American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I checked the scn and the Union has 500 rounds, the Confederates 400 at the start. If used correctly, that should be enough. BUT, you may have to reset you arty range, so the arty won't take pot shot at max range. Also, if you have lost arty, that will reduce your ammo pool.

Rich

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Robert Frost</i>

. . . A major step might be the following:

Eliminate VPs for guns. Nada. Zero.

No army in the Civil War vacated the field or lost a battle because it suffered too many gun losses (VPs). In fact, many batteries were reclaimed after their original loss. So, let the value of guns be what they brought to the battlefield: firepower. Lose them, and you lose their killing power.

BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

General Frost,

I could agree that guns are too weak in these games and even that too much value may be placed on them, but to eliminate points for them entirely would be a bit much.

If that logic were to be followed, shouldn't we also eliminate victory points for lost infantry and cavalry as well? If point values were eliminated for all forces we would be left with only geographic objectives to determine a winner or loser. This would result in all sorts of unhistoric (for the civil war) suicide charges in an all-for-broke effort to take those all important hexes.

The purpose of assigning values for lost forces in the first place was to encourage players to not throw away resources. Some custom scenarios have even gone the other way and eliminated geographic objectives entirely, depending on force losses to determine a 'winner'.


LGen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory
First ('Grey Line') Corps, AotM

David W. Mallory
ACW - Lieutenant General, First ('Grey Line') Corps, AotM
CCC - Corporal, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army

Hello All,

You know, maybe the number of arty casualties was historically fairly low as compared against say, the Battleground game engine. And maybe it is even now the case that arty effectiveness is on the high side in the HPS Campaign game engine as compared to historical results. But is this partly a reflection of how we approach these games? Are we as battlefield commanders a bit more willing to put our troops under the muzzles of these guns than was historically the case? Or at least maybe once ordered to assault a gun position, were the attackers more willing to go to ground or otherwise save their skins than are our stalwart silicone based soldiers who march right into the barrels of these guns? Maybe we are running slightly high in casualties because we know (in the HPS series) that arty batteries simply can not defend themselves, unless accompanied by a very substantial infantry presence. We take a few losses, then grab a bunch of guns and rack up the VPs. I think a barrel full of grape shot should be enough to make any assault against an arty position something other than some quick victory points for the attacker. At the very least, the guns should be a great deal more likely to disrupt attackers than they are now IMHO.

Thanks,
General Thos. Callmeyer
4th Bgd.-1st Div.-XV Corps-AoT

Fully agreed on the disrupt thing. Maybe that's the real answer there, that you radically raise the possibility of guns causing D status when they are firing at canister range. It's not so much the lack of bloodshed that makes guns vunerable, it's the ability of the attackers to "press the charge home"

Of course, there would be ways to "game" around that, but it would still be a major improvement.

Col. Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

The answer to this problem of weak artillery is clear, either -

1./ Increase the artillery effectiveness in the pdt

2./ Improve the ADF - especially just before melees - so that the defender isn't at a disadvantage.

3./ Reduce the VPt value of artillery

and 4./ Introduce a capture / recapture gun feature and also give guns at least some chance of limbering up and escaping.

OR just go back to playing the Battleground series & Age of Rifles instead, where the artillery has more punch.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Robert,
Thanks and I agree with much of what you say in terms of how both the areas for improvement and their solutions can be framed. In regards to the HPS games, the study clearly can only address pdt values not the underlying system. It doesn't pretend to do anything else. I've been saying all along on this board that deviations from reality need to be addressed by the system not the pdt. All of the designers provide input in our internal discussions on what we'd like to see done to improve the system. I'd like to see system improvements in the way ADF and melee is handled as much as anybody.

Drew

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Robert Frost</i>
<br />Excellent study, Drew! I always prefer a mathematical approach to these questions when possible. It beats anecdotal evidence, even my own. This goes a long way towards answering the question as to whether the HPS artillery factors are correct (at least for 6-lb smoothbores). It does not at all resolve the problem of artillery in HPS, however. One could DOUBLE the factors and the same issues would remain.

The controversy over artillery in HPS has always raged around fire factors, sufficient/insufficient. After all, PDT factors are the only thing one can control. Unfortunately, this is a forest-for-the-trees comparison. The issue lies not with the factors "tree", but deep within the "forest" which is the GAME ENGINE. Unless the GAME ENGINE is modified, the issue will never be resolved. Whether factors are correct or not, artillery will remain INEFFECTIVE in HPS compared to its historical counterpart. Casualties may be "correct", but guns will continue to be easily meleed (a magnet in HPS because of the high VP value, rather than something to be avoided as was the case in the Civil War).

The whole issue, I believe, revolves around the manner in which the GAME ENGINE handles artillery in Melee situations. I accept the MELEE portion of the game system to represent close range fire and advance which causes one side or another to break. Yet the system allots a defensive value to artillery as though the gun crews carried pikes and MELEE represents the rare, if almost non-existent, hand-to-hand combat. Gun batteries contribute virtually nothing to the defense of a hex, where in REALITY this is when they would have been their most DANGEROUS. Double-shotted canister at 50 yards will cut all sorts of "swathes". As a line approaches it would be narrowing the angle of dispersal, increasing the fire effectiveness.

