American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

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

can we assume you notified Rich at support.

_________________
Lt. Gen. C. N. Matthews
Pickett's Infantry Division, I Corps,
Army of Northern Virginia, CSA

Yes, I sent them an email. They were great as always in replying and letting me know they would check it out and correct it in a future update. If we stumble across any more we should let them know.

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

Thanks for staying on top of this for us, Blake, and for communicating the details to Rich!
<Salute!>

_________________
General Scott Eichelberger, ACWGC
Commander, I Corps, AotP
UMA Superintendent 2020-2021
Union Cabinet Secretary 2020-2022

The 'melee off a bridge' issue mentioned as #3 in the top post was present in v4.01 (I just checked it). I believe it has been present for a very long time (probably back to JTS versions) but as I no longer have any version earlier than WDS v4.01 I can not verify that [strong] suspicion.

The 'Enhancement' regarding 'mixed' units is odd. It appears to work as written but members should note that when "artillery" is mentioned this applies to all artillery. So, if artillery attached to a brigade stacks with any unit from another brigade they will not show as 'mixed'.
[Note: I abhor the Optional Rule Mixed Organizational Penalty as I can see no historical justification for such a thing. Do members from one brigade so detest those from another brigade that they suffer more than 15% (1/6) drop in their morale merely because they are in the same 125 by 125 yard area as each other? Many examples exist of regiments from different brigades mixing with no ill effects upon their morale. I recently came across an instance in Antietam where regiments from four separate brigades, three different divisions and from the two wings of the army were combined into one brigade for that battle where they performed well, no discernable effect on their morale.]

The 'Enhancement' that says "Adjusted so that enemy uncrewed/spiked artillery will no longer show up as possible melee under 'next/previous' stack in melee phase" operates in an odd manner. It does not "show up as possible melee under 'next/previous' stack in melee phase" because, so far as the game is concerned, that unit no longer exists. When a player chooses to spike the guns of an artillery unit the owner of that artillery unit automatically forfeits the spiked value of those guns (15 points per gun) to the opposing player. Immediately upon the spiking of the guns the unit no longer exists other than as 'decoration' on the battlefield.
Although the above was tested, I am unsure how this will operate if the Optional Rule Artillery Capture is checked. Perhaps if you have captured some enemy guns and then spike them you will forfeit the spiked value of the guns to the original owner. Someone who is more familiar than me with Artillery Capture may care to test this. [That Optional Rule, like Mixed Organizatinal Penalty, is another rule I don't like because of the odd, unhistorical, way it operates in the game.]

The 'Fix for Isolation check across fords and bridges. Bridge strength limitations apply.' Tested in Overland v4.02. This does not occur. A bridge of any value above zero will permit any unit to trace a line of hexes free of ZoC over it to avoid isolation. The same thing occurred in previous versions. For a full explanation on isolation see this Club Forum thread (https://wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23051&hilit).

I have some issues with a few other changes but as they are more of a personal preference type of thing I will not list them here. I am, however, annoyed that there is no mention in the Changelog of any fix for the problems with loss carryover in campaigns, discussed in this Club thread (https://wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22993&hilit): I had been looking forward to the campaigns operating properly.

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

It was brought to my attention that the Historical Gettysburg scenario rewards zero points for Supply Wagon captures. This was present in both version 4.01 and 4.02. Not sure if this was on purpose by WDS or not. I can't think of any reasons why wagons would be worthless though.

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

I just came across another issue with artillery during a battle in Overland v4.02. For some reason the VPs for destroyed artillery are only being recorded as 15 VPs guns not the correct 30 VPs per gun.



None of the gun losses were for spiked guns. I then did a quick test in Antietam v4.02 but gun losses in that title were at 30 VPs per gun.

[I will do some further tests later to see what happens in regards to spiked guns for those two titles (and perhaps another one if I have time). In the meantime, I would suggest that careful (separate) notes are taken regarding gun losses as losses recorded at only half the value can greatly effect the outcome of the game. In the example provided the CSA should be currently well into Minor Victory (not Draw) as Total Points should be at 796 not 233.]

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

Actually, many of the scenarios in Overland are designed with 15 point gun kills as the default. Don't ask me why though. At Gettysburg they are 60. At most places they are 30.

It would be nice if it were universal.

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

How strange, and how odd I never noticed it before. 60 seems excessive. 15 seems problematic as only every second spiked gun would count in the VP totals (because you can't show 71/2).

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

Has anyone asked WDS to make it universal?

If I had to venture a guess as to why it isn't universal, it's probably to do with Victory Points. They designed Gettysburg 20 (?) years ago with the 60-point gun kills. When they designed it they took into account that point factor when determining Major/Minor victories and defeats. In a large scenario it won't matter if they switched it to 30. But in a smaller scenario meant to be even, maybe it would throw off the dynamics of the design. The same would hold true for a small to medium sized game in the Wilderness. In certain scenarios, like in the Chickamauga game or in Petersburg, they alter victory point rewards for kills to make a scenario play more evenly. So it can be a good thing in some situations. Maybe at Gettysburg they wanted to maximize the incentive to protect your artillery?

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

I was getting ready to start a game in the Shenandoah tournament and checked the version to make sure I had updated. As it's one of my favorites, I was pretty sure I had. But, my game is showing v4.01.

I ran the installer multiple times, (Yes, I checked the file path), but it continues to show 4.01. I've not had any difficulties with previous 4.02 updates. Is anyone else seeing this, or have I screwed something up?

I've posted this at the WDS forum, but have not yet seen an answer:

https://forum.wargameds.com/viewtopic.php?t=1020

_________________
Lt. Colonel Mike Terhune
New River Greys - 24th Virginia Infantry
Army of Northern Virginia
I/4/4

"Up, men, to your posts! Don't forget today that you are from old Virginia
MG George E. Pickett, July 3, 1863

Have not updated all my games previously so I just ran the 4.02 update to check this and it is showing 4.02 after the update for me with cph.exe showing a creation date of 3/31/2023 2:20 PM.
If yours does not show the same something went wrong in your update.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller



The McKeesport Union Guard

1/1/I
AotP

Not an error - that was that title's designer's call. Now if you want to debate whether it made sense or not to do that, that's another thing all together.

_________________
~Retired~

LOL, you're a bit late to the party. The differences between titles was pointed out to me over a month ago. Such differences are odd, to say the least. As I said before:
"60 seems excessive. 15 seems problematic as only every second spiked gun would count in the VP totals (because you can't show 71/2)."

To consider this was purposely done to account for scenario size/length doesn't seem right either because, as far as I'm aware, all scenarios in a title are allocated the same VP values across that title although the value in titles may be different.
Example 1:
Overland 102-640505: Brock Intersection (12 turns and a very small map), artillery are allocated 15 VPs; and
Overland 001-631127: (H) Mine Run Campaign (174 turns and a very large map), artillery are allocated 15 VPs.
Example 2:
Gettysburg !HISTORICAL 1.1.2 Oak Hill - July 1st - Gettysburg (6 turns and a very small map, artillery are allocated 60 VPs; and
Gettysburg !HISTORICAL 1. The Battle of Gettysburg - July 1 - 3, 1863 (156 turns and a very large map, artillery are allocated 60 VPs.

Still, as pointed out earlier there are other odd things with artillery. The 'enhancement' regarding 'mixed' units is odd but as the Optional Rule Mixed Organization Penalty is historically wrong and creates unrealistic penalties it's probably best to have it unchecked. The operation of the adjustment made in regards to spiked artillery is also odd.
There are also other odd occurrences as mentioned in other posts (mostly realised during a couple of quick test games). The 'Fix for Isolation check across fords and bridges' does not occur as advised in the Changelog. The matter concerning 'meleeing off bridges' is not new to v4.2. It was there in v4.01 and I'm fairly sure it was there in the earlier JTS versions (it's a strange thing similar to the oddity of differing artillery VP values which I now believe has also been there for a very long time).

While the latest update concern itself with the changes chosen to be made, and the consequences of them (some surely are unintended consequences), remains a mystery. As pointed out by others quite some time ago (https://wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22993&hilit) there are serious issues with the campaigns in all titles. Fixing the campaigns was supposed to have been a priority but nothing has been done in regards to it so the campaigns do not work properly now, as they did not before (from probably a long time before, going back to earlier JTS versions).

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