American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Guys,

Lately I have been working on a patch for Shiloh. Here is the text for the changes file. Let me now if there are any other changes that need to be made (not engine changes).

Rich


<i><b>Changes for Campaign Shiloh 1.02</b>
- Corrected release and entry times for Union army in scns 180 and 181
- Corrected OOBs for Gunboat pictures, 3D pictures, Mo's (Little) regiments and Floyd
- Adjusted Fort Donelson scns for VP levels and Dover is worth more VPs now
- Corrected entry hexes for some Shiloh scns. All (43,0) should be (21,0)
- Updated Campaign scn files to reflect stand alone scn changes
- Added Leader for Jackson's Bdge in Shiloh Day 2 scns
- Changed Shiloh VP hex (56,33) to (51, 32). Too easy for gunboats to attack VP hex
- Increased scns 116, 117, 118 to 86 turns. 2 full days
- Corrected the spelling of the word siege in several places
- Added Belmont scns 002a, 003a, 004a, 005a, 006a. Some Abatis has been removed and breastworks added. Original Belmont campaign files have been similarly changed.
<b>Changes for Campaign Shiloh 1.01</b>
- Updated engine to reflect the melee rule change that prevents Leaders,
supply wagons, and limbered arty from being used to block retreats.
- Corrected all Shiloh maps with elevation height problem in the Tennessee
River.
- Added a trail to allow units to evacuate Fort Beauregard in Nashville
Maps.
- Corrected wrong supply wagon nationality in scn 130.
- Adjusted Belmont scenarios so shore based arty can cover Belmont.
- Adjusted Fort Donelson scenarios so lower water batteries can't be
easily flanked.
- Corrected OOB's: Some incorrect names, number aberrations, 3D Icons,
pictures
- Added new picture of a Confederate gunboat to the units picture file.
- Additional of new optional Target Density rule which causes
increased fire value against targets with more than 2/3 maximum
stacking in hex.

<b>Changes for Campaign Shiloh 1.0</b>
- Union mortar boats are introduced
- Confederate gunboats are introduced
- Gunboat stacking is limited to two per hex.
- Toggle boats now works. Leaders must be stacked with boat unit.
- Added gunboat artillery loses to count for victory points.
- Added the ability to create 2 hour night turns. (.pdt file)
- Leaders, supply wagons, and limbered arty will not prevent a
defending unit from retreating after a lost melee.
- Supply wagons will have the option of counting toward victory points.
- Defending units will now fire at 100% as a result of melee.
- A/I Artillery will only fire at valid targets.</i>

It might be possible to create that effect in the pdt file. I could always create a variant with that as an option. Actually, I mean line disruption through woods, not every terrain.

As for the scn balance, I have many examples of both sides winning. But perhaps you should switch sides and see if he/she can do the same to you. Let me know what happens. I'm always here with an ear to what's being said.

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 />Maybe it was just me and my opponent but the Shiloh historical battle scenario seemed too easy to surround and wipe out Yanks. I didnt even study the Yank setup either and was able to get in behind them.

Have always thought that your series should have Line Movement Disruption as part of the engine options.

Why? Because if its in the Napoleonic engine where the guys are better drilled to march in Line then why is it that a 800 man green Yank or Reb line doesnt get some sort of penalty for attempting to march 400 yards in Line?

The rule would be optional. Players would NOT HAVE to play with it. On by agreement of both players.

Reb and Yank Lines moving through the brush at Shiloh should possibly disrupt.

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

Hello Bill,

I didn't mean to imply that your opponent was not a good player, but just for kicks, see if he can do the same thing to you.

As for your you line disruption idea, I can't go for it. I've played these games too long to change and make that kind of radical alteration. I've always said that accuracy is important, but playability is more important. And I doubt that such a radical move would improve the game. Regardless, I'm not convinced that line disruption is entirely accuarate on the whole. I'm sure we can find endless examples to prove our individual points of view (I've seen it many times).

So if you don't think disruption through woods would be a viable compromise, I'll drop the idea. But I'm always looking for a good idea. Keep'em coming!!!

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 Rich Walker</i>
<br />It might be possible to create that effect in the pdt file. I could always create a variant with that as an option. Actually, I mean line disruption through woods, not every terrain.

