American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Surely firing at 125yds would in fact be on the borderline between 1 and 2 hexes? With 20 minute turns and the hex system, we need to think in abstract terms. Thus, for mounted cavalry armed with pistols, <b>1 hex range</b> might actually be 10yds or less.

If mounted fire were factored into melee (which I'm not sure it is)then certain weapon types that could be used whilst mounted, such as pistols and shotguns, should provide a melee bonus, which would make a great deal of sense. But I'm pretty certain this isn't the case.

I'm not particularly keen on column fire - but if carried over from the Nappy engine it really wouldn't be very effective. In fact the pdt file can be modified to make it 1/5 or even less effective as line fire. Thus any player who bothered to fire with units in column would just be risking going low on ammo and drawing enemy defensive fire with very little chance of inflicting more than a handful of casualties.

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

I think it is important to think in abstract terms. Every aspect of the game is an abstraction. For example a column attack is not 2 by 2's moving onto a position. It is a few company's or battalion advancing on a position in groups instead of forming a line. More of a hasty attack I would think. The same thing with melee, it is not a bayonet charge and the resulting hand to hand fighting, it is the attacker advancing and firing, as well as the defender, until one gives away (retreats/runs). There was very little hand to hand fighting.

If you take the descriptions of the actions literally then I can see were you would think that they are so called 'unrealistic'. Not allowing column attacks removes an abstraction that replaces many other forms of attacks rather then lines of men firing at each other.

That is why I am not against column attacks or surrounding unit with artillery etc... They are all abstractions of possible actions and situations to compensate for the lack of other engine capabilities and options in combat. Thinking in absolute terms must make a lot of people unhappy playing these games and they are only games after all.

This is my perception anyway of how the game engine/design works. That it provides an interesting, enjoyable format with historical feeling is an awesome accomplishment.


Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde,3rd Div,I Corps,
Army of Georgia
CSA

President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

Peirre,

You're silly.

I agree columns and combat are abstractions, but asking an artillery unit to use their limbers and horses to block a retreat is like asking your wife to go stand on the railroad tracks to stop the train so you don't have to wait for it to pass. Even if she could you would not put her in harm's way, would you?

Arty units WOULD NOT risk their transportation means to do what you are asking them to do.... period. No abstraction. This is historical gaming, the fantasy site is down the road.[:D]

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

There are a lot of silly things going in with the game. Do you think that a unit taking 50%, 80% losses would still go into battle, a division, a Corps, an Army? However it is possible and more then probable in the games we play. I am currently in a game were I lost 10000 men in 7 hours and my opponent 20000, no surrounds by artillery by the way, and no column attacks. But we keep on fighting. That's silly as well. So I guess we are all silly for playing these games with it's silly flaws. Until the game engines fixes a myriad of silly things then I guess we have to keep on playing these silly games and be silly doing it.

I agree, with your description, that artillery would not want or be used to surround an enemy with their caisons and horses, and hope to block a regiment retreating. But I think it is more then that. Again the abstaction thing. But if you believe that that is what is happening and that is what you perceived is happening then I agree with the problems you stated and it would not happen. I just don't have the same perception.

Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde,3rd Div,I Corps,
Army of Georgia
CSA

President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

Seems to me we are being hoisted by our own petard when dealing with these kind of issues regarding how the game engine performs given the level of unit detail we have chosen.

By enumerating the exact historical composition of a battery by gun type we have added a demand for complexity that needs to be satisfied by the game engine.

If the exact composition of a battery is important in game terms then the performance of each gun tube would matter & the engine would have to deal with it. Notice however at this level of complexity that the type of ammunition chosen is not taken into account. If you are going to account for each tube then surely you would make allowances for different ammo types (shot, shell, canister)& their effects at different ranges.

We have chosen to detail unit composition because that is what appeals to gamers although it really shouldn't in a game like this where so few variables are modeled.

For example, I really don't care the exact composition of a battery but I would like it to perform in the game as a battery of its particular composition would have performed in its own historical environment. Its performance could be abstracted & estimates of effectiveness at different ranges used considering that more than one gun type is present & considering using different ammo types at different ranges.

If different gun types are going to be used in a battery & the game engine only deals with data about each gun type then by all means break the battery down into sections of a certain gun type.

Lt. Col. Dale Henken
2/1/XVI/AoT-USA

Nothing makes these units, brigades, divisions, corps and armies go into comabt after 50%, 80% losses or max fatigue except our our stupidity.

We know better. We know it is not right to do that, BUT the engine allows it, so we throw out personal responsibility, and do what we know to be unrealistic things. Then we gripe about how unrealistic it all is.

Grow up guys, play within the limits you know are right. Quit hiding behind the 'engine made me do it' argument. Then you'll see how good the engine really is.

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

I am very satified that others see that artillery needs the "overhaul".....I hope the changes can be agreed upon and get implemented before I go to the nursing home?

