American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

WDS released the 4.03 update for Campaign Antietam and the free Demo game today. You can find the updates in the Support section here:

https://wargameds.com/pages/updates-civil-war-battles

Using the Campaign Antietam game, I created a test scenario using the 1st Bull Run OB file and did a check of the new VPs for Leader Casualties equation comparing the 4.02 version with the newer 4.03 and here are the results:

Captured Values
GB Irvin McDowell (Army Leader type)
ver. 4.02
64 VPs

vers. 4.03
48 VPs
----------------------------
BG Daniel Tyler (Division Leader type)
ver. 4.02
24VPs

ver. 4.03
4VPs
----------------------------
Col E D Keyes (Brigade Leader type)
ver. 4.02
14 VPs

ver. 4.03
2 VPs

So its quite a change. The Division leader change was a bit too much as far as I am concerned. The 4.03 value should be 8-10 I would think.

I hope that the Napoleonic Battles series sees a similar reduction! <THUMBSUP>

_________________


Optional Rules I Use in WDS ACW Games:
(by column from left to right)
Column 1: All ON except for Man. Def. Fire; Column 2: All ON except for Alt Fixed Unit Rel.; Column 3: All ON except for Art.Capt. & Prop.Op.Fire

That's a surprise.

I haven't downloaded it yet [I'm still transferring v4.02 games to a new computer purchased a month ago]. There looks to be many changes looking at the Changelog, much more than for v4.02 (over two pages for v4.03 compared with about three-quarters of a page for v4.02).

I'm curious about the "Division leader change" you mentioned. Where VP victory values changed? Did the base values for the leader casualties change or were your recorded values a result of changes mentioned in the Changelog? That is either:
Reduced the victory point multiplier for killed leaders to *1.25 and for captured leaders to *1.5); or
Adjusted Victory points awarded for replacement leaders or second in command leaders are now halved.


Some other changes seem odd. For example:
Adjusted so that Artillery can not unlimber within forests or villages unless they have a clear (non-Forest or Village) hex in any direction; and
Adjusted so that Artillery in forests/villages will not benefit form a defensive hex bonus versus ranged attacks if the attack is directed through a clear hex side.
Another odd one (there are a few) was "Adjusted Leader movement. Lone Leaders can’t approach enemy units within 4 hexes and within LOS if they aren't accompanied by friendly units, or if friendly units are closer." [Although illegal under Club Rule 6.1.1.2 I did find it amusing in one battle when an opponent frequently sent lonesome officers far in advance of his units. My boys ventured out to scoop them up for some very easy VPs before returning to their lines.]

The big question - Why? Bug fixes are mostly self-explanatory but what is the reason for many of the other changes?

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

"Some other changes seem odd. For example:
Adjusted so that Artillery can not unlimber within forests or villages unless they have a clear (non-Forest or Village) hex in any direction; and
Adjusted so that Artillery in forests/villages will not benefit form a defensive hex bonus versus ranged attacks if the attack is directed through a clear hex side.
Another odd one (there are a few) was "Adjusted Leader movement. Lone Leaders can’t approach enemy units within 4 hexes and within LOS if they aren't accompanied by friendly units, or if friendly units are closer." [Although illegal under Club Rule 6.1.1.2 I did find it amusing in one battle when an opponent frequently sent lonesome officers far in advance of his units. My boys ventured out to scoop them up for some very easy VPs before returning to their lines.]" (quote from Paul's posting)

The new rules on artillery in cover hexes make sense. They would have unlimbered at the EDGE of the obstruction, whether town, woods, orchard and not IN the obstruction.

The Lone Leader movement is also in the Napoleonic series in a different way. The Nap series has Threat Zones for combat units, with Cavalry having a higher value for that and the leader cannot move into a Threat Zone in certain cases where the value of the Threat Zone is a certain amount. I have yet to figure out the golden number.

It means that if you have units on the front line in the ACW series you cannot move a LONE leader to join them. The leader has to have moved WITH them to get up to the line. Some may not like this but we are getting used to it in the Napoleonic series. I just think that there are less small units to use in that roll in the ACW series but just use one of the Provost Guard or small cavalry units to do the job.

This will be hard for some players to get used to in that many of us like to move our leaders last. Means that if you suddenly find a stack of combat units adjacent to enemy units that made contact with them in the previous turn that their leader cannot join them without an escort. Could get rather difficult in some cases.

