American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:34 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
I do play with that option on Ned. And I hear you about the risk of moving in front of little or big stacks of guns but I moved a Cavalry across the field of file of a 2 gun section in a recent game and it fired 3 times as I did so and took out nearly 20 troopers. The option of a player to use sections spread out or stacked is IMO a huge tactical advantage. I see some players using 1 guns sections as scouts and observers many hexes away from their "parent" battery and see nothing historical about that. Again the primary point is that it should be the same for both sides in a given scenario.

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Walt Dortch wrote:
Quaama wrote:
Walt Dortch wrote:
I agree with Mike that in terms of game balance, and in the absence of any general historical difference between the artillery organizations that, deploying guns by sections to only one side conveys a tactical advantage on the digital battlefield.

Blake took up this very point in his game balance narrative in Episode 1 of his Battle of the Rappahannock AAR video. Stated simply more maneuver pieces conveys an advantage. I suspect we would all agree quickly that being able to break down cavalry units into squadrons would convey an advantage to the side that could do so.

I don't get General Simms' comment that losing a gun in 2 gun section is more harmful than losing 1 gun in a 6 gun battery as long as artillery is fired as as a stack not by individual units within a stack.

In any case, I think this is a matter of personal choice in what scenario's to play or not and I won't be playing any more scenarios where this artillery imbalance exists.


The evidence is there that the Confederate artillery deployed in a different manner from the Union. That has been shown through the historical examples (more can be provided if necessary) provided earlier that show Confederate artillery would be deployed in sections in a more frequent manner than the Union (only one Union example could be identified after an exhaustive search despite numerous accounts of artillery deployment in battles).
Deployment in sections occurred on the Confederate side simply because there were many more instances where a battery would contain different gun types. Such instances were far less common for the Union and even when it occurred in that army there seemed a far greater reluctance to deploy in sections rather than as a battery, as shown by the almost complete absence of any examples to show such a thing.
The scenarios seem to accurately reflect the historical reality of the diverse gun types in the CSA batteries and the opposite situation in the USA batteries. Ensuring that different gun types are represented means that CSA batteries will more frequently be divided into sections and permit deployment in that manner should their commander so desire. That reflects historical reality. Paul, my point relates to whether CSA artillery was organized by batteries, not sections and my take is the former. I get your point that because of different gun types CSA deployments of guns in a battery was by type. So along a front of say 150 yards the guns of similar types were grouped I get that. The deeper historical question is how often did the CSA break up batteries into gun type sections and send them all over the battlefield miles apart which can be done in the game by a side which has its guns appearing as sections?

As regards to the comment 'that losing a gun in 2 gun section is more harmful than losing 1 gun in a 6 gun battery as long as artillery is fired as as a stack not by individual units within a stack' I would surmise that it is a matter of probability. It is covered to some degree in the Advanced Training section at the ACWGC campus, here (https://blakeacwgc.wixsite.com/trainingacademygrads/mil-202). Simply put, there is a statistical benefit to firing as a large stack as opposed to firing separately and a one-gun battery/section is very ineffective. [I seem to recall that Ned, canny wargamer that he is, has used this principle against me, reducing my artillery sections to one or two guns and then leaving them alone to focus upon larger sections/batteries. It then provides him with an even greater artillery advantage, although it's rarely a good idea for the CSA to enage in gun duels with the Union.] I agree--my point was and is that a hex with 6 guns in it fires the same (if all fired at once) whether the fire is from one 6 gun unit or 3, 2-gun units. Whether the guns are in sections or batteries is irrelevant.



So far as general organisation goes then yes, batteries. Deployment on the battlefield is a different matter and in terms of the wargame then that is what needs to be considered.

"Miles apart"? I would say never, I've never heard of it. If that were deemed to be necessary that gun would probably be allocated to a different command. I could perceive an instance where a battery may be fortunate to have a Whitworth and want to place it quite some distance from the other guns in the battery. A suitable man would be selected to go with the Whitworth and its crew while the other guns stayed with their normal commander but no, not miles apart.