As for the scn balance, I have many examples of both sides winning. But perhaps you should switch sides and see if he/she can do the same to you. Let me know what happens. I'm always here with an ear to what's being said.

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 />Maybe it was just me and my opponent but the Shiloh historical battle scenario seemed too easy to surround and wipe out Yanks. I didnt even study the Yank setup either and was able to get in behind them.

Have always thought that your series should have Line Movement Disruption as part of the engine options.

Why? Because if its in the Napoleonic engine where the guys are better drilled to march in Line then why is it that a 800 man green Yank or Reb line doesnt get some sort of penalty for attempting to march 400 yards in Line?

The rule would be optional. Players would NOT HAVE to play with it. On by agreement of both players.

Reb and Yank Lines moving through the brush at Shiloh should possibly disrupt.

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

I cant go along with the idea that its only in the woods. If you read Landscape Turned Red those big Yank regiments that assailed the Reb center/left had problems with alignment. The Napoleonic system has a good feel for that as it means that per morale grade you can even disorder in open terrain. Its all about the unit's ability to march in proper alignment.

Doesnt affects A's and B's as much as it does D's E's and F's.

I have never been in favor of automatic disruption for cavalry in the woods for instance as they could recover order much easier than infantry.

But anyway ... you get my idea I think.

Dave Moser is my opponent and I would rate him better than myself in this series. Given the same circumstances he might envelope more Yanks than I did.

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

Line disruption is of course already in the EAW & Nappy engines, so it should be feasible to carry it over into the ACW engine. At the moment it's possible to alter the pdt so that certain terrain types <i>automatically</i> disrupt cavalry, line infantry or even all units. But it would be far more useful if this wasn't automatic and the probability could be modified in the pdt. This would mean that infantry could <i>try</i> to advance through woods or rough terrain in line, but would be more/less liable to disrupt depending on troop quality. Thus, a "C" quality unit might have 10% (or perhaps 15%) chance of disrupting when moving through woods/rough in line and say 5% chance if moving across open terrain. I reckon this would be workable, especially if the values can be modified in the pdt and thus easy to test and alter to suit the needs of each scenario. However, the current system where disruption is automatic when entering certain terrain isn't really workable, especially for a battle like Shiloh where there's lots of woods.

Incidentally, I'd also like to see the option of at least some ACW infantry being able to deploy Nappy style detachable skirmishers. This is the only way to see what's two hexes away from some woods without having to move a full sized unit right to the edge of the woods. Bill, what are your thoughts on this?


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

Rich,

Though I'm sure a reasonable and logical case can be made (as you and Bill have done), I would rather not impliment that type of radical change into the system at this time. But I will bring up the subject among the other designers and then present it to John if I'm the lone man out.

But just so I've made my position clear, I would favor such an idea for certain terrain types (i.e. Woods), but not others, (i.e. Clear). So if you saying that a "D" unit would have a 10% chance (for example) of disrupting in Woods and Clear alike, I would not favor that idea. If terrain type adjustments could be made, I might be better to go along with it, but there are other engine changes I would rather John spend time on, so I'm not sure where on the priority lists this would fall. So that's why I like to discuss pdt changes. I can do those and not worry John about them. The bad thing is they're not very flexible, so you have to create a variant scn everytime you attempt it, so that players can choose to try it or not.


Rich


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 />Line disruption is of course already in the EAW & Nappy engines, so it should be feasible to carry it over into the ACW engine. At the moment it's possible to alter the pdt so that certain terrain types <i>automatically</i> disrupt cavalry, line infantry or even all units. But it would be far more useful if this wasn't automatic and the probability could be modified in the pdt. This would mean that infantry could <i>try</i> to advance through woods or rough terrain in line, but would be more/less liable to disrupt depending on troop quality. Thus, a "C" quality unit might have 10% (or perhaps 15%) chance of disrupting when moving through woods/rough in line and say 5% chance if moving across open terrain. I reckon this would be workable, especially if the values can be modified in the pdt and thus easy to test and alter to suit the needs of each scenario. However, the current system where disruption is automatic when entering certain terrain isn't really workable, especially for a battle like Shiloh where there's lots of woods.

