American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Hi, John,

As I mentioned earlier, everyone has their own perception of the physics of combat during the Civil War, or any war, for that matter. Just because the game designer says battle fatigue necessarily incapacitated a unit for combat for extended periods of time doesn't necessarily make it so. I don't think he footnoted his remarks with documentation to support his opinion, but I could be mistaken. My take on it is that you had regiments composed of individuals of varying degrees of commitment. In the heat of combat the less dedicated members of the unit would gravitate toward the rear, and based on their level of commitment rejoin their regiment at some future time during or after the battle. I believe something similar happened during a forced march. I'm not saying the game designer is wrong, nor that your suggestion of two separate fatigues is without merit; just that my perception based on what I have read indicates that the two fatigues are not that dissimilar, and could be combined.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />Hi, John,

As I mentioned earlier, everyone has their own perception of the physics of combat during the Civil War, or any war, for that matter. Just because the game designer says battle fatigue necessarily incapacitated a unit for combat for extended periods of time doesn't necessarily make it so. I don't think he footnoted his remarks with documentation to support his opinion, but I could be mistaken. My take on it is that you had regiments composed of individuals of varying degrees of commitment. In the heat of combat the less dedicated members of the unit would gravitate toward the rear, and based on their level of commitment rejoin their regiment at some future time during or after the battle. I believe something similar happened during a forced march. I'm not saying the game designer is wrong, nor that your suggestion of two separate fatigues is without merit; just that my perception based on what I have read indicates that the two fatigues are not that dissimilar, and could be combined.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Early in the war it was assumed that the armies could only fight for a day or two and then must retire - see every eastern campaign prior to 1864 when the various Union commanders retreated after every major battle to "rest and refit".

Fast forward to Grant and Lee during the overland campaign May to July 1864. Between the opening of the Battle of the Wilderness to the time the armies settled into the trenches around Richmond and Petersburg, various parts of the armies were in contact and fighting nearly every single day. There are plenty of instances of units marching long distances and then fighting in very hard battles/skirmishes right afterwards - not always with great results (depending on your perspective) - but they were able to march and fight just the same, physical/mental fatigue or not.

An ideal system would segregate physical (marching) fatigue and combat (mental) fatigue/stress. It would also have a "die roll" for losing stragglers on units that exceed a certain movement point level on forced marches (and would in part base that result on unit quality...) and would have separate recovery rates for both types of fatigue. But an ideal gaming world would also include a lot of things, wouldn't it? [:)]

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><

<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />Hi, John,

Just because the game designer says battle fatigue necessarily incapacitated a unit for combat for extended periods of time doesn't necessarily make it so. I don't think he footnoted his remarks with documentation to support his opinion, but I could be mistaken.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Mike,

Whether the designer is correct or otherwise to factor in an extended recovery period for battle fatigue is now immaterial. The point is that he has done so and it's part of the game. Also the designer, in answer to a question about the extended length of recovery time, seperated the two by making the point that fatigue is Battle fatigue and not physical fatigue which I believe, for realism alone if nothing else, would have seperate recovery rates [Otherwise why would the designer make reference to the difference in his reply] but as I said before this would not be possible.

If we are now to have physical fatigue combined with battle fatigue under the same recovery rate then that's O.K. I just don't think it is realistic.

Regards,



Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade <b><font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br />

An ideal system would segregate physical (marching) fatigue and combat (mental) fatigue/stress. It would also have a "die roll" for losing stragglers on units that exceed a certain movement point level on forced marches (and would in part base that result on unit quality...) and would have separate recovery rates for both types of fatigue. But an ideal gaming world would also include a lot of things, wouldn't it? [:)]

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Alan,

My thoughts entirely. That would be excellent if it were possible. You have highlighted the difference well when you describe combat fatigue as - Mental-Stress as opposed to physical fatigue.