_________________


Optional Rules I Use in WDS ACW Games:
(by column from left to right)
Column 1: All ON except for Man. Def. Fire; Column 2: All ON except for Alt Fixed Unit Rel.; Column 3: All ON except for Art.Capt. & Prop.Op.Fire

Thanks for the reply. I have since found that WDS has posted some explanatory notes that can be found here (https://wargameds.com/blogs/news/civil-war-battles-4-03).

I still find the artillery change odd and it will take some time to get used to and will be problematic in scenarios where there is a lot of forest. An example would be Chickamauga (there are many others where forest hexes abound). Until now it would be possible to place an artillery unit on a forest/hill hex (surrounded by lower elevation forest hexes) and have it fire upon enemy in visible hexes beyond adjacent hexes. Presumably such a thing will not now be possible (because all adjacent hexes are forest and it will be unable to unlimber). However, it would seem possible that other units can fire upon that unlimbered artillery. Should it be fired upon, and decrewed, will this cause a 'bug' because currently whenever an artillery unit is 'decrewed' it unlimbers? What if the forest hex also has a road?

The lonesome leader unit change will also be difficult to adjust to because, as you said, "many of us like to move our leaders last". I was one of those who did that because if you moved the leader with a unit, especially a large unit, there was always the chance that they may become a casualty as a result of opportunity fire. Also, I may not have wanted to move the leader with that unit because I wished him to move to another unit or hex for various reasons (e.g. to rally another unit, to maintain leader in command radius, etc.).
If the leader had no friendly units between him and the enemy then the new rule would make more sense but if he's moving behind his own line that would seem a natural thing to do. I suspect this change may slightly favour the CSA player as you generally have smaller units (less likely to draw opportunity fire) so in some instances one such unit can be used as an escort for the leader. Seems silly for a brigade commander to have to have an escort of a few hundred men when moving behind his own line, or to join it. After all, even senior officers didn't like to ride around with too many others near them lest they drew fire as the story below (from General Longstreet's memoirs, Battle of Sharpsburg [that's Antietam to Yankees]) attests.

"During the lull, after the rencounter of Walker's, Hill's, and Hood's divisions against Mansfield's last fight, General Lee and myself, riding together under the crest of General D. H. Hill's part of the line, were joined by the latter. We were presently called to the crest to observe movements going on in the Union lines. The two former dismounted and walked to the crest; General Hill, a little out of strength and thinking a single horseman not likely to draw the enemy's fire, rode. As we reached the crest I asked him to ride a little apart, as he would likely draw fire upon the group. While viewing the field a puff of white smoke was seen to burst from a cannon's mouth about a mile off. I remarked, "There is a shot for General Hill," and, looking towards him, saw his horse drop on his knees. Both forelegs were cut off just below the knees. The dropping forward of the poor animal so elevated his croup that it was not an easy matter for one not an expert horseman to dismount à la militaire. To add to the dilemma, there was a rubber coat with other wraps strapped to the cantle of the saddle. Failing in his attempt to dismount, I suggested that he throw his leg forward over the pommel. This gave him easy and graceful dismount. This was the third horse shot under him during the day, and the shot was one of the best I ever witnessed. An equally good one was made by a Confederate at Yorktown. An officer of the Topographical Engineers walked into the open, in front of our lines, fixed his plane table and seated himself to make a map of the Confederate works. A non-commissioned officer, without orders, adjusted his gun, carefully aimed it, and fired. At the report of the gun all eyes were turned to see the occasion of it, and then to observe the object, when the shell was seen to explode as if in the hands of the officer. It had been dropped squarely upon the drawing-table, and Lieutenant Wagner was mortally wounded.[66] Of the first shot, Major Alfred A. Woodhull, under date of June 8, 1886, wrote,—

"On the 17th of September, 1862, I was standing in Weed's battery, whose position is correctly given in the map, when a man on, I think, a gray horse, appeared about a mile in front of us, and footmen were recognized near. Captain Weed, who was a remarkable artillerist, himself sighted and fired the gun at the horse, which was struck."
Of this shot, Captain A. B. More, of Richmond, Virginia, wrote, under date of June 16, 1886,—

"The Howitzers have always been proud of that shot, and, thinking it would interest you, I write to say that it was fired by Corporal Holzburton, of the Second Company, Richmond Howitzers, from a ten-pound Parrott."

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

And you do have a good point as there were hills within woods that had no trees (ie. "bald knob") but frankly I never cared for the idea of seeing over trees unless its a very big difference in the elevations. I forget if you can see from "Round Top" (Big Round Top) on the Gettysburg map. That point was obscured by trees during the battle and as of today.

