American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Maybe an easy fix to that would be to allow inf in column and mounted cav both to fire but at a greatly reduced strength, such as a quarter or whatever is thought appropriate.

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

Agree wholeheartedly with mounted cav firing with such weapons, but as to infantry in column... We already have them being used as attack columns in the game, so do we really want to add even more reason to do so?? But I admit attacking with infantry columns is one of my pet peeves.

Not that I've named it like I have my pet cat! [:D]


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

I like the flexibility provided by sections, but am not particularly fond of the clutter. In the Battleground games, smaller batteries were at a fire disadvantage due to the game engine, but that should not be the case under the HPS system. I also think that the system ought to be uniform; if one side is broken down into sections, both sides ought to be. In the Peninsula game, the Union has a definite advantage in movement and stacking due to his full batteries. I would rather have more mongrel batteries listed in the parameter data or more general batteries than different systems for each side. I think casualties in a battery are supposed to be reflected by fatigue, but that is not a solution I agree with. I would rather have integral crews than random crew kills or handling loss solely with fatigue. As to morale, I think that with rout limiting on there is no need to raise morale artificially. I would favor a numerical system that allowed greater flexibility, like the new fatigue system did for fatigue. Fatigue could then have a more direct effect on morale. This is not a new concept, but a staple of the old SSI games. Speaking of the Panzer games, one concept they had for movement was that only a certain amount of strength could move down a road at road movement; anything in excess moved at the terrain rate. I don't necessarily endorse it for the ACW, but it would be one way to even the movement of different sized units down a road.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

On the subject of column & mounted (eg. pistol, shotgun) firing, this should be a possibility worth considering, since it's already in the Nappy engine. Same for cavalry breaking down into squadrons.

But I agree, there's probably no way that different artillery types could be combined into a battery and then split as required. Perhaps two 2 gun sections of the same type might be combined/split like Nappy extended line, but I doubt it would be worth the effort to incorporate this change.

Although I personally prefer artillery by sections, it's clear that some folk prefer them to be kept as batteries - so maybe it wouldn't be too much effort to create an alternative OOB to keep them happy.

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

I still favor as the "best fix" is to change the engine to use artillery ammo on a per gun bases and deploy all batteries in sections since this was the way artillery was deployed in the CW.

The one gun - one ammo would solve most of the problems with ammo useage caused by small sections except for clutter.

Deploying all batteries as sections better simulates how batteries were used although the lack of command control allows sections to separate to far. Introduction of artillery battalion officers might help this.

Normally, US artillery consisted of three sections which were deployed somewhat independently. At the start of the war these were either light batteries of 4 6-lb guns and 2 12-lb howitzers or heavy batteries of 4 12-lb guns and 2 24 or 32 lb howitzers. Later they standarized on the Parrott rifled guns and 12-lb Napoleons and the howitzers were elliminated from the mix. This type formation allowed the battery commander to deploy the appropriate weapon and withdraw the one not needed.

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"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />On the subject of column & mounted (eg. pistol, shotgun) firing, this should be a possibility worth considering, since it's already in the Nappy engine. Same for cavalry breaking down into squadrons.

But I agree, there's probably no way that different artillery types could be combined into a battery and then split as required. Perhaps two 2 gun sections of the same type might be combined/split like Nappy extended line, but I doubt it would be worth the effort to incorporate this change.

Although I personally prefer artillery by sections, it's clear that some folk prefer them to be kept as batteries - so maybe it wouldn't be too much effort to create an alternative OOB to keep them happy.

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


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

I do try to create both as long as different type guns are not inter- mixed. And some scns are created for each.

My position is that the clutter, as someone aptly put it, has a detremental effect. I do enjoy accuracy but to add clutter that will not make much difference in game battles is not my choice. Basically the point I was trying to make. There is always a balance that is needed. I just think that the move to the sections in Gettysburg was not a fun one.

Some of the ideas are excellent and would further the games playability if they can be included.

Best Regards,

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

President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

Section breakdown gives the player the ability of relocating a single battery safely, as one or two sections can remain in firing position to cover the move.

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

Gen Whitehead's idea of basing arty ammo use on single guns is probably the best way to fix the issue of various size sections/batteries. Supply wagons currently issue rifle ammo based on number of men, so it would seem possible to do the same with arty ammo?

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

There are other issues with artillery. Too easily eliminated and their high victory points. I think that they should take casulaties in crew which reduces their effectiveness and not eliminate all the crew. The casualties should be as per regular inf fire. If they are melee'd, they should take losses in crew, be disrupted and retreat limbered. The overall losses would be reduced I think. The losses would reflect both men and animals. Victory points would be based on crew kill which can be equivalent to gun losses. Some thoughts.

