American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Hi Mike,

The rule change is optional, but it will increase the number of disruptions and reduce enthusiasm for frontal attacks.

Rich


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

-<i>"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."</i>

Artillery limbering up and retreating to avoid melee would seem a logical possibility within the 20 minute time frame of a turn if the guns are attacked frontally by troops that are clearly visible as they approach. But, as you point out, not if caught by surprise.

So I suspect this feature might be rather awkward to incorporate into the game engine, especially with all the variables to consider, even though something similar - limber and retreat with some gun losses if successfully meleed - was present in <i>Age of Rifles </i>(a game dating back to 1996).

Perhaps the order to limber up & retreat could be "pre-set" in advance for individual batteries/guns by the player in his previous turn - even if only for horse artillery - but permitting defensive movement in the non-player turn might be hard to handle and could cause additional complications. Perhaps a "pre-set" retreat option for mounted cavalry scouts (using any movement allowance left over from the previous player turn) might also be an interesting concept to consider at some point?

Anyway, the recent change allowing guns to melee at full 100% is most welcome. Also glad to hear about the other planned changes too. Together, these will probably be quite sufficient to balance artillery in melee, without attempting to add a potentially awkward "limber & retreat" option as well.


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

I was wondering if this would be possible: Have batteries historically accurate as far as composition. So if it has 4 Nappys and 2 3-inchers, then it would start with two sections, but if it were six Napoleons, then it starts the game as a six-gun battery.
BUT, give an option to break down and recombine batteries.
So for movement to contact it would be a lot easier without having a gazillion one and two gun sections cluttering up the map and consuming more player time moving them to the front.. Then when they are ready to deploy, if a player wanted, he could break the battery up into as many sections as he likes. This would also help keep battery integrity as they may accidently get split up during a long movement to the front otherwise.

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

Scott,

Your idea has to be voted down. Six guns in one battery will use the same Ammo Point as a one or two gun section. That IS the current problem trying to be resolved.

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

In HPS Peninsula there are arty units of between 1 and 6 guns each all drawing on the same ammo pool. The designer said he put this into consideration when he decided what that pool should be.
The better answer would be for the pool to deplete depending on the number of guns fired vs the current by unit. Similar to how small arms wagons are depleted. Maybe if they had arty supply wagons.
But if the ammo supply issue could be solved, then what is the next issue that would shoot down my idea?

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

The ability to break down uniform batteries while counting ammo depletion by gun rather than by battery would be useful I think.

Afterall, seeing how small arms ammo supply is already calculated by strength points rather than by unit, it should be possible and would make sense.

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

What we really need is a proper artillery supply system - ie. wagons that can move about, need to be within a certain distance of a battery to resupply it and can also get captured, just like small arms supply wagons.

Another extremely useful feature would be to code artillery as "wagons" as far as melee defeat is concerned, so guns too can be captured (but without the 50% reduction in strength).


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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Schlitte</i>
<br />
So for movement to contact it would be a lot easier without having a gazillion one and two gun sections cluttering up the map and consuming more player time moving them to the front.

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think I have figured this problem out!

All of the Confederate artillery was manufactured in TEXAS, because everything is bigger in TEXAS. That is why my 2-gun section of Rebel guns take up 62.5 yards per gun on a road, while the smaller Yankee guns only take up 20.83 yards per gun for a 6-gun battery. [:D]

Now if only my giant guns threw an amount of lead more compirable to their enormous size… alas, they are but Six Pounders! [:0] [:(]


Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

There is an easy fix to the ammo problem. At least in the short term, GIVE EACH SIDE MORE AMMO!

My personal vote[:)] for fixing the artillery with I think minimum altering of the game engine is:

1. Handle artillery ammo like small arms ammo resupply. One strength point (gun) uses one ammo.

2. Handle melees with artillery like you now do with already limbered guns. The calculated men lost is divided by 25 to figure the number of equivalent guns lost. If the defender wins the melee the guns remain disrupted and unlimbered. If the defender loses the remaining guns automaticly limber and retreat one hex and are disrupted. There could be an additional test for more loses due to having to retreat. Also could consider this an automatic route to the guns.

I don't believe Artillery Ammo wagons and I assume random ammo depletions like infantry would be an appropriate system for artillery. Artillery unlike infantry had its own ammo support system (extra limbers that could be sent back to the army trains when they went empty as well as ammo wagons with the batteries and battalions).

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 Rich Walker</i>
<br />There is an easy fix to the ammo problem. At least in the short term, GIVE EACH SIDE MORE AMMO!

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

Only that ammo shortage was a reality in warfare right into the 20th century. Being able to bang away all day is as unhistorical as it gets.

No, a proper ratio between tubes and rounds (not batteries and rounds) should be observed.

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

I agree, but until something is worked out, it will solve the problem


<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 /><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 />There is an easy fix to the ammo problem. At least in the short term, GIVE EACH SIDE MORE AMMO!

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

Only that ammo shortage was a reality in warfare right into the 20th century. Being able to bang away all day is as unhistorical as it gets.

No, a proper ratio between tubes and rounds (not batteries and rounds) should be observed.

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


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

"I don't believe Artillery Ammo wagons and I assume random ammo depletions like infantry would be an appropriate system for artillery. Artillery unlike infantry had its own ammo support system (extra limbers that could be sent back to the army trains when they went empty as well as ammo wagons with the batteries and battalions)."

Kennon,

Gettysburg ... Pickett's Charge ... Rebs had enough arty ammo to support the attack, BUT the wagons had to be pulled back to keep them from being destroyed by Union Arty. So the rounds were there, but they weren't there, i.e. Lee had them with the army, but due to local battlefield conditions he didn't have them where they were needed when they were needed.

Having wagons, random ammo depletion at the battery/section level, and a ration of one ammo point per gun tube would be a good way to show the fire discipline and resupply system in the war.

Having arty wagons along with inf wagons would increase the trains, and tie the commanders to them and good roads more as happened in history.



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

I agree with most of what is said. Having more wagons - arty wagons, would be more stuff to move on the map, but overall it might reduce the number of things on the map if there ends up being less arty sections moving to the front in our columns.
I've had a couple potental opponents say they won't play HPS Getty due to the vast number of arty units they have to move.
But, until a fix is found, I'll happily play on and be glad that the powers that be are at least listening and trying to find an equitable solution to all our sometimes conflicting wishes. [:o)]

MajGen, 2/VIII/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 Scott Schlitte</i>
<br />I agree with most of what is said. Having more wagons - arty wagons, would be more stuff to move on the map, but overall it might reduce the number of things on the map if there ends up being less arty sections moving to the front in our columns.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now there's a point. Unless we don't have the space to do it, we tend to use all our arty in the field (not in or near the frontline, obviously, in HPS games, but in positions where they can fire). But that's not how it was done in the real war. Rather, in many battles, batteries were sent to the frontlines only when they were actually needed, and withdrawn when they were no longer, or replaced when they ran out.

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