Fld.Lt.R.E.Daley
1st Corp of the ANV
3rd Calvary Divsion,
3rd Brigade
"We are the Midnight Riders"

I prefer #1 to #2, and I would not like to see full batteries in place of sections. As others have said, ammo should be used by section. I'd still like to see unlimbered artillery be treated as limbered in melee defense, that is, possibly retreated with losses in a disrupted state instead of automatic elimination.

I have no problems with the routing even as a Union player, except for the magnets artillery have and the iron nails in the infantry's back pockets! If here is a change, can't the calcs simply be changes instead of changing troop quality? Troop quality has more effect than just routing, and the Rebs seem to be tough enough as it is...



Major General Dirk Gross
XIV Corps/AoC

The early versions of the TS series featured leaders as Forward Observers/Scouts with FM radio's and a fearless entourage that served as Red Lined unit killers. The day a supply wagon cut off my cavalry from retreat I knew there was a problem. Infantry ammo reminded me of rolling a '6' in Terrible Swift Sword, and losing a battle because front line, out of ammo, artillery was captured lost ammo for the artillery units in the rear was the final straw.

Most of the stuff you are discussing was proposed back in 1998/1999.... at least you have 'skirmishers'.

The GBACW series of hex paper games featured weapons classes and effects over distance (we learned this in Panzer Blitz, Correct?).

GBACW had gun crews and supply wagon crews (sorry no horses).

with modern computers and database engines (MSDE, XML, JET) there is no reason that this system couldn't be corrected to have less abstraction, yet without clutter and turning the game into a PanzerKorps Afrika exercise in the differences in water consumption rates of Italian vs South Afrikan troops (think pasta).

1. Guns by section or battery, absolutely. Firing effects are calculated by Weapons class and distance. Anyone played Tac Ops? What happens when 25 modern infantrymen board an Amtrac? Yep, you keep track of how many Stingers, Dragons, M-60s, and basic loads of 5.56 NATO are on board. If the battery is a CONTAINER, then you keep track it's composition.

2. Gun crews? Teamsters? Why not. They can move stuff by hand, have morale, can fire triple canister DURING a melee. Why was a battery so difficult to take in the ACW? Why is it so easy to take a battery in a game? Weapons have different effects on guns versus caissons versus people.

3. Horses.....a tougher call...I'd rather see Cavalry abstracted less first....dismounted cavalry with 3 of 4 men in the line.....a mounted contingent with the 3 led horses to the rear. but again, how do you account for the Trostle farm battle (9th Mass Battery vs 21st Mississippi Infantry) in this computer game.

4. Ammo. yes, inventory by gun for cripes sake. This is simply a database exercise. We've been keeping track of Inventory in COBOL tape systems for decades. Hard Drives, VB .Net or Delphi...come on John Tiller.

5. Infantry Ammo.....still too abstract....why do you have to have a supply wagon nearby? Can't you drop ammo boxes on the ground and have a unit march to it? 50 men consume ammo at a different rate of fire than 500, and resupply at a different rate (DOH?!). Can't we figure out how much ammo a unit has.....based on what they started with and how much they've fired? Another inventory exercise? Fine, we're using computers remember.

6. Infantry marching down a road is marching by the FLANK, this is not a column. Look it up in Casey's, Hardee's, Scott's, et al. You cannot attack while marching by the flank without TREMENDOUS casualties. The AI should prevent this. When the Iron Brigade marches by the right flank and takes a diagonal cross lots just before the Codori Farm on July 1st 1863 it is a LONG serpent. as it gets into the valley between Seminary and McPherson's Ridge, it's By Company Into Line (that a Column of Companies). If you want to fight in a Company, division (two company front and that IS a little D), Wing, Battalion (Regiment to us), then fine. But it takes time to ploy into the column. and more time to ploy into battle line (Forward Into Line).

The game mechanics makes no distinction between Marching by the Flank ('column of 4's route stepping down a road) and a Column of Companies (closed in masses or at full wheeling distances). If you are marching by the flank and the enemy is to your right or left it is fairly quick to FRONT (to the right) and form battle line. This is how Stannard's Vermonter's enfiladed Kemper's Virginian's July 3rd 1863. the trouble with the game abstraction is that it's the very essence of leadership and tactics in the ACW.

Road Column has a length, just like supply wagonSSS, and artillery guns, Limbers (not in the game), and battery wagons (not in the game) do. Why can't the computer draw out the snake of a unit on the road or wherever? Having 25 man units take as much space as an 800 man unit isn't simply an abstraction, it's ABSURD.


We need to learn from GBACW as well as use the computer's power to reduce the abstractions and increase the realism in the game.

BTW, I post this same rant about every two years.....originally I was banned off of the TalonSoft Forum's for it....back before Pierre found the club.

RJ Samp
rjsamp@ameritech.net

RJ Samp
10th MO Cavalry, Chief Bugler

Hi RJ,

It's been awhile, good to hear from you. I know that we go over the same gripes again and again. Programming could make things right. That is not in the cards though from what is commonly known. It is a question of time and money. The games are great and I love them or I would not have supported them for so long with this club.



Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde,3rd Div,I Corps,
Army of Georgia
CSA

President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

With regard to the original question, I prefer the smaller batteries.

With regard to artilery engine changes, I think a few problems could be solved if units hit by artilery fire had a greater chance of disrupting/routing, then if they sustained the same number of casualties from musket/rifle fire. Had to require more courage to stand when hit by artilery.


On the topic of artilery ammo. This is not an issue for me, but I will pass along a process one of the popular ACW miniature rules uses that seems to work reasonably well. Perhaps it is adaptable and will cover some of the issues. If artilery fire rolls a "10" on a ten sided dice, it becomes low on ammo - it can re-supply by limbering and moving back out of rifle range.

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding 4th Bde, 2nd Div, VI Corps, AoS
"Where we lead, the Army follows" - VI Corps

Rich,

I do like the batteries broken down into sections when there are differing gun types.
Routing is just another part of the game like fog of war that takes some of the total control away from the 200 foot general(us), its a good thing.

From what I have been able to glean from the users manual (I do hate reading instructions[;)]) for Shiloh, artillery counts 25 men per gun when the target of fire and 50 men per gun for stacking purposes and about 8 men (1/3 strength point) per gun in melee.

First off what is a strength point?...what does it do?....is it only used for figuring melee odds?

And could this be cause of what many folks feel is the "problem" with artillery during melee, especially when playing without phases, that a 6 gun battery only counts as 48 men.
A lot has been said that "game" melee more closely represents the test of wills, whether the defender runs or the attacker goes to ground rather than actual hand to hand combat. In this light shouldn't artillery have a much higher strength point value in melee to better represent the psychological and physical effects of close range canister fire.



<font color="blue"><b>Brig.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">-- CALVERT LINE --</font id="yellow">

<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b>

There are various new features I'd very much like to see for artillery - gun capture/recrew, proper ammo supply system, perhaps also at least some possibility of limbering up and retreating before melee - however all of these would require engine changes.

On the other hand, increasing the melee strength value of guns is something that can be done quite easily and, as Robert has pointed out, would represent close range cannister rather than the gun crew physically fighting hand to hand against the enemy.

Of course individual players can decide to make adjustments to the pdt before starting up a game, but we really ought to get some sort of official decision on this - even if it means different scenario designers setting their own values for their own respective games.

So what sort of melee value should guns get? Any suggestions? Off the top of my head - I haven't actually thought it through or tested it out, but just want to see what sort of reaction I get - how about 1 gun = 20 men? Would that help to discourage players from assaulting guns in order to clock up lots of juicy victory points?

I still feel that a gun capture/recrew/recapture feature would be the best solution to deter players from taking out guns at all costs - <i><b>why risk taking heavy losses capturing a battery if the enemy are likely to recapture it the following turn </b></i>- but perhaps altering the melee value of artillery would be a useful temporary solution in the meantime.

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

Richard,

There have been some recent changes. For example: Arty can now melee at full strength.

Capture/recrew will most likely happen, but it might not happen before the next title. Also, a gradual reduction in arty strength instead of suffering a complete "crew killed" result.

I haven't heard anything about the ammo supply changing.

Designers do have different pdt values.

For example: Limber/unlimber costs 3 in Shiloh. Fire value strengths are a little more powerful.

I don't think allowing arty to limber and move before a melee would work in all cases. For example: A melee may come for a concealed location and arty would not have the time to bring up the horses and limber up.

Rich W.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />There are various new features I'd very much like to see for artillery - gun capture/recrew, proper ammo supply system, perhaps also at least some possibility of limbering up and retreating before melee - however all of these would require engine changes.

On the other hand, increasing the melee strength value of guns is something that can be done quite easily and, as Robert has pointed out, would represent close range cannister rather than the gun crew physically fighting hand to hand against the enemy.

Of course individual players can decide to make adjustments to the pdt before starting up a game, but we really ought to get some sort of official decision on this - even if it means different scenario designers setting their own values for their own respective games.

So what sort of melee value should guns get? Any suggestions? Off the top of my head - I haven't actually thought it through or tested it out, but just want to see what sort of reaction I get - how about 1 gun = 20 men? Would that help to discourage players from assaulting guns in order to clock up lots of juicy victory points?

I still feel that a gun capture/recrew/recapture feature would be the best solution to deter players from taking out guns at all costs - <i><b>why risk taking heavy losses capturing a battery if the enemy are likely to recapture it the following turn </b></i>- but perhaps altering the melee value of artillery would be a useful temporary solution in the meantime.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't think artillery needs to be strengthened for melee, but perhaps its ability to disrupt attackers ought to be increased. That way it would require a concerted effort to take a battery from the front, but it would still be vulnerable from the flank. A lot of people seem to think artillery was devastating, particularly at point blank range, and I used to be one of them. But after studying the war for thirty years my reading of the casualty figures doesn't support that. It does support the morale effects of artillery fire on infantry though.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA