American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ALL

in my opinion Rout Limit on ruins this game.. Are we so obsessed with winning that we do not want to recreate history.

Again IMO Union players like it on because they can just move up with their big regiments and steamroll.. in almost every battle i read about

Rarely do units stand toe to toe for an hour blasting away one side or the other gives way first. I am desperately looking for a group of both union and

confederate players who want to play as true to life as possible , Default rules, optional fire/melee off pre Jan 1 1863 on Post Jan 1 63

Do any exist out there or is the "I want to win at all cost Crowd " ,,,, Separate Map to check LOS in an extreme fog, "Scouting " then move never losing a Melee

group all that is here.

If you agree and want a historically fought battle against an honest opponent and just want to enjoy the game i am your Reb

I also do a real time commentary file that i share with my opponent post game and like when they do the same

_________________
COL. R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division" Coyne's Cavalry Rangers"
1st Corp Army of Northern Virginia

I agree that Rout Limiting is an unhistoric Optional Rule. However, in my experience most (players on both sides) will not play with it unchecked. Yes, it can definitely favour the larger side in a battle (usually the Union) although it can also disfavour the side with lower overall quality (also usually the Union). For some time, there was a group of Union players who would require 'concessions' should certain Optional Rules be checked/unchecked or any House Rules introduced in the interests of simulation. This even applied in 'equal force' games.

However, I do not think that the Default Rules alone are a perfect solution either. They check two Rules that in my opinion are unrealistic:
Mixed Organizational Penalty (I've posted about this on a number of occasions but essentially there is no real historic basis for having such a rule); and
Artillery Capture (an historic reality but unfortunately it operates in a weird manner in the games).
Also, Default Rules by themselves permit some other unrealistic instances due to the way the games operate so the introduction of two House Rules can assist there. Firstly, Artillery Stacking Limits (a maximum of 8 [although six is better, which is also better suited for Union OoBs]). Also, Night Move Restrictions, it's ludicrous to permit mass flanking moves being made during the night let alone full-blown attacks. The 'night penalties' built into the games are grossly insufficient to discourage such things.

I would like further information on one issue you raised: "optional fire/melee off pre Jan 1 1863 on Post Jan 1 63". I appreciate that the date selection would be somewhat arbitrary and I don't want to get into an argument about a specific date but why a cut-off date at all? Sometimes there were extreme casualties, or a lack thereof. I'd contend that they are better 'Off' in general for longer scenarios (it'll all balance out in the end so a bit of uncertainty is good for individual actions), but 'On' for shorter ones or else a game can be ruined by one bad action which would be undesirable from a gaming perspective (even though it can be said to have some historical reality).

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

Thank You for the response. to your points

Mixed Organizational Penalty : I agree it is a Silly rule However IMO it aids the Union in that the side with the smaller units and less of them CSA sometimes is
forced to stack Mixed units so as to Get a Larger force in a hex so it is a way to offer the Union a reward for rout limit off,
Rout Limit off Affects
1. COMMAND / CONTROL= Keep your units under control they will Rout Less and recover Quicker.
with it on who cares just spread them out and Blast away
2.Allows Brigades to Attack without a reserve regiment to Plug holes and Back up the Line.
3.By not having reserves to deal with Routs The forces tend to spread out effecting a much larger area than real world battles
4.The Units trade blows Much longer and to a higher level of loss than real world in short this rule sucks
5 . The whole thing about Limit off Quality on goes to a very Fundamental difference in the Union/ Confederates the Union raised New regiments that's why they
have large D and E Regiments Where as the South tended to back fill losses or consolidate beat up regiments WHY Give Green troops in 1864 the crutch of rout limit,,
IF you play with rout limit on you are missing out on some of the best features of the game
you may as well just play RISK. rant over LOL

Artillery Capture yes it works bad in the game but i tend to be grateful for the ammo and spike the guns F guns are not worth the men it takes to crew them
It is of note that if you spike your own guns and they are on a road it forces the enemy to crew them in order to clear the road
AGREE with the 8 gun rule most battle impose 12 too many IMO and Night Movement AS to night movement/combat i think the game does an ok job i tend to Picket the roads on my flanks if a Player wants to pick up 3 to 500 points of disruption well so be it but i don't mind the house rules either

as to the optional Fire/Melee well my thought was early in the war troops that went into battle for the first time were more un predictable Later in the war as a whole Veterans were around to kind of show Newbies the ropes

In short Learn the nuances of the game you will enjoy it more get more historic results and be a better player verses the "LAZY SUNBATHERS" ( Morrisey) LOL
DO Not rely on Optional Rules to cover up the holes in your play Learn the Game!!!!