Regards,

Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade <b><font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">

Hopefully you guys will write this stuff down and bring your ideas to TillerCon II. I'll be there with other more learned folk.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Sheffield</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br />

An ideal system would segregate physical (marching) fatigue and combat (mental) fatigue/stress. It would also have a "die roll" for losing stragglers on units that exceed a certain movement point level on forced marches (and would in part base that result on unit quality...) and would have separate recovery rates for both types of fatigue. But an ideal gaming world would also include a lot of things, wouldn't it? [:)]

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
2nd Div, II Corps, AoA
VMI Training Staff

God Bless <><
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Alan,

My thoughts entirely. That would be excellent if it were possible. You have highlighted the difference well when you describe combat fatigue as - Mental-Stress as opposed to physical fatigue.

Regards,

Colonel John Sheffield,
1st Brigade <b><font color="red">[Fighting First]</font id="red"></b>
2nd Division,
XXIII Corps
<font color="orange">Army of the Ohio.</font id="orange">
<font color="red">U.</font id="red"><font color="white">S.</font id="white"><font color="blue">A.</font id="blue">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hopefully you guys will write this stuff down and bring your ideas to TillerCon II. I'll be there with other more learned folk.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Well Rich, run off a few copies of this thread and spread them around where they will do the most good. [:D] No reason why others can't do the same.

I especially like the ideas on restricting melee to units under command, (Certainly a regimental commander can launch a melee)(Remember Chamberlain at LRT) and artillery firing at reduced power after changing direction of fire, same turn.

I am concerned that rules can get so complicated that games become too difficult to play. i.e. The ACW house rules on provost troops, as in Gettysburg, are such that I don't want to even consider adding them. As much as possible should be programmed into the game engine so that we don't have to remember the details.

I would suggest that provost troops be programmed with a ZOC that stops movement of routing friendly units. Then it would be of value to form a line of provost units with interlocking ZOCs behind the front of an attacking corps. It should still require chain of command leaders, not provost units, to enhance reorganization of the routed units.

Additional restrictions should be placed on provost units' use as aggressive combat units, such as an inability to deliberately move into the ZOC of an enemy unit. It seems like an easy task to program that in, perhaps as an option.

Finally, the units are too hard to distinguish on the realistic maps versus the more abstract hex maps. I never use the former in play. A change of unit colors for contrast against terrain would be a step toward improvement. Butternut brown for rebels would be a good possibility.

BG Ross McDaniel AoG

Rich,

Thanks for asking our opinions.

Like someone posted earlier it seems this thread has expanded beyond its original intent. However, that's not a bad thing. Discussion is good and everyone's ideas will generate thought and possibly implementation. So on that note I'll mention a change I would like to see and one I think would create a more realistic/historical game.

- Let's get rid of the 1/2 "movement" penalty caused by Disruption. With only 6 movement points this allows way too many units to be surrounded and eventually overrun then was historically factual. It also penalizes units for trying to act as rear guards in order to hold up enemy forces. I can't think of too many examples where regts have been surrounded, whittled down, and then captured whole sale like I try to do to my opponents and like they try to do to me. The only examples that come to mind are Archer's brigade at Gettysburg and Davis'(?)brigade in the railroad cut. But those were the exception rather then the rule.

Just because units became "disrupted" during battle didn't mean their legs all of a sudden walked at half pace.[:)] In reality they probably walked faster to get away from the enemy who was trying to maintain their firing line while slowly advancing. Retreating units usually move faster then advancing units and still maintain some order. This would help prevent many of the "blitkrieg" tactics we see in the games that really didn't start occuring until 1865.

Instead penalize units firing modifiers or give them temporary high fatigue or low morale if they become disrupted. There have been many times that I have "hoped" my units would rout after being disrupted so they'll survive for another day.

I'm not sure how this would affect game play, but I think it would slow down the surround and destroy concept.

Just my two cents worth...Any thoughts?