If I could change the GAME ENGINE this is what I would do:

When an attacker clicks on "Resolve Melee" the game engine would branch to the following logic if artillery is in the hex:

Randomly determine a number 1, 2, 3

If 1 then the battery limbers and moves one hex to rear. Movement hierarchy is 1)road hex, 2)clear terrain, 3)otherwise it remains limbered in the melee hex

If 2 then the battery limbers and remains in melee hex. It defends
with the same value as the current system attaches to it.

If 3 the battery stands and fights. Its defense value becomes
50 x the number of guns in the hex. A 4-gun battery defends as though it were 200 infantry. After all, each gun is attributed a value of 50 when firing, why not when defending?

The program would then resolve the melee.

The relative scenarios (1, 2, or 3) could be evaluated for their frequency. This is just an example.

Assuming that the game engine will not be modified, what can one do immediately to address the issue via parameters? Little, actually. I have suggested that the limber/unlimber factor = 3. Guns were more mobile than the system attributes. A major step might be the following:

Eliminate VPs for guns. Nada. Zero.

No army in the Civil War vacated the field or lost a battle because it suffered too many gun losses (VPs). In fact, many batteries were reclaimed after their original loss. So, let the value of guns be what they brought to the battlefield: firepower. Lose them, and you lose their killing power.





BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Colonel
3rd Bde/1st Div/17th Corp
Army of the Tennessee

Yes, I think that goes a ways toward getting to the heart of the matter--the ease at which melee attacks are pressed--, although I would include short range small arms fire in with the canister range artillery fire.

Mr. Frost's idea about having casualties at short range count for more in terms of a "morale hit" is an interesting one to contemplate.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Fully agreed on the disrupt thing. Maybe that's the real answer there, that you radically raise the possibility of guns causing D status when they are firing at canister range. It's not so much the lack of bloodshed that makes guns vunerable, it's the ability of the attackers to "press the charge home"

Of course, there would be ways to "game" around that, but it would still be a major improvement.

Col. Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Colonel
3rd Bde/1st Div/17th Corp
Army of the Tennessee

Here's a thought. Would someone here be willing to set up an experiment that would test the ADF?

Something like, use the scn editor to place a regiment six hexes away from a 3 section battery with clear terrain in between. Then have the regiment advance toward the battery one hex at a time and record:

1. how many times a section fires
2. the number of casualties inflicted
3. if the attacker is disrupted and if so how far away
4. have the attacker melee if he reaches the adjacent hex and record if any defending sections fire and record casualties, disruptions, etc.

Do this 10 or 20 times with the op fire at each arty setting (long, medium, and short range) and see what the results are. This way, we can arrive at some helpful data rather than anecdotal evidence for the designers to pass on up. Of course, if more than one person is willing to do this experiment, all the better!

Colonel
3rd Bde/1st Div/17th Corp
Army of the Tennessee

The HPS GB kills vis a vis Arty vs Infantry "feels" right to me. When guys are only killing 3-4 a 10 or 11 wack is big. Arty does hit harder.

As to their vernability to melee-absolutley!! However, by keeping them back ( even 2 or 3 hexes) makes them rather hard to melee and their increased maneuverbility seems to actually make them HARDER to trap.I am in my fourth big battle(three day fights). So far the tactics seem more realistic than BGG. I am having troubles keeping the Yanks from routing and more importantly disrupting but I really think its my inexperience with the system. So far my mixed gun and infantry lines hold rather well and inflict a bunch of casualties(again it IS relative).

As to strategy, the jury is still out.

Major General Tony Best
AOJ

To General Mallory: David, I am not suggesting eliminating VPs for infantry and cavalry. I have come to appreciate the fact that trained cavalry were a potent force in many respects. I would suggest Infantry = 10; Cavalry = 30; Artillery = 0 (or 2 or 3 VPs, if one wants to attach a "trophy" value to them). This eliminates the incentive to attack guns for no reason other than their point value. If they occupy a tactical target, then their elimination furthers one's cause and denies their future use by one's opponent.
We are all well read enough on the Civil War to agree that the last thing infantry wanted to hear was "Attack that battery".

As to positioning batteries 2 or 3 hexes in the rear to protect them from melee, this may be a good tactic, but one that is more or less forced by the ease of meleeing same in the front line. To fire canister a battery, by definition, had to have been in the line, however. There should be some restriction for guns firing over the heads of their own infantry dependent on height in rear of the line.
Fused shells could be used, but one cannot fire canister. Let's not get too carried away in minutiae, however.

BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland

Since supply wagons can be captured and recaptured, why not guns? They really shouldn't just "disappear" if successfully meleed, as they do in the game. If guns <i>could</i> be captured - preferably without any gun loss, unlike with the supply wagons - this would be a quite simple fix for the problem of artillery being too valuable and yet too weak and defenceless.

If this feature were incorporated and the pdt fire factors were also enhanced at close range, then players would be far more reluctant to attack guns, because the non-phasing player would then get the chance to counter-attack and recover the precious guns. So this one little modification would have a big impact on game-play. Maybe we should get a club petition together and request this feature for the next patch?

