Walt Dortch wrote:
This is a great topic and gets to the formidable challenges of game and scenario design. I recall heated debates about whether a game was a true simulation or not based on whether various tweaks have been employed to make it "balanced." Oversimplifying, it is like the toggle switch that can be used to make an AI smarter or dumber which essentially has no historical basis. I tend to land with the folks who favor creating a simulation (and game engine) to the extent it reflects historical unit and leader quality, performance (experience) and condition at the start of a battle. These same things could/should be modified in a Game Title based on performance at a particular battle for scenarios that occur after that battle and the WDS games reflect this to an extent (but inconsistently) between Titles in the Series (see Blakes review of the Overland Title in his Chair and a Game Video’s, Episode 1 )
It can be argued that some of the Optional Rules are balancing rules and I point to the Quality Modifiers as examples of those as compared to other Optional Rules like the Alternate Unit Release Rule which is side neutral. They add (compound actually) to the “stock game” higher average quality of CSA v. UA units which already make CSA units stand longer, rally from rout more often, etc.
Another way to balance games which is used in the WDS games is through “what if” scenario’s which expressly acknowledge (or should in the scenario descriptions which are generally woefully lacking).
Yet another way is to “fix units” to balance a battle like Antietam which would/should always end in a major defeat for the CSA if the UA had had a Sherman or Grant in command that day. I can’t recall if there is an Antietam What If scenario that unlocks all the on-board UA units but who would play it if there was? What CSA fan boy would argue their superior quality troops could carry that day?
So back to Shiloh. I don’t disagree with Blake or Mitch that the UA AotT should be rated higher than the CSA AotM. I don’t disagree with Paul that there were (or can be) reasons to adjust unit quality based on special circumstances such as having had a batch of bad clams for dinner the night before the battle. The point is how does a designer attempt to simulate the initial CSA success in that battle? In my old board game days, one way was to use a special Combat Results Table that depicted the element of surprise for several turns, but not the whole game. Think about this. Did the bold CSA flank attack at Chancellorsville roll up the 11th Corps because it was comprised of higher quality troops or because the CSA deployed superior force in a surprise attack? It seems a number of psychological factors could be accommodated in the existing engine by adding modifiers to existing “routines” such as a minis modifier for fatigue for defenders in melee (presently assessed only against attackers) and for disrupted defending units (I don’t understand why this is presently absent).
Part of the myth of the Civil War is the old 1 Reb can whip 10 Yanks business which often creeps into discussions such as occurring here. Correct me if I am wrong but IMO the primary CSA advantage in the ACW at its outset, and this only in the East was superior CSA leadership. Lee “won” the Seven Days Battle because Maclellan lost heart. Lee won Fredericksburg because the UA attacked positions men of any quality could not take. Proved yet again at Gettysburg. At Gettysburg, UA Officers demonstrated they could pour piss out of a boot without instructions.
Closing, my primary point is that the perfect game engine would allow for temporary scenario specific things like a surprise attack CRT, modifications to morale of units or an entire army based on certain circumstances (the rout of the Old Guard at Waterloo for example) that are presently outside of the scope of the game engine. But tweaks can be made (I think so anyway without being a coder) within the existing engine such as described above. Nonetheless, as I think we all agree, there is no better “simulation” of ACW battles than the WDS ACW games. And here’s to hoping the WDS people keep digging into the heretofore mysterious and impenetrable code to make further improvements to its engine.
A lot there to consider. Some of my thoughts follow.
Optional Rules on Quality Modifier.There are two separate rules and they're generally checked in most games. I consider them both good rules that assist in reflecting reality. Regrettably, the introduction of changes proposed for WDS v4.03 will negate the benefits from the Optional Melee Modifier Rule as the emphasis will shift much more to raw numbers. That proposed change will significantly effect the units with smaller numbers (usually the CSA) and greatly unbalance any attacker/defender scenarios. That is why I said earlier:
"The introduction of any changes without suitable regard to historical reality and how it operates in the games can fatally flaw the various scenarios as they were originally designed, affecting likely outcomes and victory levels."
Shiloh (and Chancellorsville)Yes, I also recall that some boardgames were able to resolve the problem of 'surprise' by various methods. I was looking around to find some examples earlier but failed to find any. I suspect some resolved it through using a special CRT as you suggest, others fiddled with the quality of units (like WDS Shiloh I did notice in my search that some rated 25th Missouri higher than most [it can't be based upon prior reputation but must be due to 'performance on the day']), and others (I recall Shiloh in 'Across 5 Aprils') resolved the problem via variance in chits (which provided the ability to use units on the board).
Such methods are not available in the WDS games so the original designers had to use what they had available to them. In terms of Chancellorsville, the full battle is rarely played. It's another one that is near impossible for the CSA to win if you have opposing players of similar ability (win/losses recorded in the DoR reflect that to some degree). I'm unaware of any adjustment to unit quality in that title to try to reflect 'surprise', the result being the CSA usually loses a battle they historically won.
OverallYes, it would be nice if tweaks could be made to better reflect surprise. Like you I'm unsure how difficult this would be to achieve. I suspect very difficult as you would need to make specific changes for one or two scenarios within the standard parameters for the overall game engine. Much easier for a board game to achieve as they generally focus on one battle or upon closely related ones (Across 5 Aprils excepted but how you could introduce a chit system to the games is beyond me). So, the Shiloh designer did what he had to do within the limits of game engine. The surprise, poor health, and poor decisions were abstracted into the scenario by fiddling with the unit quality. The Union usually wins so the scenario works as a feasible simulation.
The only other way to simulate surprise and some other factors is through custom designed scenarios (like Blake's ones) with a referee. Then you don't generally know where the enemy is located, their numbers, their quality or who many of the leaders are on the battlefield. You just know that the enemy is there ... somewhere.
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