The same issue permeates the Vietnam Squad Battles game where you can see over the jungle canopy and into jungle hexes. Fat chance of that actually happening! The fronds of the palm trees made visibility into the location virtualy impossible even if you over the "hex" with a helicopter.

_________________


Optional Rules I Use in WDS ACW Games:
(by column from left to right)
Column 1: All ON except for Man. Def. Fire; Column 2: All ON except for Alt Fixed Unit Rel.; Column 3: All ON except for Art.Capt. & Prop.Op.Fire

This page is more readable than the changelog. https://wargameds.com/blogs/news/civil-war-battles-4-03

I've posted my feedback in WDS Forum and am waiting for a response and solution from WDS, even though it's been a week since I posted... https://forum.wargameds.com/viewtopic.php?t=1202

The 4.03 update looks overall good, with quite a few changes to player actions and rules, but the melee modifiers bother me. I expect you will find it is great first, because the majority of this update is great indeed; but then, you may realize how hard to win a melee and an offensive now. The 4.03 update is generally to my taste, but I don't know what's driving these massive updates and worry that updates might become too far off for my taste one day.

The 4.03 update is even more substantial than 4.00, if the 4k graphics update of 4.00 is ignored. I recommend all advanced players read the changelog or the page before playing 4.03. The following comments are just based on the literal meaning of the update, I haven't had time to actually test it yet. Welcome to more actual tests in games.

UPDATED

1. LoS

The new LoS is a notable update. It matters and is far better than before.




2. Range Tool (Shift + Left Click) & display Reachable Hexes (Hotkey 0) / Graphic

Finally, finally, there is a ruler in this video game! I don't have to count the hexes one by one over and over again.

TESTED

BTW, when I was testing, I noticed that the toolbar was rolled back to the previous version, and the 2D graphics looked better. Good job.

However,
* Displaying Reachable Hexes (Hotkey 0) and Range Tool (Shift + Left Click) are very useful tools. But they only support hotkey and can't be called in the toolbar or menu. I hope the two very useful tools can be added to toolbar in the future.
* The way of using Range Tool (Shift + Left Click) is more trouble than I thoughts. When you measure multiple hexes, you have to click the left button repeatedly instead of directly displaying the hex where the mouse is located. Besides, it would be better if a straight line can be displayed between the centers of two hexes to roughly estimate the LoS.

3. Many enhancements in usability category

Don't want to list them all, but it looks good.

4. VPs adjustments as mentioned

I don't care too much about this. Even if leader VPs OR are unchecked, leaders themselves are always important. But this change may affect the balance of some existing scenarios.

5. Leader movement limitation



It's mostly reasonable. If your front line can block the enemy's LoS, it seems that the general can move freely in the rear.

But still have problems. I care about that or if friendly units are closer. I'm not sure what it means and it may not make sense. Besides, if the enemy is on high ground and your front line can't hold off the enemy LoS, your generals won't move freely alone in the rear. It doesn't make sense.

TESTED

I think it is not a big problem as I've thought. I simply tested it on weekends. If the hex is closer to your friendly units than the enemy, the leader can enter the hex freely. It has solved most of my concerns. Although, the original text of this update is unclear, or even wrong.

Details and a pic are in the following post.

6. New Alt-move path-finding algorithm

It is claimed to be smarter

7. Artillery

It seems reasonable and limits cannon misuse. But I'm not sure how the artillery in the battlefield like Shiloh and Wildness is used.



Captured Artillery OR becomes re-worthy of being considered for checking for me.

8. Adjustment to melee modifiers

Any fire/melee/morale modifiers can be very important. -10%/-20% is a modifier that cannot be ignored.



I'm not sure what "strength" and "defender’s strength" mean. Is it original strength or modified strength? Is the whole defense stacking or are just the units able to fire? Anyway, basically, generally speaking, the infantry that initiates close combat always has an advantage in terms of strength but rarely more than twice the size in key combats, so it is usually -10%.

This modifier basically cancels out or even may negatively modify the +10% modifier from the attacker not firing before attacking. (Both modifiers from not firing.) Does this rule seem to encourage players to cheat the defenders of Op fire through unreasonable actions??

In fact, the rules are completely biased towards the defensive side. In the existing rules, the defender already has a very, very advantage reflected in the melee calculation/resolution -- The attacker's modified strength should be at least 1.67 times that of the defender's to have an advantage.

