American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Hi, Al,

Did Frank Hunter do "Sumter to Appomattox"? That was supposed to be
a good game, but I guess I never mastered the learning curve. After trying to move some ships and troops without much success, I gave up and filed it next to Frank Grabowski's effort. It may have been realistic, but I didn't find it to be much fun. I heard the game was later updated and more information provided on why things happened the way they did, but by that time I was soured on the whole thing. If Frank Hunter did another game and somebody remembers what it was, please let me know. Actually, the most promising strategic ACW effort I owned was an old Avalon Hill computer conversion of Victory Games' Civil War; but it was so buggy that it was almost comical to try to play it. The board game, by the way, was one of the best ACW strategic games I have ever played (the other is House Divided, which isn't too realistic but a lot of fun and very challenging.)


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Mike,
ACW is the updated version of "From Sumpter to Appomattox", and yes, it did turn out to be a good game.....the original, I hear had a LOT of problems......and Bill, it is truly getting pathetic that you would bother to come here to try your hand at more lame insults, on a post on which I made a joke.....As for who actually fired first, it was the Union....Federal troops in Pensacola fired on a Southern Patrol long before Sumpter, and before Citadel cadets fired on the "Star of the West" which was also before Fort Sumpter.....So in actuallity, Fort Sumpter was the 3rd firing incident of the war....history is in fact mostly written by the winner though and hence the first 2 firing incidents are ignored....however, I will give you that your name for the war, although it lacks a "ring" to it, is somewhat accurate.....Hank Smith

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp

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

I think a fire and then move option would be a vast improvement in realism over our current system.

Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Colonel Lynn,

I've heard people mention a system I would like to see even more: Plot-and-go. It wouldn't even have to be simultaneous movement for both players in order to work. Basically it would be the same we have now except that when we move the units we would actually be issuing <i>orders </i>to the unit, not actually moving it. Once we had issued all the orders we wanted to (the 'plot' phase) we would advance the phase (to the 'go' phase) and watch the units move. This would be sort of like watching our own replay, execpt enemy units in the woods would prevent some of our units from carrying out their 'assignments' -- resulting in lines that aren't nearly as pretty as we had thought they would be, and maybe leaving some of our units unsupported. Basically, a much more historical outcome.

For added spice, try random sequence: the units don't move in the sequence you ordered them to. You may have ordered unit A to advance to cut off a retreat, then units B, C, and D to melee. What COULD happen is that unit C meleed all by itself, getting plastered, then units B and D meleed (together), winning the melee and pushing the enemy unit back, THEN unit A shows up but is unable to complete the encirclement because the enemy unit has already been pushed back. (Yes, this could result in multiple melee attacks against a single unit the same turn. The game engine might not want to apply 'disruption' penalties against a meleed unit until the end of the turn.)

Other factors could influence the ability of units to even carry out their orders. For instance, the higher the fatigue level, the less chance the unit will actually perform everthing you've ordered. (In the example of the previous paragraph, unit D may be highly fatigued and didn't melee at all!) Fatigue, morale, supply, command, and other factors could all influence the ability of units to perform.

If this was coupled with the action point system being discussed, the number of action points available could be made variable: You would know the maximum number of points available to each unit in optimum conditions, but the governing factors might reduce the actual number of points significantly. For best simulation, I think the 'actual' number of action points would be hidden from the player each turn, and would be variable (a die roll, heavily influenced by the governing factors).

This kind of system would, I think, elminate the blitz techniques so much criticized now. One COULD order a melee, with a cavalry charge follow-through into the rear the same turn, but what if the melee failed and didn't open the expected hole? Or worse yet, what if the cavalry charge (into what they expect to be a hole in the enemy line) happened FIRST -- BEFORE the melee?

I'm not a game programmer, so I have no idea how much this would take to implement. It's just one of the things I'd like to see someday. Until then, I'll keep on enjoying what I've got - which I still think is fantastic. (Go, John Tiller!)


Your humble servant,
LGen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - Lieutenant General, Chief of the Armies, Confederate States of America & Cabinet Member
CCC - Sergeant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army

Since there's already a replay button to see the opponent's turn, maybe this could be developed into a "We-Plot, We-Go" simultaneous movement system? However, this is a completely different issue to having an Action Point System.