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Going to 0 VP would lead to excesses in the opposite direction just as bad as problems created by the high VP. I could see artillery being used as a skirmish line to break up attacks, cost nothing why not. What else are those 1 gun sections good for?[:D]

Back some time ago I made a calculation based on the resources required for a battery; that is, men, horses, and equipment, and the numbers pretty much supported the relative VP value that HPS assigned the batteries in Gettysburg. The problem really isn't the VP value but the game model used for the artillery being to simplistic. Since we are kind of stuck with the current game model there is some justification for playing with the VP value but I think going to 0 would break them system in a different direction.

If I had my wishes[8D] though I would favor the following:

1. Units attempting to melee a battery supported position would have to undergo a morale check first for disorder/route.
2. Guns overrun crews had the possiblity of surviving to recrew the gun if it was retaken.
3. Guns could be captured but to take posession of them required occupying the hex and attempting to either spike the guns, crew them or hawl them off (based on die roll).
4. Guns have the ability to retreat before melee (retire by prolong or limber and leave).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Robert Frost</i>
<br />To General Mallory: David, I am not suggesting eliminating VPs for infantry and cavalry. I have come to appreciate the fact that trained cavalry were a potent force in many respects. I would suggest Infantry = 10; Cavalry = 30; Artillery = 0 (or 2 or 3 VPs, if one wants to attach a "trophy" value to them). This eliminates the incentive to attack guns for no reason other than their point value. If they occupy a tactical target, then their elimination furthers one's cause and denies their future use by one's opponent.
We are all well read enough on the Civil War to agree that the last thing infantry wanted to hear was "Attack that battery".

As to positioning batteries 2 or 3 hexes in the rear to protect them from melee, this may be a good tactic, but one that is more or less forced by the ease of meleeing same in the front line. To fire canister a battery, by definition, had to have been in the line, however. There should be some restriction for guns firing over the heads of their own infantry dependent on height in rear of the line.
Fused shells could be used, but one cannot fire canister. Let's not get too carried away in minutiae, however.

BG Robert Frost
Army of Cumberland
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

Judging from you post you are refering to the ADF under Turn Based (Opportunity Fire) system. It's so broke that nothing can fix it short of an entire rewrite of system. Because you can keep trying until you succeed, or run out of adjacent hexes, there is no way for a battery under Turn Based to defend itself without overpowering it for all other combat situations.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Drew Wagenhoffer</i>
<br />Here's a thought. Would someone here be willing to set up an experiment that would test the ADF?

Something like, use the scn editor to place a regiment six hexes away from a 3 section battery with clear terrain in between. Then have the regiment advance toward the battery one hex at a time and record:

1. how many times a section fires
2. the number of casualties inflicted
3. if the attacker is disrupted and if so how far away
4. have the attacker melee if he reaches the adjacent hex and record if any defending sections fire and record casualties, disruptions, etc.

Do this 10 or 20 times with the op fire at each arty setting (long, medium, and short range) and see what the results are. This way, we can arrive at some helpful data rather than anecdotal evidence for the designers to pass on up. Of course, if more than one person is willing to do this experiment, all the better!

Colonel
3rd Bde/1st Div/17th Corp
Army of the Tennessee
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

I am just telling you that hard data will help get proper changes done far more than just anecdotal complaints.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br />Judging from you post you are refering to the ADF under Turn Based (Opportunity Fire) system. It's so broke that nothing can fix it short of an entire rewrite of system. Because you can keep trying until you succeed, or run out of adjacent hexes, there is no way for a battery under Turn Based to defend itself without overpowering it for all other combat situations.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Drew Wagenhoffer</i>
<br />Here's a thought. Would someone here be willing to set up an experiment that would test the ADF?

Something like, use the scn editor to place a regiment six hexes away from a 3 section battery with clear terrain in between. Then have the regiment advance toward the battery one hex at a time and record:

1. how many times a section fires
2. the number of casualties inflicted
3. if the attacker is disrupted and if so how far away
4. have the attacker melee if he reaches the adjacent hex and record if any defending sections fire and record casualties, disruptions, etc.

Do this 10 or 20 times with the op fire at each arty setting (long, medium, and short range) and see what the results are. This way, we can arrive at some helpful data rather than anecdotal evidence for the designers to pass on up. Of course, if more than one person is willing to do this experiment, all the better!

Colonel
3rd Bde/1st Div/17th Corp
Army of the Tennessee
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Col. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Colonel
3rd Bde/1st Div/17th Corp
Army of the Tennessee

Drew-for those of us too lazy to wade through the testing: anecdotes is all we got[:I]

Having said that- I still dont understand the preoccupation with putting guns on the front lines. I am not a great Historian but I just dont have the feeling that this was such a common occurance. I think they sought elevated positions to fire over their own troops or were left lanes of fire but were generally protected by near by infantry( represented by gaps between units.) I think exceptions are noted for their oddities, certainly it did occur. I`ll leave it to the better Historians to correct me.[:)]



Major General Tony Best
AOJ