American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

... and we can get JT to program in chow wagons, so that units have to line up and be fed every eight hours or their quality rating would drop....[:p]

Some details like POWs and latrine digging don't add to the game, imo.

But glad to hear you woke up this morning, that's a good thing. [:)]

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

I think it is inherent in the system, that casualities include dead, wounded and/or captured.

There were provost guards (I think they were called) that were assigned to guard prisoners. There were, also, guards assigned to protect supplies and wagons and rear areas. In game terms, they would have been relatively small groups and not significant.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">

There are instances on record of a handful of men taking whole battalions prisoner but it's rare. Usually large numbers of prisoners *are* a problem that has to be taken care of, using up time and men. Afterall, who's to guarantee that the prospective captives can't reconsider?

What's really funny is captured officers. Happened to me several times already that in a successful ZOC kill an officer of the *attacking* force was being captured. Very odd. During the melee, you capture my leader, that's fine, but then I capture your whole battalion and you still keep my leader, that's definitely odd.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS

Hank Smith's Fight the War keeps track of prisoners and gives the option to each side's president of exchanging them later.

MajGen, 2/XIX/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />but then I capture your whole battalion and you still keep my leader, that's definitely odd.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I always thought so too; I guess they are taken out by the same helicopters that manage arty ammo ... [;)]

Maj Gen Mike Kaulbars
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS

In the old SSI games, they broke down the losses into killed, wounded and POW/missing, but I think it was by a formula, and they didn't require guards. In reading about battles, I always wondered how those too wounded to move were counted, as wounded or as prisoners of the victorious army? And what percentage of the wounded were they? Also, it
seems both sides quickly became proficient in moving prisoners to the rear. I have seldom read of prisoners being recaptured, even in a situation like Gettysburg on the first day.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Right you are Mr. Daley. The smiley face [:p] tells you the post is just in jest. Suggest away.

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!

Lt. Daley,

An interesting idea. Perhaps POW's (especially officer POW's) could provide some momentary lifting of the Fog of War in certain areas ("Hancock's corps is about to come down on your left flank" ?). Maybe a certain number of enemy units would suddenly appear on the map with "?'s" (as if uncovered by skirmishers) for a turn or two. The higher the rank of the captured officer, the more units displayed (since he would be more apt to KNOW of where more units were, or have papers on his person showing this).

For that matter, espionage and intelligence gathering could come into play. (Anybody find orders wrapped around cigars in that area just vacated by the enemy?)

Of course, this could open the whole issue of false reports [:)].

Fun, fun!


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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dmallory</i>
<br />Lt. Daley,

An interesting idea. Perhaps POW's (especially officer POW's) could provide some momentary lifting of the Fog of War in certain areas ("Hancock's corps is about to come down on your left flank" ?). Maybe a certain number of enemy units would suddenly appear on the map with "?'s" (as if uncovered by skirmishers) for a turn or two. The higher the rank of the captured officer, the more units displayed (since he would be more apt to KNOW of where more units were, or have papers on his person showing this).

For that matter, espionage and intelligence gathering could come into play. (Anybody find orders wrapped around cigars in that area just vacated by the enemy?)

Of course, this could open the whole issue of false reports [:)].

Fun, fun!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes! The we could have options like: torture or browbeat or starve or just interrogation. All kinds of possibilities. [:D][:D][;)]

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO

ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">

One thing that I would like to see is a surrender check. Under certain conditions enemy units would surrender. I think that this would remove the need to melee and/or shoot at a unit to extinction. Necessitating complete surround so that they don’t rout away. Perhaps surrendered units would provide less VP's.

Also, units that are surrounded by ZOC or units should not be able to provide FOW info outside of that ZOC. This makes it doubly important to surround, and destroy units in your rear. I would think that units that are far from the command chain would not provide immediate info on enemy units. Further away from the command chain the less you can report.

As far as programming wise is considered. Just about anything can be programmed it is a question of time and benefit.


Best Regards,

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

What I do in FTW is count those lost to Overstacking kills and ZOC kills as captured....after all, they are gone, but they were not killed or wounded....their hex was captured, they did not leave it, they were not listed as casualties, they must have been captured....best explanation anyway....Heck JT could improve his game just by changing the words "lost to ZOC" to "captured".
Regards, Hank

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

It is to some degree simulated. The Isolation Rule is suppose to reflect the tendancy of units cut off to surrender rather than fight to the death. The game just doesn't try to track the distribution between killed, wounded and captured. Since the game's time period isn't long enough for any of these to return to action. Some of the old board games tracked it an awarded different VP for the three types. If there were different VP's awarded for each type then different types of combat (fire vs melee) would yield better or worse types of casualties.

Supposedly wounding was the best type of casualty to inflict since it not only took out the man hit but five or six others who volunteered to help him to the rear.[:D] And, as Daley pointed out captures required the winner to detach troops to guard them.

There is one type casualty I do think should be tracked and that is stragglers. These could be recovered within the time period of some of the battles and deffinately during some of the campaigns.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
There is one type casualty I do think should be tracked and that is stragglers. These could be recovered within the time period of some of the battles and deffinately during some of the campaigns.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To quote Hades in the Disney Hercules: "Two thumbs way WAAAY up" for this one. Also for surrender rules and units ZOC'ed (or OOC in general?) only getting LOS to adjacent hexes (in effect giving them night visibility).


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

<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 />There is one type casualty I do think should be tracked and that is stragglers. These could be recovered within the time period of some of the battles and deffinately during some of the campaigns.

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

General Whitehead,

I agree. I have an Avalon Hill "Shiloh" game that included stragglers. A unit lost stragglers every time it moved in non-column formation. It regained stragglers any time it remained in one hex (at a rate of one unit of strength per turn, I think). It was even possible to wipe your own unit out by moving too far in line formation.

In our current rules, I think stragglers are somewhat covered by fatigue: Some men simply 'run away' once the firing starts, making the unit less effective. After a while, they return (as the unit recovers fatigue).

Of course, this doesn't cover stragglers lost on the march though. I would like to see movement affect loss due to stragglers, although I think stragglers should be lost on the march at least as much (if not moreso) than in line of battle. In line formation, one of the jobs of file closers was to make sure the men stayed in line. From my reenacting days, I don't remember file closers being used on the marth. Also, I don't think there would have been nearly the stigma against falling out of march for a break as there would have been for leaving your comrades under fire.


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

CWG2 tracked killed, wounded, captured, deserted, and stragglers on every unit.......It also reflected physical fatique of units that marched long and hard to a fight.....it did a much better job on the indevidual units than JTs engine.....it was just not "tactical" enough in nature and scale.....Regards, Hank

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