Rather than not engaging in scenarios where one army has sections and the other only has batteries, I think it may be best to introduce a house rule rather than not play the scenarios as that would rule out a lot of interesting and balanaced ones. A house rule could enforce reality upon an opponent who chose to scatter sections of guns all over the battlefield. [Although why they would do seems odd to me due to command and control reasons and those mentioned by Ned.] The house rule could be something like:
Artillery sections belonging to the same battery can only be deployed (i.e. unlimbered) within a distance no farther than the command distance of their immediate commander.
If it's divisional artillery this still gives a wargame commander quite a bit of flexibility in deployment (about 1,000 yards [6 hexes plus 1 for the commander],generally more so than in reality) yet should remove the possibility of the bizarre placement of guns from the same battery being miles apart.

How often did the CSA guns in sections rather than as batteries?
I can't give you an exact figure I'm sorry, that would take quite an intensive study [a useful task for a student interested in the Civil War wanting to write a thesis?].
Anecdotally, they did it quite often from my reading - sections on different sides of a road, some behind some in front but not directly behind (and on a different elevation), some at one end of a brigade and some at the other etc. All to take advantage of the differing gun types and the different terrain as well as lines of sight/crossfire. Most seemed to be within a few hundred yards of each other - the games' range for a brigade commander being 500 yards [3 hexes plus 1 for the commander].

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


Last edited by Quaama on Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Walt Dortch wrote:
I do play with that option on Ned. And I hear you about the risk of moving in front of little or big stacks of guns but I moved a Cavalry across the field of file of a 2 gun section in a recent game and it fired 3 times as I did so and took out nearly 20 troopers. The option of a player to use sections spread out or stacked is IMO a huge tactical advantage. I see some players using 1 guns sections as scouts and observers many hexes away from their "parent" battery and see nothing historical about that. Again the primary point is that it should be the same for both sides in a given scenario.


Wow, you seem very unlucky there to say the least. The odds of one unit firing opportunity fire twice, even at short range, is low. I'd say less than 1:4 but a better mathematician than I may be able to give a more precise figure. To fire three times at the same unit is much lower, say 1:8. Also, the longer the range the less the chance. To suffer heavy casualties as well is really stretching the laws of probability, possible but most unlikely. The only thing that would have made such a thing more likely [but not hugely so] would have been if it was a very large cavalry unit and the artillery was of high quality (Optional Rule 'Quality Fire Modifiers'). Deselecting the Optional Rule 'Optional Fire Results' can also lead to some extreme situations but not on an ongoing and frequent basis.

Scouting with artillery! LOL! I'd like someone to do that against me; I'd be out collecting up those 30 VPs for each gun lickety-split.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
Indeed, I felt damned unlucky. You are correct the multiple fire was at large cavalry unit aimed at closing with the 1 gun section posted to block a large UA column. And, the guns did pay the price and it worth noting that such a delay tactic would very rarely ever be done with a battery sized unit. In a recent game I encountered deliberately limbered sections posted to prevent the passing of cavalry down a road through forested terrain. Cavalry is held up, melee disrupts the cavalry of course and I have rarely witnessed limbered guns being destroyed in a melee

As to scouting and observing with artillery, such tactics rely on locating the guns where the views are grand and unobstructed and typically but not always use horse artillery which can outrun any tormenter....

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 565
Location: Ireland
[quote="Quaama"][quote="Walt Dortch"][quote="Quaama"][quote="Walt Dortch"]I agree with Mike that in terms of game balance, and in the absence of any general historical difference between the artillery organizations that, deploying guns by sections to only one side conveys a tactical advantage on the digital battlefield.

"Rather than not engaging in scenarios where one army has sections and the other only has batteries, I think it may be best to introduce a house rule rather than not play the scenarios as that would rule out a lot of interesting and balanaced ones. A house rule could enforce reality upon an opponent who chose to scatter sections of guns all over the battlefield. [Although why they would do seems odd to me due to command and control reasons and those mentioned by Ned.] The house rule could be something like:
Artillery sections belonging to the same battery can only be deployed (i.e. unlimbered) within a distance no farther than the command distance of their immediate commander.
If it's divisional artillery this still gives a wargame commander quite a bit of flexibility in deployment (about 1,000 yards [6 hexes plus 1 for the commander],generally more so than in reality) yet should remove the possibility of the bizarre placement of guns from the same battery being miles apart."