Regards,



Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864

Oh, a couple more options I would like that I forgot to mention are:

a) Random arrival times for units (early and delayed). Right now unit arrival can be delayed, but it would be nice to have an option where unit arrival could be earlier then expected. This would add greatly to replayability of each battle and keep each side on their toes knowing there is a possibility the enemy could be arriving much quicker then expected.

and, b) the ability to clear fields of fire before expected battles. I'm not sure how long it took regts or brigades to chop down 100 yards of trees for clear fields of fire, but if I remember right I've read instances where units did so during the night prior to battle.



Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864

Not sure the earlier arrival time is a needed change. Why couldn't one just change the possible arrival time and vary the percentage chance for actual arrival. For example: if normal time is 10am with 75% chance, you could change to 9am with 50% chance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Boyd</i>
<br />Oh, a couple more options I would like that I forgot to mention are:

a) Random arrival times for units (early and delayed). Right now unit arrival can be delayed, but it would be nice to have an option where unit arrival could be earlier then expected. This would add greatly to replayability of each battle and keep each side on their toes knowing there is a possibility the enemy could be arriving much quicker then expected.

and, b) the ability to clear fields of fire before expected battles. I'm not sure how long it took regts or brigades to chop down 100 yards of trees for clear fields of fire, but if I remember right I've read instances where units did so during the night prior to battle.



Col. Boyd Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV
"God Bless the Alabamians" Gen. Robert E. Lee - The Wilderness 1864
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

quote

<i>Let's get rid of the 1/2 "movement" penalty caused by Disruption.</i>

....................

I agree totally. Reduced movement rate only results in disrupted defenders being unable to retreat fast enough to avoid capture.

The Nap engine now has 2/3 movement rate for disrupted units, but even this probably isn't sufficient to prevent disrupted units falling behind and getting isolated.

Surely they're penalized quite sufficiently by being unable to melee and firing at 1/2 effect?


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

I also agree with Col Boyd about full movement for disrupted units and further support full movement for routed units. It makes little sense for men fleeing combat to move slower than their pursuers. If anything, they should get a movement bonus.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Bill,

Your email didn't explain how this works. Can you give a detailed explanation so the players here can decide its merits?

On the face of it, it seems to me that soft ZOCs have required a much greater effort to kill units. Alternatively, we could allow forward retreats.

However, it seems to me that a player just needs to play better and not rely on the game engine to limit the effects of a players poor move. IMHO, if a player allows a unit(s) to be surrounded by 6 combat units, they should be required to surrender. Leaders, limbered arty and supply wagons can't do it anymore.

In short, I would allow forward retreats, but the NME rule goes too far to compensate for poor play. This is a game after all and not real life, so I don't feel so bad when I inflict loses on my opponent





<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Adding this in late: the No Melee Elimination rule from the Napoleonic series would be a great help in removing the ZOC kills we see in this series. I sent a recommendation to Rich W. on this one. Hope the guys consider adding it to the engine.

ZOC Kills dont seem to be as big of an issue in the EAW series so its probably not needed there ...

Bill Peters
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

My recommendation on ZOC kills is to elliminate it. Require all six hexes to be occupied for a surrender without retreat and add a +40% modifier to the attacking stacks in a melee if all the rear hexes are occupied. Better yet add a +10% for each rear hex occupied in a melee with an additional +10% if one of the attackers is from one of those hexes.

Speaking of melees and how modifiers are applied the current system of using only the modifier that applies to all attacking stacks should be changed. I have not tested this for all types but it looks like the current method will only give the attacking group a modifier if all units would receive it. For example, if one unit attacks from the rear but a second is from the front the group doesn't receive the enfilade modifier. Likewise if there is one "A" unit and one "C" unit in the attack none receive the quality modifier. I think this should be handled more like fire combat where each unit receives all the modifiers it qualifies for and its individual contribution to the combat is adjusted. Although for enfilade I personally think if any unit qualifies for a rear attack the modifier ought to be given to all attacking units.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Possible future enhancements. It always good to introduce
one or two with each title.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My compliments to a promising thread, gentlemen (and gentle ladies) . . . as well as some excellent suggestions posted - although "One or two" (new additions) per/game might will be viewed by the grumpier, aging grognards among as more akin to some odious variation on Mr. Tiller's Chinese Water Torture theme, especially given the current pc state-of-the-art, eh?