Incidentally, I'd also like to see the option of at least some ACW infantry being able to deploy Nappy style detachable skirmishers. This is the only way to see what's two hexes away from some woods without having to move a full sized unit right to the edge of the woods. Bill, what are your thoughts on this?


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

Hi,

My two cents worth. I think the game works well both historically
and playability-wise as is. Stonewall would never have been able to
steamroll the XI Corps at Chancellorsville if his men kept disrupting in the woods. I get the impression that the Civil War formations were more flexible anyhow; a two-rank line where I believe most Napoleonic line units (except the British) normally fought in a three-rank line. Anyway, I think movement costs amply reflect the difficulties of negotiating different types of terrain in ACW games, without disrupting the troops.

As to the Shiloh game, I haven't played Rich's version, but suspect that Bill's success might be due to single phase. If the victory was gained in multiphase play, I am truly impressed. But isn't the the same Bill Peters that captured the whole Union army in a Gettysburg campaign not long ago?

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Rich,

It certainly wouldn't be my top engine change request either - that would have to be a <b>gun capture/recrew/recapture</b> feature as this would have a significant impact on gameplay and player tactics, and would allow for historical gun capture/recapture to occur, as at Shiloh and elsewhere. (Also, along with movement fatigue, this was one of the top engine change requests in response to your earlier post)

Regarding the line movement disruption issue - as I'm sure you know, it's already possible with the ACW engine to set terrain related disruption in the pdt, but unfortunately this is <i>automatic</i>, unlike in the other series. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is something that John can easily change with very little effort. It would still be terrain related, so a scenario designer could set line infantry to disrupt in woods or rough but not open (or towns either if he wished). Ideally the percentage probability would vary according to terrain type, but perhaps that's asking too much for the moment.

There certainly wouldn't be any need for troops in the open to have a chance of disruption if the scenario designer didn't wish this (unless John deliberately recoded the ACW engine to alter the fact that terrain related disruption is determined in the pdt, as it currently is). So, if you decided you <i>did</i> want this feature you'd need to be clear with John that you just wanted the existing ACW terrain disruption to no longer be automatic, rather than ask for him to carry over the entire Nappy (or EAW) line disruption system.

The differences between the three engines in relation to movement disruption is quite complex and rather confusing (I know all three engines pretty well but probably couldn't tell you what all the differences are off-hand). Strangely enough, cavalry don't disrupt in woods in the EAW engine! Only line infantry are affected by this feature.


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

Hi Rich,

Yes, as I mentioned earlier on this thread, I considered making an optional scn that changed the pdt so line would disrupt in woods, But as I rethink this process, I still don't like the idea. But as I said, I'll bring it up with the other designers.

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 />Rich,

It certainly wouldn't be my top engine change request either - that would have to be a <b>gun capture/recrew/recapture</b> feature as this would have a significant impact on gameplay and player tactics, and would allow for historical gun capture/recapture to occur, as at Shiloh and elsewhere. (Also, along with movement fatigue, this was one of the top engine change requests in response to your earlier post)

Regarding the line movement disruption issue - as I'm sure you know, it's already possible with the ACW engine to set terrain related disruption in the pdt, but unfortunately this is <i>automatic</i>, unlike in the other series. I'm not sure, but perhaps this is something that John can easily change with very little effort. It would still be terrain related, so a scenario designer could set line infantry to disrupt in woods or rough but not open (or towns either if he wished). Ideally the percentage probability would vary according to terrain type, but perhaps that's asking too much for the moment.

There certainly wouldn't be any need for troops in the open to have a chance of disruption if the scenario designer didn't wish this (unless John deliberately recoded the ACW engine to alter the fact that terrain related disruption is determined in the pdt, as it currently is). So, if you decided you <i>did</i> want this feature you'd need to be clear with John that you just wanted the existing ACW terrain disruption to no longer be automatic, rather than ask for him to carry over the entire Nappy (or EAW) line disruption system.

The differences between the three engines in relation to movement disruption is quite complex and rather confusing (I know all three engines pretty well but probably couldn't tell you what all the differences are off-hand). Strangely enough, cavalry don't disrupt in woods in the EAW engine! Only line infantry are affected by this feature.


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

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