Additionally, it appears to encourage the attacker to attack the flanks (attacking from outside the defender's firing range). But in fact, as long as you have partners of attacking units exposed to the defender's range, the power of your combined attack will be greatly reduced. It doesn't make sense. I am even a supporter of that attacking from multiple directions should deserve extra bonus.

Overall, it is interesting at first glance, but a bad rule for me. Not as good as the existing pure pre-melee defensive fire rules. Since the game requires all attacking units to advance post-combat, there has been an unreasonable limit on the number of units that can participate in an attack, which is dissatisfying and unreasonable. Attackers are already at a disadvantage compared to other games. Now add this rule, which disrupts the existing balance further. I have a negative view of the effect of this rule after its introduction. I'm skeptical that this change was adequately tested.


9. Many other changes...

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

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

A good overview. Thank-you Ashdoll.

One comment in particular stands out for me, "I don't know what's driving these massive updates". It concerns me as well because I do not think it is an endeavour to improve simulation. I suspect it is part of a 'one size fits all' approach where mechanics are being standardised to apply to all wargames flying the WDS flag. If so, this is undesirable in my view as it gradually removes the unique simulation value that was originally built in to the different game series. For example, the 'Threat Zone' for cavalry in Napoleonic games mentioned by Bill Peters earlier. Highly appropriate for the Napoleonic era and a feature that is incoprorated into some miniature rules. Anyone who has attended a horse race and stood at the rail will know that not only can you hear the horses' galloping hooves become louder as they approach but you can feel it through the ground - and that's usually with a dozen or less mounted beasts on the move. Having an entire regiment, brigade or more moving at speed must have meant the ground shook. However, the advent of more advanced weaponry, along with terrain differences mean that this is a less appropriate rule for the American Civil War battles. Although I like to think that even in later eras it was still a sight to behold, such as the charge of the 4th Australian Light Horse at Beershaba in 1917.


Some comments on matters you listed:
1 & 2 - mostly bells and whistles of little interest to me, I hope that their introduction does not complicate gameplay or result in any new 'bugs'
3 - of concern, I hope that due consideration has been made to the values in achieving a good balance. I would like to see some adjustments such as reducing the 60VPs per gun in the Gettysburg title;
4 - an odd rule, I don't like it;
5 - whenever I 'clicked and dragged a unit and it ended up somewhere other than my intended destination (which happened at least once during most games) I put it down to 'the [mis]fortunes of war' and lived with it as an instance of a lower graded officer not following his orders [sometimes this resulted in an inadvertant breach of an artillery stacking limit house rule and I would have to inform my opponent of my tardiness];
6 - of concern as mentioned previously [I don't play with Optional Rule Artillery Capture, a stupid and unrealistic rule in its application];
7 - I'd overlooked this one, that's a very large modifier and, yes, for an important melee I'd be doing my utmost to ensure that the defenders fired opportunity fire before I committed to a melee. Why this new modifier should equal, or be twice that of, the 10% modifier for the attacker not firing makes no sense to me. This is a big advantage to the defender in any scenario. As you, correctly, say there is already sufficient advantage to the defender built into the games, which is appropriate and correct for simulating historical reality; and
8 - mostly bells and whistles although some seem to be of concern, three mentioned below.

Enhancement 'Adjusted Arrival Check so probability is increased by 1% for each turn a unit does not arrive up to an additional 10% chance'. I'm not too keen on this one. I've lost battles due to the existing rule on reinforcements due to their overly tardy arrival. I'm not sure but I think that if variable reinforcements are due to arrive at a hex and the unit/grouping that is listed first fails to arrive then all subsequent ones are also delayed. A matter that has caused me grief in the past and multiplying it by ten seems excessive.
Enhancement 'Added carnage view option'. What is "carnage view"?
Enhancement 'Added green to contour color selection'. LOL, thanks for nothing. Given my colour-blindness it is already difficult enough to discern contours and other things on the map. However, I clearly see those blue uniforms, so I know what to shoot at.

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

Example of how -10%/-20% (new melee modifier) will affect combat. Win rate estimates are from Melee Calculator in Library. I have some other estimation methods. Due to the rounding calculation method of the game, there may be errors, but in common cases, it should be less than 1%. FYI.



Example 1: (The original balanced point. Both sides have a chance of around 50% to win.)

750 men attack 450 men, without other modifiers. The attacker has a chance of around 49% to win. (Original balanced point)

750 men attack 450 men, with the new -10% modifier. The attacker has a chance of around 41% to win. (New)
833 men attack 450 men, with the new -10% modifier. The attacker has a chance of around 49% to win. (New balanced point)

Example 2: (The low edge case of the new modifier. Attacker = Defender)

500 men attack 500 men, without other modifiers. The attacker has a chance of around 19% to win. (Original)

500 men attack 500 men, with the new -20% modifier. The attacker has a chance of around 10% to win. (New)
501 men attack 500 men, with the new -10% modifier. The attacker has a chance of around 14% to win. (Please note this weird jump. Just because the attacker has one more man, the precondition of the new modifier changes, and the winning rate suddenly jumps)

Example 3: (The high edge case of the new modifier. Half Attacker = Defender)

900 men attack 450 men, without other modifiers. The attacker has a chance of around 62% to win. (Original)

900 men attack 450 men, with the new -10% modifier. The attacker has a chance of around 55% to win. (New)
901 men attack 450 men, with the new -0% modifier. The attacker has a chance of around 62% to win. (Please note this weird jump. Just because the attacker has one more man, the precondition of the new modifier is no longer met, and the winning rate suddenly jumps)

-------------------------------------------------

It looks bad and odd and leads me to believe this is a bad update added to the existing melee mechanics. It works in a weird way, and will definitely make the existing unbalanced status in the game quo further unbalanced.

Besides...



I want to say NO to the new game style caused by this new modifier. If I am the attacker side, I may repeatedly move units in front of the enemy to attract Op fire before melee. Oh, almost forgot. If I remember correctly, I can even repeatedly select units to join melee and then cancel again and again, to cheat Op fire. And if I am the defender side, I will turn Inf. Auto Defensive Fire to Min in many cases. It is so weird!

I haven't actually played 4.03 yet. But I really, really worry that this new modifier will be very bad.


===========================



You can try to change Settings>>Map Contours>>Colors/Width in the game program, to get better graphics for you. But basically, there's very little that can be adjusted. It's a pity that ACW doesn't have a graphics mod like Mod Ferraris Napoleon in Nap. It would be interesting if someone could make a graphics mod with Civil War map style.

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

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

Hmmm, as suspected, a big advantage to the defender with the new modifier. Also, a big advantage to the side with more men in raw numbers, usually the Union. In many scenarios it will be very difficult for the Confederates to amass sufficient men to avoid a negative 20% modifier when the defenders have not fired opportunity fire as there is often more than 500 Yankees in a hex. To date you would have to rely upon the Quality Melee Modifier to enable a reasonable chance for the CSA to win the melee. If you can't get your leader into the melee (because of the new limitation on leader movement) you effectively have almost no chance of winning many melees.
A big boo and hiss to those changes. What historical research supports such a change? I'd like to see if there is any justification for it, I suspect none, or very little, as the results listed by Ashdoll do not 'feel right' to me from a simulation aspect.

"It looks bad and odd and leads me to believe this is a bad update added to the existing melee mechanics. It works in a weird way, and will definitely make the existing unbalanced status in the game quo further unbalanced."
It looks bad because it is bad. It will definitely create a significant imbalance in many scenarios. Clearly not a change made to enhance historical simulation, so I wonder why it was made at all.

I'll discuss in some greater depth in the CSA-only forum when I have the chance as these changes adversely impact upon quite a few things detailed in our War College and elsewhere.


As for any colour changes, I think that's just bad luck for me. It does surprise me that wargame companies do not consider colour-blindness in their design as it affects almost 10% of males who comprise over 95% of their customers. Some attention is now given to this in boardgames but not a lot.

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

Clarification to Lone Leaders Movement Limitation



Yes, Price'sRaid. I tested it in 4.03 and you are right. I have no problem with this rule and it seems reasonable for me now. However... My first language is not English. The original text of this rule seems to be unclear and even expresses a completely wrong meaning, isn't it?





------



Mihalik2, I also noticed what you said about approaching the enemy from outside the LoS. It's an unavoidable compromise. Simply disabling it would result in the moving side knowing there are enemies nearby, but the non-moving side knowing nothing. (Similar to the design of skirmisher zone, where even if you don't have enough MPs to pay the additional skirmisher cost, you can still move into the hex at the last step. The manual explains this.

I'm not sure if you considered and tested the presence of enemy units and friendly units at the same time(as above). If you think this kind of leader scouting is absolutely unacceptable, here is another reason why this house rule is needed for you.

But for me, under the new rules, the abuse of leaders as scouts has been well restricted, this house rule is dispensable.


---

BTW, when I was testing, I noticed that the toolbar was rolled back to the previous version, and the 2D graphics looked better. Good job.

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

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