No matter, I tip my kepi to Brig. Gen. Alynn's rejoinder (to Maj. Gen. R.A. Weir's "Mounted Skirmisher" request) to wit., <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But the most useful option of all that has been mentioned in this thread is by far the mounted cavaly skirmishers idea. I've long wanted an option like this. Cavalry was rarely ambushed during the war the way we can do in the games - ambushes yes, but not with high casualties. IRL a cavalry unit would get ambushed and turn and run, losing only a handful of men in most cases. In our games, they get "stuck" by the ZOC and can be blasted to pieces for at least 20 minutes. A one hex cavalry skirmisher option - with no increased movement penalty!!! - would be much more realistic than what we have now (aka blindness).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Couldn't have said it better, Gen. Alynn!

Before moving ahead to the thread proper, I'd offer my own two francs for getting rid of - once and forever - the exceedingly generic, dumbed-down "zero" movement ZOC effect. This routine is a longstanding oxymoron to the notion of "tactical" warfare in any century. In other words, a ZOC should only prove the equivalent of a unit's immediate fire power. Large units would exert a more surpressing ZOC influence while conversely smaller units would actually prove 'soft'er than Mr. Tiller's current "soft ZOC" mod. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist given the spirit of this thread to reach beyond Richard's initial offerings.

Re., the choices and in order of personal preference,

1) A leader must be present for a melee. (optional)

As the option currently reads, it is too broad / generic to be endorsed - i.e., it might be rewritten to read, <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A combat unit may ONLY initiate (offensive) melee if it begins its turn within the <b>command control range</b> of its brigade officer and/or stacked with its immediate superior division / corps / army leader. Exceptions: Wagons, abandoned arty, and leaders may be melee'd without command qualification.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

2) Daytime FA increase for units moving greater than 3/4 the MP allowance.
(optional)

On the right track, yes. Perhaps, Mr. Tiller would consider adding a <u>mandatory</u> Morale Check to higher fatigue units that wish to force march / "at the double-quick?"

3) A unit cannot fire on Unit A and then melee unit B in the same turn.

A modest if reasonable offering to the tactical model.

4) Allow arty to change facing direction and fire during the same turn.

Yes, Perhaps, "Retire by prolongue" - as an option - would be offered as its complement. Individual arty crews would be my first choice herein, however.

5) Give the A/I the ability to move and fire in stacks.

I have to agree with LG Whitehead's assertion: the AI is indeed hopeless - w/o a more <i>compelling</i> overhaul.

The AI stacking 'enhancement' option misses the bulls-eye.

An AI that predictably and forever fails to observe (and properly defend) its own *&^%$#@!! flanks is simply untenable.

I would sincerely recommend that Mr. Tiller exert a more determined - all or nothing approach - to revamping his AI, otherwise, he would serve his wargaming fan base more immediately with increasing focus on historically-based game play features.

Which brings me full circle to my first choice, requiring units to be "in command" when conducting [offensive] melee. A historically refined command and control routine that finally acknowledges "friendly FOG" will serve to rightly tame the otherwise 200 foot thingie, so towering if omnipresent over the current rage of battlefields. ==Denny

Fd. Lt. Shoeless
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)
1st Tenn Provisional Army

<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>

At this point we're looking for relatively easy to program enhancements.

I've ruled out the leader to melee option, due to the good point that regimental leaders can carry that burden.

However, I too liked the mounted cavalry skirmish idea, so I'm adding that as an option. That will allow cav to scout with a lower risk to being jumped and shot to pieces.

The A/I can still provide a good game if the scn is designed specifically for the A/I. I've done that with at least 5 scns with my new title. Coming Soon!

