American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I do appreciate that you took the time to respond but unfortunately the explanation was deficient. I still have no idea what "act offensively" means and your claim that the "2nd Player is disadvantaged [by not having such a house rule]" is incorrect. Here's why:
Last Turn of Dusk
Player 1 has their turn
Player 2 has their turn and inflicts casualties upon Player 1
First Night Turn
Player 1 goes to have their turn but, before they can do anything, the game engine conducts morale checks where necessary. As it is now night, Player 1 has their morale checks conducted with '2' subtracted from the dice rolls. Player 1 is disadvantaged by this, not Player 2.
Player 2 has their turn but as Player 1 was in 'night' during their turn probably not much happened (which could have been further limited by any night rules in place).

So, Player 1 is disadvantaged in the normal course of events but this is somewhat offset by the fact that they get 'first go' as the new day begins. By introducing a house rule prohibiting either side from acting offensively you provide an good advantage to Player 1 because not only does he no longer suffer the disadvantage described above but Player 1 also gets the advantage of 'first go' in the morning.

I am in favour of house rules that aid the simulation value of the games (e.g. artillery stacking limits, night restrictions) but this rule does not seem to serve that end, it only seems to advantage Player 1. It always allows odd and unrealistic situations. For example, in the game AAR the Union appears (in the west) to have a number of Confederate units either completely surrounded or near so. Introducing a rule prohibiting the Union from acting offensively in the last turn before night would mean that they can't fire or melee those surrounded units and possibly can't even move forward to surround more of them. I can't see that happening in a real battle, the Union (or the CSA if they were in the same position) would keep attacking while ever there was some light. Indeed, they would probably keep firing well into the night at any movement they noticed.
Therefore, I think individuals should disregard that information as it is wrong. However, if you are Player 1 and you can get Player 2 to agree to such a rule you should do so as it will give you a good advantage.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

First Night Turn
Player 1 goes to have their turn but, before they can do anything, the game engine conducts morale checks where necessary. As it is now night, Player 1 has their morale checks conducted with '2' subtracted from the dice rolls. Player 1 is disadvantaged by this, not Player 2.

Correct. By definition, if player 2 just ended his turn, then player 1 is disadvantaged. This is it, in a nutshell.

Not sure why you are turning this into a debate. I am not offering advice, simply explaining how I think the game code is working in response to a question which you asked. People are free to ignore me (or you) at their leisure.

_________________
MG Robert Frost

Act offensively: Fire or Melee. Any action which might cause morale checks for the defending player. Players can define what parameters they want to establish.

_________________
MG Robert Frost

Maybe the confusion is here.

Robert's House Rule doesn't allow either side to fire, move, or melee offensively in the last turn before dusk. Think of it as night falling one turn earlier than expected is all. Therefore the last action by either side is two turns before nightfall.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

I was just confused as originally it was being said that, without the rule, Player 2 was disadvantaged but it was Player 1 (partly offset by Player 1 having first go on the next day). We are now in agreement that it is Player 1.
The house rule does provide a benefit for Player 1 as explained above.

All is well and if ever any opponent wants to introduce that rule when I'm Player 1 I will readily concur (even though it can create odd situations). Conversely, I must decline the offer if I'm Player 2.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

An outstanding conclusion to the battle, it was hard fought and hard won. Congratulations to everyone involved, it was simply riveting viewing.

Huge congrats to Reynolds (Robert) especially on the MVP Award also, without question justifiably earned and well deserved.

My thanks to Blake for creating such amazing productions as these, the work, effort, time and dedication is mind boggling and the result truly awesome !

_________________
Karl McEntegart
General
2nd Brigade
2nd (Gator Alley) Division
Army of Tennessee





Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.

I am putting the question directly to Rich Hamilton at the WDS forum (for some reason I can't currently post). Although this situation can easily be handled with a house rule, it would be better otherwise. Maybe it was rectified, but never documented.

At the same time, although this might be better addressed through the combined ACWGC high command, it would be good to know any documented bugs that WDS has no intention of fixing. This is no reflection on them, just an acknowledgement that the Campaign series has ended and certain changes might require a great deal more effort than warranted.

The Battle of the Rappahannock was a great experience! I hope others jump in on other of Blake's offerings.

_________________
MG Robert Frost

I understand, from correspondence with them over some technical issues, that WDS is currently working on an update to fix various technical issues [I don't know which ones which will, can be, addressed during that update].

Although the "Campaign series has ended", they seem to be committed to continue to work on it. Indeed, one issue I reported last year was that campaigns in various titles do not carryover losses from one scenario to the next one in the campaign (as it should do to make playing the campaigns meaningful rather than playing separate scenarios one after another). I was advised that they are hoping to fix that problem and enable us to play the various campaigns are they were intended with results/losses from one battle (scenario) having an impact on those that follow. I think that shows great customer service and can add a 'new' aspect to the games we currently enjoy.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I mentioned the dusk to night problem to Rich in an email about another problem a couple of months ago. Actually, I never understood why there is a night morale penalty in the first place. Can someone point me to the historical justification?

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

When I think of night morale problems I recall the Battle of Chickamauga. Without looking up the details specifically, I recall Cleburne's men (whose bravery nobody doubts) were caught up in a confusing night battle which caused them to rout rearwards despite suffering only a few losses.

If one thinks of Spring Hill where Schofield's army marched practically over Hood's army in the darkness, then I think you can argue that anything which occurs at night is by nature chaotic.

In the end it's a gaming tech decision I believe. Without a morale penalty then the side with the overwhelming numbers would just launch endless melee attacks without any ability for the defenders to fire at anything more than point blank range. They'd be just as brave as during the day despite not knowing what is beyond just a few feet in front of their face [if you've ever walked a pitch-black battlefield at night then you understand how unnerving it is - in a battle you'd be tripping over the dead and wounded as you stumbled forward]. And because the game allows melee in column, they could march right up to your lines and then spring on you quickly without disruption. The morale penalty makes this tactic far less appealing as your men would likely rout like crazy after the first contact was made and fatigue skyrocketed.

I'm not saying it would be an effective tactic, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it either.

Sometimes I think we make historical compromises in order to achieve a better gaming experience overall.

Just my opinion

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012