American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I just did a test scenario in 4.0 Gettysburg and I am not replicating this. Fatigue is working normally for me with no perceptible increased rate of recovery.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

Hi Ashdoll,

two things:

1. I tested fatigue recovery without the optional rule and I am not seeing increased fatigue recovery. I am also not seeing ineligible units recovering fatigue. In your example, did you have the optional fatigue rule on? I only see what you described as plausible with that rule on.

2. I don't think your fatigue formula reflects what is written in the manual or what I have seen by experience. Even units at maximum fatigue recover only about 5 fatigue per day turn. If I had to guess, the percentage is not actually a percentage as implemented but rather a a flat 5 or 20 fatigue points. We should open another thread to test this topic like we did with some other ones.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

Last thing: writing as someone who has been on occasion disappointed by the JTS/WDS titles I have bought (looking at you, Naval Battles Midway), I really don't think these issues are a big deal.

1. LOS: Just play with extreme or don't cheat. Normal LOS in 4.0 works almost like extreme FOW anyway. This bug has such a minor impact. If people in this club claim they are too lazy to fire their units individually in order to maximize the effects of their offensive fire, then they are too lazy to hunt around the map with "Highlight LOS" on looking for units. People who would exploit that bug are penny wise and pound foolish.

2. Fatigue does seems to be working normally, at least for me. I think people are going off without knowing how the game mechanics are supposed to work. Even if fatigue doesn't work, then you have a civil war game that at the moment does not model the affects of battlefield fatigue. No biggie.

3. There is an LOS bug in the game with turn-based defensive fire is more significant than the current LOS bug. Yet I have not seen it mentioned on the forums even though it is fairly obvious when it pops up. I have great doubts that anybody's enjoyment of the game is being impacted by it or any other bug in the game. (I won't explain the bug. It's not something exploitable. I passed it on to JTS with a save file.)

WDS updated the game and introduced some minor bugs and changes that people are not a fan of. As the Germans say: Wo gehobelt wird, fallen Späne. Things will probably get fixed or changed based on the feedback.

4. If people are really annoyed by trenches, then the club should just produce a few standard pdts that can by used by agreement or in tournaments. For example, we could standardize the weapon values across all scenarios and create a pdt for scenarios with trenches and one without trenches. That would be a relatively easy fix that we can implement on our own.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

Hi Logrus，

Ok, I will check it tomorrow and post in a new thread.

_________________
BG Ashdoll Ren
3rd Division
II Corps / Army of Northern Virginia

"Days and weeks of sheer boredom, interspersed with times of stark terror!"

Everybody keeps saying to just use EFOW and problem is solved. Some of us strongly dislike EFOW so that is not a solution for us.

_________________
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 look forward to seeing the results of Ashdoll Ren's latest tests. If Logrus Pattern is correct it could be the optional rule that is at fault here for v4. For the record, the battle [[WDS Chickamauga although I suspect if the problem is in one title it's in all of them] where I looked at fatigue recovery did have the optional rule checked. It's an optional rule I always have checked, probably out of habit. In the interests of overcoming the problem, and better simulation, it seems like a habit I should break.

In terms of trenches, I think that is easily overcome by the players adopting a house rule for their games. Such action would still leave it open for those who want to play what-ifs and see what would happen if there were battlefield trenches in the early/mid war years to do so.

FoW remains an unsolved problem with the only viable option seeming to be to not use it and use EFoW instead.

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

What don't you like about it? The LOS aspect or seeing less information on enemy strength?

I am curious because I have thought it would be interesting to design or play a wargame that emphasized very realistic FOW. For example, only seeing the hexes on the map that are within LOS of your units. Everything else blank. Etc.

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

Fog of War is important and factual.

In the Corps a we had a SPOTREP we would call in on enemy locations and size. IF you saw enemy in the field you would call in or report first the general size of the unit or enemies (ie. 1XX), Activity: In the open, in defended positions etc.... , Location: grid or coordinate style for call of fire or in general reference to your know position, Identification of the Unit if possible based on standards or other ID markers, TIME in which enemy was spotted, Equipment: that may be important (i.e. artillery, trucks, anti-tank, tanks, etc.) and final Remarks that may be important: direction of travel, etc.

In any case, I think the EFoW does a fine job in the games we play. Logrus, your idea of using a more defined FoW would be interesting to, especially in a meeting engagement type action, where you may not even be able to see the terrain, without actually seeing it.... neat idea!

_________________
Lt. Colonel JJ Jansen
3rd Calvary Brigade, 4th Calvary Division
Army of Tennessee
CSA

I dislike both the loss of LOS from any hex on the map and the lack of intel on the enemy strength. Both go too far in my opinion and so I would rather play with JTS 3.0 version. The quest for realism is admirable but will never be totally achieved. For example, you can stick a one man unit five miles out on your flank and the rest of your army instantly sees what he/she sees and I can't ever visualize them fixing that. If you like EFOW, then that's great and I don't want to take it from you. I also don't want my JTS 3.0 LOS/intel taken from me either.

_________________
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

Correction: I am also seeing the fatigue bug too.

https://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/view ... 99#p120299

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

It appears in at least some of the Forgotten Battles scenarios the PDTs are markedly different to what I have been used to. More likelihood that you can fire at an adjacent unit and not hit anything.
Easily modified I know, but it did take me by surprise!

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

In case of FB I won't wonder if this was purposely done. With battles more or less all over the US and over the course of the war it's unlikely that all should use the same.

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

In Gettysburg 4.0 some of the supply units have unit pictures that look like infantry instead of a wagon. Has anyone noticed this? Has it always been that way? Is it in other titles?

_________________
WDS: Antietam, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, Overland

I don't know if it has always been that way, but it has for quite awhile.

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