Ideally, I'd eventually like to see a "We-Plot, We-Go" system that also uses (potentially variable) action points and has a more sophisticated command structure and leadership element too. All this would make a really great game engine.

But, as far as wish lists go, I suspect it would be easier to persuade JT to carry over the already existing Action Point system from the WW2 series. Unlike the other ideas, which might need a great deal of coding effort and would probably require a lot of testing, this should be fairly straightforward.

These are good points. I do have variable action points in my game. An excellent quality unit would get the maximum. A fair quality unit with good command would probably get the maximum. A poor quality unit with great command with no undue fatigue or morale problems would receive a good number. The point being is that a player who keeps his units in good shape, not tiring them, and keeps them in good command will have units with more action points, better effectiveness and therefore perform much better then someone who pushes them hard. Obviously there is everything in between. The decision you have to make is do you rush reinforcements to the scene where they will be tired and maybe ineffective or hold back a bit in order for them to be fresher. Do you keep attacking till your units are exhausted? Their value does deteriorate as they tire, take losses and lose morale. I have tried to keep a balance between all of this, yet keep it relatively simple and fun to play. Good strategies and tactics will be rewarded.

However, if both players push hard then both will be in poor shape so it is relative.


Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1/3/I, AoG
President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

I do have a question about Action points and their expenditure for combat. In my scale of 1 mile per hex and 12 hour turns, would it bee too much to have units keep attacking until they are exhausted or run out of Action points or do they attack (melee) only once. I have fire (skirmish) combat, Bombardment by artillery only, and Melee. Currently I have it set for a unit to fire once (expend Action Points) and melee once (expending action points). I far unit started adjacent then he would nominally have AP enough to perform them perhaps twice assuming the combat results do not stop them.

To note; a defending unit may be attacked multiple times from different units as long as they can get there and have Action points. Also there are ZOC costs to enter and leave which limits penetrations as well as an auto stop when entering an EZOC.

A lot of question and points to consider when you put one of these together.


Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1/3/I, AoG
President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

The "Plot-n-Go" system has great possibilities, IMO.

In the interim, what about assigning OOC units half movement and make them unable to melee? Possible with the exisiting engine?


Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "Yankee Thrasher"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

Hi, Pierre,

The only comparable game I have looked at is Panzer Campaigns, and I think the way they handle it is that melee uses up so many action points that you can only attack once per unit. But you can attack a unit as many times as you have units capable of doing so. It is still advantageous for the attacker to attack with as big a stack as he can because I believe the defender defends with full strength against each attack, unless it was broken or disrupted by a previous attack. Of course, you are not limited by current doctrine. My historical feel is that with 12-hour turns units ought to be free to exhaust themselves, since almost all pitched battles ought to last from one to three day turns. Admittedly my thinking is influenced right now by Gettysburg, where a lot of the units that fought on the first and second days weren't worth much on offense for the third day.


MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I think in the Panzer Campaigns it's possible for some units (maybe tanks, not infantry) to attack more than once, so maybe if the action point system were carried over, mounted cavalry would be able to attack several times, eg if chasing down routers or overrunning guns.

Due to the hex size (and thus stacking limitations) being different from the Panzer Campaigns, it would be more awkward for units to conduct multiple melees against the same hex, especially since infantry would probably lack enough action points to fall back after meleeing and allow another unit to move up. Also, with rifle range 5 hexes, the defenders would be able to conduct more defensive fire while the attacker shuffled his units about for another attack.

However, I'd probably still recommend keeping the current system regarding multiple melees - ie. each hex can only be attacked once.

Bill,

In at least one incarnation of Berg's ACW regimental games, a unit could change facing one hexside (after passing a morale check, I think?) if it was not otherwise in an enemy ZOC when an enemy unit marched adjacent to it. While this may or may not be possible in the current engine, is it possible to reduce the attacker's melee advantage if attacking *only* from a flank (to simulate the lack of threat from another direction or refused flanks)?


Maj Gen Sean Turner
3rd Cavalry Division, "Yankee Thrasher"
I Corps
Army of Alabama

Bill,

I like your idea about the possibility of coordinated and uncoordinated Melees - so would the uncoordinated melees end up as two or more separate melees? This would certainly be possible with an action point system, but more awkward to achieve with the current ACW/EAW engine where multiple melees aren't allowed.