Gentlemen, I have followed this discussion with deep interest since the start but refrained from commenting as my knowledge, historical & otherwise of such matters, pales in comparison to the wealth and depth of yours. Having nothing of any substance to add I adopted the position of keeping my mouth shut and merely following the thread. However, Paul's comment and suggestion, as above, regarding a 'House Rule' dragged me out of the depths and necessitated my late coming observations, for what they're worth.

A 'House Rule', of any description, enforcing historical & tactical reality upon an opponent is to my mind to be applauded and most particularly if we play for the historical recreation element of our games as opposed to solely harvesting OBD points. The included point about Command & Control is also a very apt, not solely in respect of the point under discussion but also I suggest in the wider aspect of game play. Excellent discussion and much enjoyed, my thanks.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 am
Posts: 408
Location: Australia
I tend to agree with Walt on this one - but there is no real reason to get mixed up around the engine necessarily representing reality. The engine represents the designer's take on it.

You're already playing on a hex grid, technically you've entered into a dimension of abstraction already; frankly I doubt the idea of needing to have different sections for each gun type is actually consistent with the scale of abstraction already in place. What that means is, how did these units get used in reality. A bit of a case in point- how do you want to categorise what fits into a hex? Is this the same for a hex in combat? Or is there some abstraction present in either of those situations?

Reference wise, it is all over the documentation provided by the current US Army through their Staff Ride publications that a gun, the distance between guns hub to hub as 14 yards, meaning a 6 gun battery had a frontage of 100 yards. Ok sure, the default game scale is 125 yards ... but you are starting at a ratio of 6 guns to 100 yards. Batteries being either 4 or 6 guns - and the CSA side using 4 gun batteries- forget the types of guns for a sec as being a red herring to -technically 125 yards and assuming the same alignment = 7.5 guns total. And .... aside from I don't know if you can assume the same formation between portions of different batteries as a default -essentially what you have is a drawn out request to rationalise providing an ahistorical (according to the US Army -of the current day ..not the US Army of 1861 - 65, mind you) stacking advantage as a house rule. It'd be better to probably go with 7 guns -that way it forces the 2nd arty unit in a hex to have incurred some losses ... but.. ok there is a slightly different problem now.

And that is - ok, can you stack infantry into those hexes? You've already maxxed out the frontage -so where exactly are these infantrymen supposed to be shooting from? Rhetorical question. Google 2nd ull Run Staff ride- you'll bring up a pdf mind you all of the Staff Ride pdfs appear to have been made on an assembly line -so this part about the arty is in all of them. It's on page 36 of the 2nd Bull Run on though.


---

But I mean set aside the math for a second, as yeh what you are outlining, how it correlates to how it actually happened is more or less the key in working out the approach a designer used with the engine. Love the angle about limbered artillery to prevent mounted movement. I used to play that way- but you know that as back when it involved plastic army men and sandboxes. :facepalm:

_________________
~Retired~


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
S Trauth wrote:
[1] I tend to agree with Walt on this one - but there is no real reason to get mixed up around the engine necessarily representing reality. The engine represents the designer's take on it.

You're already playing on a hex grid, technically you've entered into a dimension of abstraction already; frankly I doubt the idea of needing to have different sections for each gun type is actually consistent with the scale of abstraction already in place. What that means is, how did these units get used in reality. A bit of a case in point- how do you want to categorise what fits into a hex? Is this the same for a hex in combat? Or is there some abstraction present in either of those situations?

[2] Reference wise, it is all over the documentation provided by the current US Army through their Staff Ride publications that a gun, the distance between guns hub to hub as 14 yards, meaning a 6 gun battery had a frontage of 100 yards. Ok sure, the default game scale is 125 yards ... but you are starting at a ratio of 6 guns to 100 yards. Batteries being either 4 or 6 guns - and the CSA side using 4 gun batteries- forget the types of guns for a sec as being a red herring to -technically 125 yards and assuming the same alignment = 7.5 guns total. And .... aside from I don't know if you can assume the same formation between portions of different batteries as a default -essentially what you have is a drawn out request to rationalise providing an ahistorical (according to the US Army -of the current day ..not the US Army of 1861 - 65, mind you) stacking advantage as a house rule. It'd be better to probably go with 7 guns -that way it forces the 2nd arty unit in a hex to have incurred some losses ... but.. ok there is a slightly different problem now.