_________________
COL. R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division" Coyne's Cavalry Rangers"
1st Corp Army of Northern Virginia

I don't see why there should be any 'reward' for anything. We are either trying to simulate reality or we're not. If Rout Limiting is unhistorical then it's off: if Mixed Organizational Penalty if unhistorical then it's off too.

I agree with the points you made on the effects of Rout Limiting. 'The truth shall make you free' to enjoy a better simulation of history.



I have only twice agreed to play a game with it on. [I don't know why I agreed as it made the game rather silly. I think my opponent thought it was somehow in his favour to have it so I relented]. There is an additional oddity with Artillery Capture. When you take their guns they will be automatically crewed (even though no men are deducted from your occupying force). Provided you do not move that unit off that hex you do not have to use any of your men to then crew the guns. You can then move a very small unit or a 'spent' (heavily fatigued) unit onto the hex and once they are there move away the original unit to carry on their good work. The guns remain crewed without you having to expend a single man on crewing them (and it is funny when you can blast the Yankees with their own guns). Should the Union retake the guns they are not automatically crewed and they will need to decrease their force to recrew them [they can't move them though, the horses ran away when you originally took the guns and are gone for the entire battle]. ROFL.

Yes, 8 guns is the absolute maximum you can safely fit in a 125 yard stretch, and that assumes ideal conditions. Six is a better limit as it takes into account (impossible to represent) terrain oddities that existed on the field that disallow the ideal maximum.



I thought that explanation might be your reasoning. However, I do suggest that Optional Fire and Melee be checked (regardless of the battle date) for shorter scenarios. The rules of probability means some odd things can happen when you are using small numbers (a relatively small number of melee/fire actions) and you could upset what could otherwise be an enjoyable game. For larger scenarios (a full day or longer battle) it should not matter as it'll even out in the end and a bit of unpredictability can be a good thing.

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

SO MOST HISTORIC PLAY

_________________
COL. R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division" Coyne's Cavalry Rangers"
1st Corp Army of Northern Virginia

Mixed Org Penalty should be on every time. Paul will disagree with his dying breath but that's alright.

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

LOL.
There are a few notations on my guidon that list the battles of Mixed Organizational Penalty. We shall never surrender that ground.

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

I joined the club very early on following its inception and have watched the games evolve since then. I was in the Union Army until about 5 years when I switched to the south in order to experience all the fun from the southern side. As my record will attest I don't care much about winning and will play any battle, against anyone, anytime. As a Union player I would never play with rout limiting off. I did it a try a few times and the only way to describe the results was ridiculous and absurd. It was nearly impossible for me as a Union player to mount an attack with the rule on. Even with careful attention to command and control my army quickly melted away. I guess it can have it's place to give a challenge to a veteran player or for training, if there is a large difference in the ability or experience level of the Confederate player. I also don't agree that the results are more historical with the rule off. I can only recall two battles where large masses of the Union army panicked and melted away and that was the two Bull Runs. I guess you might throw in Chancellorsville but that was really one Corps. Two of those massive routs only occurred after a full day of fighting. Rout limiting off will not allow a full day of fighting for the Yanks IMO. I fondly remember my old friends on both sides rehashing this every couple of years over time. I don't think you will find many takers from the boys in blue for having the rule off if the results are going to count. Most people do have at least some concern for at least having a fighting chance. This is just my opinion and is not based on any kind of data except the few times I tried it.

_________________
MG. Ed Blackburn
4th (Early's) Division
II (Jackson's) Corps
Army of Northern Virginia (ANV)
VMI Instructor

I always use Rout Limiting also. Anyone who remembers the old Battleground games probably recalls the massive routing which would occur. Talonsoft added Rout Limiting as an option not too long after their initial releases I believe. I'm legitimately surprised it hasn't been hardwired into the games yet like "Artillery Ammo by Cannon" and other rules which make gameplay better and are used almost 100% of the time.

