American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

That sounds more reasonable to me. I would have thought 200 but you would know better than me what works.

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

Thanks for this, it helps clarify the evolution of the scenarios for a newbie.

Just one last Q on this remaining from my original post, and no worries if I need to take to main WDS forum- to clarify for scenarios beginning with "W Graphics" does it refer to Winter Graphics and how does this work? Taking 2 scenarios as an example:

050 FH_Battle in the pits at Ft Henry.scn
W Graphics_FH_Battle in the pits at Ft Henry.scn

If .map and .oob and .pdt files contain the info to play each scenario, they both use 'Ft Henry to Ft Donelson.map' and 'Ft Henry.oob' and 'winter 1861-2.pdt', so what's the difference between them, and is the W Graphics version a relic from a previous age (of ownership) that's no longer needed? Or do I need to switch to an alternative set of graphics in some way, or do something else, to get the W Graphics version to work? Or do i need to consider the W Graphics versions at all as a recent purchaser of the newer WDS version of the game? The scenario descriptions are identical, there's no clue anywhere of the difference(s) between them other than the names.

_________________
Lieutenant Chris Horn
II Corps, 2nd Division, 6th Brigade
Army of the Potomac, USA

When the game was released, there was a winter graphics folder for winter scenarios. I'm looking to see why that is gone. IDK atm.

As for the differences in the OOBs and Maps, etc., Working through that would take too long. Sorry! In some cases, the scenario description might shed some light.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

Hi Rich,

Was always curious why a Siege of Vicksburg scenario was never created for the Vicksburg Campaign? I know it's a long battle but similar to Peterburg or Gettysburg, those have made for some interesting large multiplayer battles.

Regarding your point about the naval units, have always wished there was separate unit types for sea and river boats with deep and shallow water hexes. This makes me think of the battle at Fort Sumter, Mobil, N.O. vs the river fleets of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers and the transporting of the troops on transport ships at Belmont, Shiloh, Ft. Henry/Donelson, etc..

I know this is for scenario fixes/tweaks, so I'll keep my final CWB "wish list" to myself.

I would have liked to of seen a master list of Leaders (names/images/campaign), a master weapons file (that could be used on all CWB series) and a master .pdt to use as a default for designing scenarios or tournament for any version of the series.

_________________
Union War Dog!
MG. Derek Hampel
Cmdr. Second Div., XV Corps
Army of the Tennessee

Regarding you Vicksburg question, I cannot answer as that was not a title I was involved in.

As for the naval actions. All I can say is that in the early days of HPS/JTS, naval actions had a low priority due to its cost in programing time. The focus was on land battles. Forgotten Campaigns did make an attempt to provide a greater naval presence with stronger programing.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

D. Hampel wrote:

"I would have liked to of seen a master list of Leaders (names/images/campaign), a master weapons file (that could be used on all CWB series) and a master .pdt to use as a default for designing scenarios or tournament for any version of the series."


I'll second that request. The games are terrific and deserve a lot of applause, but ----. I get weary of having to check the PDT each game turn that I'm playing so as to remind myself of how many movement points are expended in this scenario for movement in woods, etc. A forest is a forest, I don't care where it was located. That analogy applies to several other game situations where the game designer was allowed to alter the PDT to suit their individual tastes. Some standardization needs to be applied and when something does not comply with the standard, it should be pointed out in the scenario description so that the game opponents will know that before they start play.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

I believe that the vast majority are the same. I know John Ferry liked to experiment with 30 min turns and that could cause a few different entries. Also, with weather impacted scenarios, the PDT values are the same, but in rain or snow or mud, the cost is increased as a percentage of the norm.

Just curious, do you know some that are in fact different? I'd like to examine them to see why.

For leaders, yes, a master file would be cool. But you have to understand that many of these earlier titles were created with little to no interaction between the programmer (John Tiller) and the several designers (Myself and a few others). The was no message board we could all use to pass notes and questions. We have that now. All updates were snail mailed using standard CDs. It was a crazy time when compared to now. Back then we didn't know any better. So, for this series, a very old series, WDS is doing the best it can to keep things as UTD as possible. If and when new ACW content is released, that will be a different story if the newer titles are any indication.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

Without checking every scenario (checked 2 or 3 scattered throughout the lists) for each game, here is what I found. The numbers indicate the movement costs for infantry (first number is cost in line, and the second number is cost in column) in forests.

Antietam 5/4
Atlanta 5/5
Chancellorsville 5/4
Chickamauga 5/4
Corinth 5/5
Forgotten 5/4
Franklin 4/4
Gettysburg 4/4
Overland primarily 5/4 but some extreme variations
Ozark 5/5
Peninsula 6/6 and 5/5
Petersburg 5/4
Shenandoah 5/4
Shiloh 4/4
Vicksburg 5/5

If I am playing a scenario each from Gettysburg, Peninsula, and Chickamauga; my brain is too feeble to remember the different movement costs when I open the game turn.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

It seems to me that 5/4 makes the most sense.
There might be a few scenario specific reasons for a different entry, but for the generic scenarios, I might could easily make a change to have all the movement cost be the same for all terrain types and formation types. Have a look at the Historic Antietam PDT (Antietam.pdt). With regards to the movement cost, would there be objections to trying to use these values for the majority of the pdts?

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

Although I agree that things would be much easier with a standardised model I'm concerned that a mass change could have some bad outcomes. Here are some reasons why:
Command ranges can vary from scenario to scenario;
Stacking Parameters can vary from scenario to scenario;
Turn times can vary from scenario to scenario; and
The terrain in each scenario affects the ease with which units can move across the map.
Those aspects all work together with movement rates to achieve balance within a scenario. If the movement rates are suddenly increased, or decreased, then the balance is thrown out. Units may now take too long to get where they are needed. Conversely, they may be able to get there too quickly. Units that were in command range may not now be able to do so with the ease they did before, and vice versa.

One example would be Overland 417-640528 - Fourth Epoch. It is a great scenario, I remembered it for this post because it had very different Parameter Data. On the surface the scenario looks like a big loser for the CSA but it can be won. The CSA is outnumbered almost 2:1 and, although they have more guns they have less artillery ammunition. Some of the Parameter Data differences for it are:
Day Turns are 30 minutes;
Maximum stacking of 800 men (and five counters);
Command distances - Brigade: 3 hexes, Division: 6 hexes, Corps: 12 hexes, and Army: 28 hexes;
Night Attack Penalty - 300, Night Movement Penalty - 50;
Skirmisher cost - 3 MPs; and
Crew Kill - 120.
Together with a large map those things work together to bring some balance to what could be a very unbalanced scenario. Being able to move more men faster (more men per hex), keep them in command easier, and on a smaller map would mean a heavy and prompt CSA defeat would be almost certain. The Union would move easier across the map and could then deploy large stacks to smash through the Confederates.
My Confederate victory wasn't easy, and a couple of times my army was in peril to a degree where the battle may have been lost. However, I feel that the unique Parameter Data (which I found difficult to get used to at the time) gave me a chance to gain victory.

I worry that there are many scenarios that could be ruined by standardised Paramater Data.

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