[3] And that is - ok, can you stack infantry into those hexes? You've already maxxed out the frontage -so where exactly are these infantrymen supposed to be shooting from? Rhetorical question. Google 2nd ull Run Staff ride- you'll bring up a pdf mind you all of the Staff Ride pdfs appear to have been made on an assembly line -so this part about the arty is in all of them. It's on page 36 of the 2nd Bull Run on though.


---

But I mean set aside the math for a second, as yeh what you are outlining, how it correlates to how it actually happened is more or less the key in working out the approach a designer used with the engine. Love the angle about limbered artillery to prevent mounted movement. I used to play that way- but you know that as back when it involved plastic army men and sandboxes. :facepalm:


1. I don't understand, agree in regards to what? Not playing scenarios because one side has sections and the other batteries? Having Union batteries divided into sections to operate separately which didn't really occur, or (as far as I can find) ever occur where the battery had just one gun type? Further abstracting the situation by 'determining' one gun type to represent two or more types and then having it then represent the entire battery?

2. Most opponents I play generally have a house rule limiting guns to eight per hex and some six per hex at all times, either is fine with me (although I personally see six as more realistic). When calculated out a manual would permit a maximum of eight so that would be assuming ideal conditions.

3. Now that's an excellent point, "where exactly are these infantrymen supposed to be shooting from?" I generally avoid stacking infantry with artillery where possible [various reasons], but should I even be allowed to consider it? Where are the infantry shooting from? Are they in front of their own guns, risking life and limb? Are they behind the guns, firing through their own artillery (their smoke, movement of crew, stacked explosives, horses) making the somewhat already dangerous role of an artilleryman a readily fatal one?
I can't believe I never thought of this. In miniatures the problem doesn't arise as the rules prevent artillery firing through any friendly unit unless the artillery is on a higher elevation (howitzers are sometimes granted an exemption to that rule). I'll have to go and 'dig out' boardgames to see how they dealt with it [it's been several years since I played a tactical Civil War boardgame and I can't recall how it was handled by various games, 'Across 5 Aprils' may offer some answers].
Where are they shooting from? Anyone?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:43 am
Posts: 565
Location: Ireland
"I tend to agree with Walt on this one - but there is no real reason to get mixed up around the engine necessarily representing reality. The engine represents the designer's take on it.

And that is - ok, can you stack infantry into those hexes? You've already maxxed out the frontage -so where exactly are these infantrymen supposed to be shooting from? Rhetorical question. Google 2nd ull Run Staff ride- you'll bring up a pdf mind you all of the Staff Ride pdfs appear to have been made on an assembly line -so this part about the arty is in all of them. It's on page 36 of the 2nd Bull Run on though."

Two excellent points above I believe, as quoted, and again I offer my '2 cents' worth.

The point referring to reality and the engine representing the designers take on it is absolutely correct I believe. In any of the games we have played through the years, be they board, tabletop or even PC games they work and operate within the designers/authors concept of (i) attempting to recreate a realistic situation and (ii) ensuring a fun playable game, because that is what it is and meant to be, I believe. We have all seen, read and most likely purchased/played games with rules we loved and hated and gamers have always dealt with this situation in various ways, accepting it, house ruling it and even modifying it to a point where it bears little relationship to the original. The purpose of all the above waffle is purely that while the rules represent the designers/authors take on it, we as gamers, I propose, should attempt to ensure we use the game units as indeed they might have been historically used, maneuvered/deployed etc. or indeed our understanding of such. There is also I suggest an element of whether we are playing the game/s for the experience of them or of winning them, at all costs.

As Paul stated, and an excellent point in respect of stacking infantry in a hex with a deployed artillery battery and indeed one I personally gave little consideration to within these games. Although as remarked, it would be a rarity to see such happening particularly on a tabletop. Many board games as we know strictly regulate what may be allowed deploy in and (strictly) punish those who ignore such rules. Whilst we are all conversant with the stacking limitations within our games vis a vis the number of artillerymen per gun counting against the hex stacking limit, it does not however appear to take account of the guns themselves or indeed caissons, ammunition etc. and the physical space required for such and especially as referred to, within an area of 125 yards. It may therefore very well be considered that to deploy a 'formed' infantry unit of 2xx/3xx/4xx men in a hex with a deployed battery is indeed 'unrealistic' and/or ahistorical.