Best Regards,

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

President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member

It's clear we could do with an overhaul of artillery - a proper ammo supply system (so if a single gun fires it doesn't use as much ammo as a two/three gun section or even a 6 gun battery), a gun capture/recrew feature and possibly also a chance of guns limbering up prior to melee (if guns are meleed the chances are the crew would just be forced to abandon the guns and wouldn't necessarily even suffer a single casualty), fire losses in crew rather than guns - thus the gun crew would really need to be represented separately from the guns themselves. Also, because the crew are individuals they should be much harder to hit than a line of infantry.

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

Yes, I agree.

A 6 gun battery should not all of the sudden become uncrewed because of a lucky shot. I'll take this up with the highest authority! Really!

Rich


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />There are other issues with artillery. Too easily eliminated and their high victory points. I think that they should take casulaties in crew which reduces their effectiveness and not eliminate all the crew. The casualties should be as per regular inf fire. If they are melee'd, they should take losses in crew, be disrupted and retreat limbered. The overall losses would be reduced I think. The losses would reflect both men and animals. Victory points would be based on crew kill which can be equivalent to gun losses. Some thoughts.

Best Regards,

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

President, ACWGC
Cabinet Member



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

This one goes back quite a ways. Have wanted the same thing in the Napoleonic series. More of a gradual draining away of the ability of the men to man the guns than a total loss.

Am all for it.

Col. Peters, 3rd Brigade
2nd Cavalry Division, II Corps, AoA

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

- <i>"A 6 gun battery should not all of the sudden become uncrewed because of a lucky shot"</i>

That alone is reason enough to prefer gun sections over batteries. Nevertheless, perhaps the "lucky shot" hit the ammo and blew up all the crew.


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

I talked to John recently, and programming a gradual decline in arty effectiveness isn't a quick 5 minute programming fix, but it's doable. As we discussed at Tillercon, there will be more changes to the game engine, but it will take some time.

The patch for Shiloh will be early next month and will address those concerns already mentioned on the Shiloh thread. The patch to prevent leaders, wagons, and limbered arty from prevent retreats is complete. I'm working on the rest.

Rich

<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 />- <i>"A 6 gun battery should not all of the sudden become uncrewed because of a lucky shot"</i>

That alone is reason enough to prefer gun sections over batteries. Nevertheless, perhaps the "lucky shot" hit the ammo and blew up all the crew.


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

It may well involve too much programming to be viable anytime in the near future, but surely the best approach would be to distinguish:

1./ Guns
2./ Crew
3./ Horses
4./ Ammo

1./ The guns are physical objects that can be captured and recaptured many times during the course of a battle, but can't of course be "killed". Occasionally a gun might be disabled by damage caused by enemy artillery fire or by an accident when firing. Spiking a gun should also be possible to avoid capture, but shouldn't be automatic. I'd suspect that if the guns had been fired defensively in the turn when meleed & captured there'd be little chance of the crew having time to spike them afterwards. What I'd like to see would be for a player to be able to "pre-set" what the guns would do during the defensive phase if approached by the enemy - eg. <b>"limber"</b> = "limber up and attempt to fall back", <b>"fire"</b> = "keep on firing until the last minute and then abandon the guns if meleed", or <b>"spike"</b> = "fire at a distance and then attempt to spike".

2./ The crew can of course be killed or wounded, but individual crew members should certainly be a harder target to hit than a line of infantry. Perhaps they should be a specialist unit - like pioneers - and able to move about independently of the guns if necessary. If guns are captured in melee then the crew are assumed to have retreated and been (temporarily?) forced to abandon their guns - it's most unlikely that the crew would stay and get wiped out if they could avoid it. The <b></b><i></i>uncrewed<b></b><i></i> feature should represent guns that have been abandoned due to a lost melee.

3./ Horses - guns of course require horses for mobility. Perhaps light guns can be shifted about a bit by the crew, but this isn't how they'd normally move about. When the guns are unlimbered the horses would be further back, presumably more or less out of the firing range and so unlikely to suffer casualties. But when limbered, the horses would clearly be the main target ... and without horses the guns would be pretty much immobile, yet still capable of turning and firing.

4./ A more sophisticated ammo supply system for artillery would be a big improvement. We're still effectively using the Battleground engine as far as this goes.

I am against ranged fire for mounted cavalry and infantry in column. Trying to hit anything at 125 yards from the back of a horse would be difficult indeed. I think mounted fire is factored into melee. The Civil War columns are road columns. If they had assault columns, I'd say you could allow for fire from the front two ranks, but that would probably be a small amount.Assault columns probably could not move at the road movement rate. My impression is that they were used only rarely in the Civil War, although that formation was common in the Napoleonic Wars.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA