what if" battles are better as you can't assume that Gamble and Devin need to hold the rebs in front of seminary ridge until the black hats arrive. I think historical battles tend to be easier to plan for.

I am playing many more "what if" games now than when I started. I think the observation is that many of the games are not played out is very accute. I also think that some of the game features make it easy to accumulate horrible KIA results.

A pet peeve is that the fire results for the gray seem to be, most of the time, better than for the blue, reflecting the perception that Johnny Reb shot longer and better than Billy Blue. Another is that the recovery factor of troops engaged (meaning wounded, stragglers and lost soldiers) never seems to be a factor.

Finally, it should be noted that they are some really good gamers in the club.

BG Elkin
3rd Div/(2nd Cav)/XVIth Corps AotT

_________________
I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies. . . . Let us look before us, and not behind

I might be counter to the norm, but I usually play right up to the last turn, especially in shorter games. I have quit a number of games or settled results with people, but that had more to do with real life in the past 4 years than anything. But I have found that, with my luck, I'll hold an edge and in the last turn it will tip over in their favor. Almost always the last and if not second last turn!

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
4/II/ANV

The preponderance of decisive results is something I had not noticed, but here are some ideas.

Historically, commanders have to consider what happens after the battle. In set piece scenarios, all you have to worry about is one battle. So if you shoot off all your artillery ammo in a scenario, or place troops in an untenable position on the last turn, it doesn't matter.

Victory conditions are subjective. They are the opinion of the scenario creator. Sometimes I think victory conditions have more to do with balancing the game than with historical impact. But even historians often disagree on the impact of historical results.

There is the "Shiloh" rule that penalizes players withdrawing substantial forces from the map before the end of the scenario by forfeiting two levels of victory. This has kept me on the Gettysburg map with insufficient ammo in the three day scenario. Personally, I blame flawed scenario design for that one, but that is just my opinion.

Too much knowledge. Not only "eye in the sky", but knowing who and how many will enter the map where and when.

Disparity in experience and skill levels of opponents. Of course, that was a factor in the war as well.

Certain optional rules, such as hard ZOC and isolation, increase casualties, so if a player gets caught between a rock and a hard place, he might get more severely punished than not having those options. And that affects victory levels.

Troops running for their lives(routed) can't outrun infantry in line.

Those are a few ideas off the top of my head. While there are certainly some unbalanced scenarios, I would think most folks would avoid them. But maybe not.

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

I think the reason I have so few minor victories is that when I beat the Rebs...
I BEAT!!! the Rebs... no doubt about it... like a drum, beat-beat-beat...

I also like longer games and campaigns, not many short games where victory is decided on one objective or one last turn of firing...

_________________
Lt. General Thompson

"That's damn ungenerous! I shall take those guns for that!"

-General Phil Sheridan