The only reason to turn it off is if you really want to recreate the panic of 1861 and 1862 when it comes to green soldiers.

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

"I can only recall two battles where large masses of the Union army panicked and melted away and that was the two Bull Runs."

That strikes me as a realistic and historical outcome.

"Every effort was made to rally them, even beyond the reach of the enemy’s fire, but in vain. The battalion of regular infantry alone moved up the hill opposite to the one with the house, and there maintained itself until our men could get down to and across the Warrenton turnpike on the way back to the position we occupied in the morning. The plain was covered with the retreating groups, and they seemed to infect those with whom they came in contact. The retreat soon became a rout, and this soon degenerated still further into a panic."
IRVIN MCDOWELL, Brigadier-General, Commanding [From the Official Records (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924077730186&seq=336&q1)]

I've always claimed that routs were infectious, and McDowell even uses the word 'infect' to convey the nature of the thing. It happened well beyond the early days of the war. Chancellorsville, as you mention, was as case in point (only the fall of night and the fatal wounding of Jackson stopped it from being more severe). There are numerous other instances as well, because once one portion of the army ran to the rear those in their vicinity were likely to do the same.
A few other examples:
Chickamauga 18-20 September 1863, Rout of the Union right (https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=63450) - General Rosecrans fled with his men;
Battle of Piedmont 5 June 1864;
Brice's Cross Roads 10 June 1864; and
Hatcher's Run 5-7 February 1865.

Still, it's rather academic. In all the games I've played only two have had Rout Limiting unchecked. It's a good rule for simulation but almost no-one will play with it unchecked, even in 'Equal Force' battles. It's a great rule for a better simulation but rarely used.

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

Captured artillery cannot be moved by the captors, nor can they be crewed by captors. So, an enemy cannot crew them to clear a road. Captured artillery can fire and rotate, that is all.
Also, if a spiked artillery battery is recaptured and recrewed by the original owning side, it cannot move. It can be limbered, but cannot move.

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

It's a terrible rule as demonstrated above. You often refer to "simulation" but what you are chasing is a literal impossibility. It's a game, intended to be a game, and the nature of the mechanics of a game mean it can never be a true simulation. You want rout limiting off? Fine. Depending on the scenario, I want my Confederate opponent hungry or ill-equipped. This is a simulation, after all. What should the penalties be for that? Higher fatigue accumulation? Maybe we can have food put in the game and the supply system of feeding units. It was a genuinely important factor, and if we are using primary sources to justify certain things added for simulation purposes, we need to go all the way. I want the ammunition issues for the ANV in the Gettysburg campaign to negatively affect the army, especially when it comes to the lack of uniformity in artillery ammunition. I want Jenkins showing up on July 3rd on East Cavalry Battlefield with Enfields and only 10 rounds of ammunition due to an "oversight." You may say this is already reflected in the low ammo rule, but this did not happen anywhere in the AOP during this battle, so IMO early low ammo penalties should only apply to the ANV in the Gettysburg series (as it's all we have primary source evidence for). If we are going to simulate things, let's simulate correctly and reflect the difference in supply resources and effective distribution. I want the differences in staff reflected in the game too. Maybe at Gettysburg the Confederate army has random chances of movement orders not be executed, despite the movement points being spent. This reflects the differences in general staff organization and communication differences between the two armies. A simulation would leave orders coming from the ANV army command as vague, open to interpretation, and even down to division level actions (see how Hood and McLaws' brigades actually "go in" compared to how they were intended to in a stacked manner). This reflects a proper "simulation" based on primary sources.

My point is, you spend dozens of posts trying to promote rules that clearly and transparently change the balance of the game under the guise of wanting more "realism." Here's someone above that, like me, has played a lot of games as both armies saying it's evident the rule destroys nearly every scenario for the Union side, and your response is to provide a handful of examples to back your stance while completely disregarding the 95% of the battles where this rule would look ridiculous for the Union army. This is a series that requires ignoring a lot of reality to create a balanced and competitive game, and I think it has managed to do that while still capturing the essence of period combat better than any series/game in history.

_________________
General Michael E. F. Barycki
4th Bde, 5th Div, XV Corps, Army of the Tennessee
http://www.civilwartees.com/

Well said! These games are "games" and far from being completely accurate historical simulations (if such a thing is really even possible). The Confederate ammunition was notoriously poor and yet in these games a CSA gun is equal to a USA gun which is absurd. The same holds true for small arms and the ammunition used there. None of that is reflected in these games when it probably should be. But if it was it would become much more difficult for the CSA player. I've heard some say the CSA units should all use Mixed Arms instead of Rifles which would decrease their effectiveness and reflect their poorer ammunition - not a bad suggestion if one were striving for more accuracy.

Another aspect which effects both sides equally, but is not related in these games, is straggling. After the Battle of Antietam the Confederate cavalry rounded up between 5,000 and 6,000 Confederate stragglers who had missed the battle. Fitz Lee stated others had purposefully thrown their shoes away to avoid the battle and stay in Winchester with the "barefoot camp." Straggling could occur at any point during a campaign but most frequent once gunfire began and the casualties began to trickle to the rear. Human nature is not to walk into hell willingly and these men were human afterall. While many of them moved forward their were always those who simply couldn't force themselves forward anymore. And so in battle units quickly lost men for many non-combat related reasons. Some men fell out of the column due to exhaustion or straggling while others "volunteered" to escort wounded men to the rear. Some simply had reached their psychological limit and could no longer face enemy gunfire and ran away or hid. Others would access the situation and decide for themselves whether to follow orders and fight where they were ordered to fight or whether to stay put and look for a safe place to wait out the storm. Units on both sides frequently lost some percentage of men even before they became engaged in actual combat. Once the actual fighting started the number of men on the firing lines would drop even more quickly. I am reminded of the soldier who hid behind a tree while flailing his arms on either side of it wildly as the bullets whizzed past. When asked what he was doing he replied, "feeling for a furlough." A non-mortal wound was an excellent alternative to charging Cemetery Hill or going through the Miller Cornfield. None of these elements of manpower reductions are reflected in our games when they really should be.

As Mike said, these are just games. The goal is to create a balanced experience in which both sides have strengths and weaknesses which they must overcome. Many of the Optional Rules were created to better balance the gameplay once it was determined that some element was making the games imbalanced - Rout Limiting is one such rule.

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

Where was it demonstrated that it's "a terrible rule".

I only provided "a handful of examples" to demonstrate that the infectiousness of routs was something that occurred during the entire war and not just the first two years. If you desire more examples just search the Official Records for 'rout' and you'll find scores of examples. Once one unit sees another turn tail they are more likely to do the same.
Still, as I said "it's rather academic". I've only ever played two games (less than 2%) with Rout Limiting checked and both those instances were at the instigation of my Union opponent.

A number of the other things you mentioned are probably best represented through Fatigue or Unit Quality.

Gettysburg. The CSA was not short on ammunition at Gettysburg. They had plenty. The only shortages were localised and temporary, same for the Union. If the Gettysburg reference refers to CSA artillery supporting Pickett's Charge that was, again, a localised and temporary shortage, the ANV still had plenty of artillery ammunition (Artillery Ordinance post-Gettysburg (almost all had 100+ rounds per gun) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924077728255&seq=357&q1=). Pickett's Charge failed as insufficient force was allocated to it and Pendleton was out-generaled by Hunt (an analysis - https://thecivilwarcenter.wordpress.com/2022/06/29/why-picketts-charge-failed-analysis-and-significance/ - I love the Federal Fields of Fire diagram. Holy cow!)

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

Wow

ok i see some strong feelings on this. So to those that posted its not fair to the Yankees I will see for myself.

At the Moment i am playing the UNION side in a 2v2 MP Game of Chick Meet #50.

We are Playing with the rules i Posted. From My experience at least both sides just Line up and shoot until Both sides get High
to medium Fatigue then when they rout it takes longer to get them back. The Losses are almost always above real life results
Players often fight as if the war is to be settled in one Battle,, I will see if the rule is Biased against the Union or if players
have gotten complacent in their tactics and careless in their command and control, lack of works building, lack of reserves ect
IMO for every 2 regiments in front 1 should be in reserve I am not a CSA player just looking for an advantage i am
a Historical Gamer ..

_________________
COL. R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division" Coyne's Cavalry Rangers"
1st Corp Army of Northern Virginia