Another 'House Rule' rears it's ugly head and as doubtless we have all discovered previously it gets to a point where the game rules played bear little resemblance to the original. To conclude, I suggest it is a 'game', to be played, enjoyed and even savoured, and if we change it/modify it and tinker with it incessantly we do not necessarily increase the 'reality' but merely bring it to a point of unplayability. A case in point being two tabletop wargame rules sets, way back in the day, well regarded and widely played, Empire Napoleonics and Command Decision WWII. We should therefore, I believe, attempt to create our own reality within our games using the engine provided but always with an eye to historical precedence.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Brigadier General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee



Image


Make my enemy brave and strong, so that if defeated, I will not be ashamed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Karl McEntegart wrote:
...

And that is - ok, can you stack infantry into those hexes? You've already maxxed out the frontage -so where exactly are these infantrymen supposed to be shooting from? Rhetorical question. Google 2nd ull Run Staff ride- you'll bring up a pdf mind you all of the Staff Ride pdfs appear to have been made on an assembly line -so this part about the arty is in all of them. It's on page 36 of the 2nd Bull Run on though."

...

As Paul stated, and an excellent point in respect of stacking infantry in a hex with a deployed artillery battery and indeed one I personally gave little consideration to within these games. Although as remarked, it would be a rarity to see such happening particularly on a tabletop. Many board games as we know strictly regulate what may be allowed deploy in and (strictly) punish those who ignore such rules. Whilst we are all conversant with the stacking limitations within our games vis a vis the number of artillerymen per gun counting against the hex stacking limit, it does not however appear to take account of the guns themselves or indeed caissons, ammunition etc. and the physical space required for such and especially as referred to, within an area of 125 yards. It may therefore very well be considered that to deploy a 'formed' infantry unit of 2xx/3xx/4xx men in a hex with a deployed battery is indeed 'unrealistic' and/or ahistorical.

Another 'House Rule' rears it's ugly head and as doubtless we have all discovered previously it gets to a point where the game rules played bear little resemblance to the original. To conclude, I suggest it is a 'game', to be played, enjoyed and even savoured, and if we change it/modify it and tinker with it incessantly we do not necessarily increase the 'reality' but merely bring it to a point of unplayability. A case in point being two tabletop wargame rules sets, way back in the day, well regarded and widely played, Empire Napoleonics and Command Decision WWII. We should therefore, I believe, attempt to create our own reality within our games using the engine provided but always with an eye to historical precedence.


A house rule seems problematic in this instance unless you go to the extreme of 'infantry can not stack with artillery'. If you don't go to that extreme you then have to decide how many men may enter a hex when artillery are present (if one gun then a max of XXX men, if 2 guns then a max of XXX men, etc). Very messy.

I looked at several tactical boardgames to see how they dealt with the issue. One 'abstracted out artillery entirely by including them within a larger unit's strength, one used areas not hexes, and two prescribed a maximum of one artillery counter per hex (in hexes that appeared to range from 150-200 yards for the two different games [no scale given]).
One, Across 5 Aprils, limited stacking to a maximum of two counters per hex so you could have 2 artillery counters, or two infantry counters, or one of each (plus other variations when cavalry is considered). Hexes were stated as representing 300 yards across, infantry counters are (generally) brigades, and artillery counters are stated as representing "several batteries (4-6 guns apiece)" of various gun types. So it would appear that the battles from this game are probably suffering from the same issue of 'where are they firing from' that appears in our games. Although it's about five years since I played those battles I recall that this anomaly did not seem to affect gameplay or lead to wildly ahistorical results.

So, I suspect that 'Where are they firing from?' is something we have just have to live with unless players decide to adopt an extreme house rule or a complicated one. The anaomaly created by 'overstacking' a hex with both infantry and artillery does not seem to severely affect gameplay or lead to wildly ahistorical results (such as having up to 20 guns in a hex). So, I will simply 'live with it' and battle on.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 126 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group