So I haven't given up on the A/I. Obviousily, it doesn't work well with a long meeting engagement scn.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shoeless</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Possible future enhancements. It always good to introduce
one or two with each title.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">My compliments to a promising thread, gentlemen (and gentle ladies) . . . as well as some excellent suggestions posted - although "One or two" (new additions) per/game might will be viewed by the grumpier, aging grognards among as more akin to some odious variation on Mr. Tiller's Chinese Water Torture theme, especially given the current pc state-of-the-art, eh?

No matter, I tip my kepi to Brig. Gen. Alynn's rejoinder (to Maj. Gen. R.A. Weir's "Mounted Skirmisher" request) to wit., <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But the most useful option of all that has been mentioned in this thread is by far the mounted cavaly skirmishers idea. I've long wanted an option like this. Cavalry was rarely ambushed during the war the way we can do in the games - ambushes yes, but not with high casualties. IRL a cavalry unit would get ambushed and turn and run, losing only a handful of men in most cases. In our games, they get "stuck" by the ZOC and can be blasted to pieces for at least 20 minutes. A one hex cavalry skirmisher option - with no increased movement penalty!!! - would be much more realistic than what we have now (aka blindness).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Couldn't have said it better, Gen. Alynn!

Before moving ahead to the thread proper, I'd offer my own two francs for getting rid of - once and forever - the exceedingly generic, dumbed-down "zero" movement ZOC effect. This routine is a longstanding oxymoron to the notion of "tactical" warfare in any century. In other words, a ZOC should only prove the equivalent of a unit's immediate fire power. Large units would exert a more surpressing ZOC influence while conversely smaller units would actually prove 'soft'er than Mr. Tiller's current "soft ZOC" mod. Sorry, but I just couldn't resist given the spirit of this thread to reach beyond Richard's initial offerings.

Re., the choices and in order of personal preference,

1) A leader must be present for a melee. (optional)

As the option currently reads, it is too broad / generic to be endorsed - i.e., it might be rewritten to read, <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A combat unit may ONLY initiate (offensive) melee if it begins its turn within the <b>command control range</b> of its brigade officer and/or stacked with its immediate superior division / corps / army leader. Exceptions: Wagons, abandoned arty, and leaders may be melee'd without command qualification.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

2) Daytime FA increase for units moving greater than 3/4 the MP allowance.
(optional)

On the right track, yes. Perhaps, Mr. Tiller would consider adding a <u>mandatory</u> Morale Check to higher fatigue units that wish to force march / "at the double-quick?"

3) A unit cannot fire on Unit A and then melee unit B in the same turn.

A modest if reasonable offering to the tactical model.

4) Allow arty to change facing direction and fire during the same turn.

Yes, Perhaps, "Retire by prolongue" - as an option - would be offered as its complement. Individual arty crews would be my first choice herein, however.

5) Give the A/I the ability to move and fire in stacks.

I have to agree with LG Whitehead's assertion: the AI is indeed hopeless - w/o a more <i>compelling</i> overhaul.

The AI stacking 'enhancement' option misses the bulls-eye.

An AI that predictably and forever fails to observe (and properly defend) its own *&^%$#@!! flanks is simply untenable.

I would sincerely recommend that Mr. Tiller exert a more determined - all or nothing approach - to revamping his AI, otherwise, he would serve his wargaming fan base more immediately with increasing focus on historically-based game play features.

Which brings me full circle to my first choice, requiring units to be "in command" when conducting [offensive] melee. A historically refined command and control routine that finally acknowledges "friendly FOG" will serve to rightly tame the otherwise 200 foot thingie, so towering if omnipresent over the current rage of battlefields. ==Denny

Fd. Lt. Shoeless
Secretary of the Cabinet, CSA (Retired)
1st Tenn Provisional Army

<center><i>From a certain point onward there is no turning back. That is the point that must be reached.</i> --F. Kafka</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Capt. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"