American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

I do not consider this matter "relatively minor". "These errors happen" when WDS changes things that impact on overall gameplay and do not properly consider the ramifications of them and test the effects of any changes made.
I believe this problem occurred when significant changes were made in v4.03. There were numerous changes made in that version and carried through to subsequent versions. In various posts I, and others, have detailed problems with changes made in recent versions that unbalance the games and move them further and further away from simulation. As another person said in relation to one recent change "the existing melee mechanics [in v4.03 and carried through to subsequent versions] ... will definitely make the existing unbalanced status in the game ... further unbalanced".

Anyhow, back to this issue. The Help Manual says:
If the Optional Rule awarding Victory Points for Leader Casualties is selected in the current battle, then these points are included in the Losses display and included in the calculation for Total Points.
The points assigned for a Leader Casualty are calculated as follows:
● The Leader’s Command value is converted into a numeric value using the assignment A = 6, B = 5, …, F = 1.
● To this value, the Leader’s Leadership value is added using the same numeric assignment.
● Depending on the command level of the Leader, the value is multiplied by a factor:
Army Leader => Factor = 4
Corps Leader => Factor = 3
Division Leader => Factor = 2
Brigade Leader => Factor = 1 (no change)
● Finally, the value is modified according to how the Leader became a casualty:
Killed => No change
Wounded => Value is halved
Captured => Value is doubled

Using that formula the highest possible base number (AA Army Commander) would be 48 [(6 + 6) X 4] so:
Killed [No Change] = 48;
Wounded = [48 X 0.5] = 24; and
Captured = [48 X 2] = 96.

Although I do not think that the formula adequately reflects the loss of a leader [I think it should be higher] it is not unreasonable in terms of the balance of the game in terms of the Victory Levels.

Based upon the formula, an absolute maximum VP for causing a Leader Casualty should be 96. When you discovered the anomaly of a captured Heth resulting in 156 VPs being awarded I did further research and got the following results:
Union
D,B Gamble [BL] 104VP - W - Should be [(3 + 5) X 1 X 0.5 = 4VP]
C,B Buford [DL] 104VP - W - Should be [(4 + 5) X 2 X 0.5 = 9VP)
E,B Devin [BL] 155VP - C - Should be [(2 + 5) X 1 X 2 = 20VP)
F,F Replace. 25VP - K - Should be [(1 + 1) X 1 X 1 = 2VP]
Confederate
D,B Heth [DL] 156VP - C - Should be [(3 + 5) X 2 X 2 = 32VP]
E,D Archer [BL] 51VP - W - Should be W [(2 + 3) X 1 X 0.5 = 2.5VP]
E,C Davis [BL] 77VP - C - Should be [(2 + 4) X 1 X 2 = 12VP]
E,C Brockenbrough [BL] 77VP - C - Should be [(2 + 4) X 1 X 2 = 12VP]
D,C Pettigrew [BL] 77VP - C - Should be [(3 + 4) X 1 X 2 = 14VP?]
F,F Replace. [BL] 25VP - W - Should be [(1 + 1) X 1 X 0.5 = 1VP]

Additional examples I tested revealed the following:
Army Commander Lee [B,A] captured at Chancellorsville - 591 VPs;
Army Commander Jackson [A,A] captured at 1st Winchester - 207 VPs;
Army Commander Lee [A,A] captured in an Overland Mine Run scenario - 522 VPs.

I looked through some old records related to the CSA Sharpshooter Medal. In May 2021 I captured MG McClellan in Scenario 065 South Mountain and got 64 VPs. In April 2021 another member captured MG Pope in Antietam 068 and got 64 VPs.
I opened up 068 Gaps to Manassas and sent Pope off to be captured. Captured he was, and the CSA was awarded with a massive 573 VPs. In that scenario, CSA Minor Victory is -500 and Major Victory is -1500. So, kill the leaders and you'll get there PDQ.

The variation in VPs between older and newer versions of the games are huge. If people play with 'Optional Rule Victory Points for Leader Casualties' selected, then the name of the game becomes 'Kill the Leaders'.

My reasoning on all of this is that the amount should reflect the value of the leader in terms of the Victory Levels of the scenario.
You can't have it so high that knocking off a couple of high-ranked leaders give you a Minor Victory (as v4.04.1 does now).
Small to medium scenarios will be especially affected by the VPs awarded for Leader Casualties.

Therefore, to avoid a severe unbalancing of games under the current version people MUST deselect 'Optional Rule Victory Points for Leader Casualties'.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Same thing happened in the Napoleonic Battles series, gents. I just leave the rule off.

When I have done an analysis of it all it turns out that the losses of leaders usually tend to balance out. Only if someone is unwise to leave R.E. Lee or Meade out in the open to be captured (or other top leaders) does it go over to the other side.

Most of us, by now, know to keep our best leaders out of harm's way. Committing a Division general into a melee is not wise, where it can get captured in the attack, is not smart as it would affect the Disruption recovery process.

I dont even think about the rule now. In the NWC we usually play that if Napoleon is captured then the game is over. If the army leader is captured you can play a rule that says the victory level is moved one level in the favor of the other player or something like that.

Like you guys, I tried to figure out which battles triggered it and I came up empty.

In a recent test game, I checked the rule again after the recent updates and it seemed fine but I now will know to not use it in future ACW games. Thanks for reporting. I was a bit worried when I read the Change log and saw something about the rule being changed.

Too many changes in the games these days. I am thinking of going inactive in two of my clubs and just play the WW2 games until the dust settles. Frankly I am getting tired of the pre-20th century games so that might be where I head anyway. Its not so much a WDS thing as its been a lot of years having to watch the facings of the units, etc. The WW2 games to include Squad Battles, Panzer Campaigns and Panzer Battles series have none of that.

_________________


Optional Rules I Use in WDS ACW Games:
(by column from left to right)
Column 1: All ON except for Man. Def. Fire; Column 2: All ON except for Alt Fixed Unit Rel.; Column 3: All ON except for Art.Capt. & Prop.Op.Fire

"When I have done an analysis of it all it turns out that the losses of leaders usually tend to balance out."
Unfortunately this is not the case. The side with higher graded leaders will suffer more. In small to medium scenarios, and scenarios where there are not large differences between the Victory Levels, the situation can change dramatically with the loss of a couple of leaders.

"Like you guys, I tried to figure out which battles triggered it and I came up empty."
I tested it across six titles. It was present in all those tested. I am confident it occurs in all titles. The difference between what used to occur (v4.02 and earlier) and now is huge. Victory Levels remain unchanged so they cannot reflect that, even with the most cautious player, leaders will become casualties.

"I was a bit worried when I read the Change log and saw something about the rule being changed."
The Changelog says:
"Reduced the victory point multiplier for killed leaders to * 1.25 and for captured leaders to * 1.5".
That is not what this thing is; this follows some other formula. Based upon the VP figures I got for Leader casualties it is way above a simple multiplier of 1.5. [Note: My 'should be' calculations are based upon what is written in the current Help Manual not the recent change in the Changelog, otherwise the 'should be' figures would be smaller.]
I cannot deduce what the formula is that determines the VPs for Leader casualties in the current version.

"Too many changes in the games these days."
I haven't played a game in months because I believe the changes have been for the worse, unbalance many scenarios and stray too far from simulation [discussed elsewhere at length so no need for more detail here]. I do believe that the upcoming 'Equal Force Challenge' should nullify many of the inequities introduced by recent changes so I hope to draw my sword for that tournament.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia