American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Do you play to "win the game" by gamesmanship or do you play "historically" to emulate the Civil War Tactics as we understand them?

EG: You have a 55 man Cav unit and you can capture a battery, but you know your troops will be wiped out in the next opponent turn. Do you rush forward and scoop up the points, or do you say "Well, Hell, nobody in their right mind would ride into that as it would be suicide.

I personally like "historical" but that is my preference. What is yours?

Col Elkin
Horse Artillery/3rd/2nd Cav/XVI Corps AotT

“I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies. . . . Let us study the probable lines of retreat of our opponents, and leave our own to take care of themselves. Let us look before us, and not behindâ€

My approach varies . . . I have played altogether too historical at times. So much so that I've wound up "winning the battle, yet losing the game" . . . But sometimes that can get old.

As for your example, I have to admit that if the gun points I'd gain amounted to more than those I'd lose getting them . . . I just might do it. Especially when you factor in how many lives I'd save by silencing those guns.

All in all though, I'd say I'm far more "historical" than most of the players I've faced off against.

Your Obedient Servant,
Lt Gen Dwight McBride
Ist Division/1st Brigade
V Corps/AOP/USA

Historical, historical, HISTORICAL!!! [:(!]

Nothing spoils my enjoyment more than having to resort to game tactics to win at a simulation. But it's impossible to always know where the border between the two lies.
Likewise, nothing infuriates me more than witnessing opponents playing the "game" above all else to secure a victory ...but once again, you just can't avoid it really.

In response to your example: I probably wouldn't waste the Cavalry in 9 out of 10 situations, not if it would mean their loss on the next turn.

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

Let's see! 55 times .8 is 44 points that I have at stake. If it's a 1 gun battery that gets me 30 points then I'll save my cavalry. If it's a 4 tube battery that gets me 120 points, then I'll just be writing a lot of letters home to the wives, mothers, and girlfriends of those brave soldiers.

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/VIII/AotS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

*

Lt. General Thompson
VIII Corps,
Army of the Shenandoah

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

-General Phil Sheridan

I wouldn't consider the situation given would be gamey. If a 55 man cavalry unit saw an unprotected battery they probably would try to cut the gunners and horse down. It gets "gamey" if the battery was sitting in front of a brigade which for some reason could kill the entire cavalry in one volley but then I consider anyone who leaves a gun in that situation as using very poor tactics and should lose that gun.

In our virtual world they would probably be immediately overrun after taking the gun but that doesn't represent reality either. One could say they rode in, ran off the gunners, cut loose the horses so the gun is disabled, then got scattered by surrounding infantry as they tried to get away. Game wise they are casualties. Reality wise they were lost as a formed unit but probably most of them got away individually to brag about how they took a gun right under the noses of the enemy.

What I consider "gamey" tactics is using a depleted wagon for a shield, replacement officers for scouts out in front of the line, and the such.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

That's why I won't play without the Artillery Capture Option on. Since you can't hold the guns there's no sense in using the gamey tactic.

Gen. Ken Miller
AotP

I'm weighing modifying a pdt file from one of the games to change the vp values - or just the vp values for the artillery to 0.

Where taking out opposing artillery should be a big enough goal without needing to also assign points to it. It might work better, though in a campaign game setting.

Col Stephen Trauth
3/XV/AotT


Johnny *don't* skate.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by S_Trauth</i>
<br />I'm weighing modifying a pdt file from one of the games to change the vp values - or just the vp values for the artillery to 0.

Where taking out opposing artillery should be a big enough goal without needing to also assign points to it. It might work better, though in a campaign game setting.

Col Stephen Trauth
3/XV/AotT


Johnny *don't* skate.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have to be careful with those kinds of modifications because they can unintended consequences. With no penality there is a tendancy to use artillery like little tanks running them up two hexes from an enemy line and unlimbering them. The VP penality acts as a restraint against sucidal actions with highly mobile units like cavalry and hight firepower at close range units like artillery.

Once you make a change like that it takes a while of testing to be sure it doesn't immediately open a half dozen new exploits or ahistorical behaviors.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

"Charge for the guns he said, what though the soldier knew, someone had blundered."

"Please Mr Custer, I don't want to go."

I think when you start putting limitations on what units can do, you open a real can of worms. Historically, units did a lot of incredible things that didn't make sense from a survival point of view. Actually, taking a battery with 55 men is no sure thing if it is unlimbered. But assuming you could, you ought to be able to. Just like you ought to be able to attack Marye's Heights, or Cemetery Ridge, or Malvern Hill if you want to. A lot of things happened in the Civil War that weren't logical.

MG Mike Mihalik
2/4/I/AoMiss/CSA

Gents,
My opinion is that if your opponent leaves a battery so undefended that a 55 man cavalry unit can take it, then he deserves to lose those guns. Artillery was RARELY unsupported, and when it was it was often lost rather quickly. A battery (or section) may have an inherent strength that might be better than a small detachment of cavalry, but most of those guys are going to be using sponge staffs and pistols to fend off a close-up attack (if they can't get their guns to bear). Someone mentioned that the cavalry would have just run the crew off, and cut the horses from their traces so as to disable the battery (possibly spiking the guns if they take the time).

Most of the time when I do that sort of thing, it's in order to just silence the guns and try to maintain artillery parity (difficult enough to do against you Yanks).

Col. Nick DeStefano
II "Wolf-Pack" Corps, AoM

Well, as a lowly Union Lieutenant playing against seasoned reb Officers I am trying to win using the given game mechanics and still getting served a healthy plate of Southern whup-ass.

Someday I hope to have the luxury of winning while playing and with a bit of historical flair, but unless asked specifically by my opponent, I intend to do what I must, including ZOC kills when I can.[B)]

EDIT: Hmm, looks like I'm up for promotion to Captain. Quite frankly I'm surprised I haven't been cashiered.[:D]

Lt. Simonitch
1st Brigade, 2nd Division
VI Corps, AoS

Actually ZOC kills serve a purpose. Without them a 100 man cavalry unit can run around in your rear taking out supply wagons and you have to send a brigade to division size force to stop him because it takes six regiment to surround and wipe out such a unit without ZOC.

We usually play the games with hard ZOC and isolation rules but try it sometime without these optional rules on. Then you will see some serious ahistoric fighting.

Players that maintain continous lines with supporting units to fill holes and don't send lone units on rear area raids will seldom suffer a ZOC kill against them. When you try to hold to much line or send small detachments out unsupported is when you get hit with ZOC kills and isolation kills. And, deservingly so.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1st Marine Btln AoM (CSA)

I believe it is the ZOC kills from isolation and hard ZOC that is ahistoric. It is pretty rare to find instances of whole units surrendering during a pitched battle, and many units actually fought harder when they were cornered.

Also historically, units were detached to protect the supply trains. That is a big reason why Pickett wasn't available on the second day at Gettysburg. But that isn't how we play our games.

MG Mike Mihalik
2/3/I/AoMiss/CSA

It is also pretty rare in one of my games for me to get one. That is because I maintain my lines properly. Almost everyone I do it to were doing something with their units that was ahistoric and paid the price. When it does happen to me it is usually because I pushed forces to far from their supports hoping to get away with it and didn't.

You rarely see the equivalent in real CW battles because they didn't allow their troops to get cut off. But if they did you would see the whole sale surrender that ZOC's and Isolation rules simulate. Not until 64 when the South no longer had the numbers to maintain their lines of battle do you start seeing these results. Then there are numerous examples of troops being cut off and surrendering. Mostly around Petersburg but also in the Valley with Early and out west with Hood's ill fated offensives.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1st Marine Btln AoM (CSA)