American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

1. Is this policy too harsh?

Not at all. Loyalty to your 'side' has always been a key component of the Club. Indeed, it is part of the philosophy of the Club (Rule 1.1.3).

2. Our purpose is to provide a fun gaming home for wargamers and not to prioritize points and rank over gaming and enjoyable camaraderie. By penalizing those wishing to change up their gaming experience, are we going too far?

No, not going too far at all. Otherwise, why join the Club? You can get opponents via WDS if you don't want to prioritise 'points and ranks over gaming'.

Other parts of the Rules encourage battles between Members of opposing sides by allocating twice as many OBD points for a 'Battle' compared with a 'Maneuver'.
I play both types and have played using forces from both sides. There is nothing to penalise me if I have a Battle as the Union against the Union Member playing as Confederates.

3.What are some good reasons we should leave the rules as they are?

This affects not just Rule 2.3.1 but threatens the very essence of the Club. I don't want to spend my time training and helping out Members from my side only to see them become a turncoat and join the other side.

If you change that Rule you need to reconsider changing a lot of others too (e.g. 'philosophy' Rules, OBD point allocation) as why even bother having 'sides' or making any distinction between Battles and Maneuvers?

4. What are some good reasons we might consider changing them?

None, although I would like the Rules to discourage such transfers even more.

5. Is the loss of points and rank fair or should members be allowed to switch and maintain past achievements?

Yes, it's more than fair. If you let people just swap sides at a whim then, as I said above, why even bother having 'sides' or making any distinction between Battles and Maneuvers?
Also, some 'past achievements' are specific to a side and even an Army. Do you want a Confederate displaying a Yankee medal, or a Yankee displaying a Confederate one? Some of the current medals are specific to serving a particular side and the General Orders (both sides) encourage a distinction between the sides and service to one's own side.

6. Should members be allowed to switch sides more than once after X number of years so they can enjoy gaming both sides of the Civil War at their pleasure?

No. Never!
There is nothing in the Rules that stops anyone from enjoying a game playing either side of the War. Indeed, just this month I have completed two games; playing one as the Union and one as the Confederacy. I thoroughly enjoyed both games although the third wasn't so enjoyable as I received a thorough walloping. C'est la guerrre!

In short, I think it is an horrific idea.
I certainly don't want anyone in the CSA displaying a Union Sharpshooter Medal ("recognizes those amongst us who crush the rebels repeatedly on the field of battle") or a Sherman Medal (for "determined Union officers who are continuously gaming and wearing out the rebels").

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

The club used to be very Union versus Confederate oriented and was supposedly founded to be that way versus being a ladder type club. We had fun telling stories and tossing around challenges. But then some members took offense to it and the club changed. Some of the side effects of those changes was that the forums practically died plus Union versus Confederate lost some of its zeal. We certainly have some members who will only play with one side, and some members who have a ‘us vs them’ gaming attitude, but there are now a lot of us who don’t really care which side that we play and actually prefer to switch it up.

I am probably the only member who has been a General on both sides of the club. I started as a Reb in the BG days, and once I had played every BG scenario as a Reb commander, I had no choice but to change sides to play it from the Union side without being penalized (it was fun to start over again as a LT and fight those who expected a rookie to be on the other end of the email). They changed the rules afterwards to the current rules. That was a great change but now even more so, it is no longer important as to which side that you belong. That now only matters in the tournaments. I don’t even feel that there is a need to change sides in the club anymore (other than joining friendships on the other side or enjoying the challenge of starting from the bottom again) as you can play as anything that you want without penalty except for same side against same side.

- I think that the Cabinet needs to be resolute as to what this club wants to be so that it can lead the club in that direction. I am not saying that they are not resolute now, just that they must be resolute before making changes because there can be unforeseen side effects.
- I think that it is entirely appropriate to be reduced in rank and points when changing sides of the club (if you change sides, you should earn your way back up).
- In the current club atmosphere, there is no need to penalize games of same side versus same side.
- If a member wants to start over every year by changing sides, why not let them? As long as the admin isn’t overwhelming, I don’t see what it hurts just as I don’t see what they would gain by doing so. There should be a time restriction but very argumentative as to what it should be.
- The part that scares me is the ability of the GinC on either side to disapprove a transfer request. Agreed that there can be good reasons for a disapproval but there should be some guardrails so that a GinC can’t just disapprove because they aren’t in favor of the policy (e.g. appeal is allowed to the Cabinet).

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Very good arguments have made both for and against changing the current rules regarding transfers.

I'll take the third option: It doesn't matter to me.

_________________
General 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

Like General Simms I started in the Club almost at it's begging back in the BG days, and I was a General in the Rebel Army. I had a very good record as a Reb. For various reasons I decided to switch Armies mostly for the challenge. I lost my record and points and had to claw my way back up. It was fun, although a few players found it odd that a Field Lt. could fight so well. Lol

I didn't mind having to start over, I enjoyed the challenge. It seems appropriate to me, but, if it is driving members away then we should change it. We need every member that we have.

Perhaps the Cabinet can also meet and discuss ways of recruiting new members.

Whatever direction the Cabinet decides to take, I will support it.

_________________
General Kyle FitzMaurice
Commander Army of the Tennessee
USA

"The issue at hand is whether or not the ACWGC needs to review our rules concerning members transferring from one side of the Club to the other. Right now the Club Rules allow a member to switch sides if they hold at least the rank of Colonel. The member will forfeit all of their points upon transfer."

I do not believe the ACWGC needs to review the rules concerning transfers. I have no information or knowledge that this presents as an issue, certainly within the AoT. The rules as they stand allow of transfer should a member, for whatever reason, so wish, and on the basis......'that if it ain't broken'. The existing rules are not, to my mind, overly harsh and yet maintain some semblance of control and the need for a conscious decision by a member to make the change with the resulting forfeiture, as noted.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Major General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee





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

Leave things as they are, we are a club based on Rebs and Yanks. If some Rebs want to desert the colours and transfer over to being a blue bellied cowardly Yankie dog (no offence meant Ned), then they should pay the price of their treachery. However, if a yank has a crisis of conscience, then they should transfer over to the armies of the Confederacy at the minimum rank of Colonel. I have been a Reb since I first played the Terrible Swift Sword back in 1980, and the thought of changing sides is completely abhorrent. I will admit however (and this must not go further) I have played as the Union on a number of occasions, and it did not induce any form of mental delusion, nor any sudden attraction to drinking non alcoholic beverages. Now I have an unfinished bottle of New Zealand red wine to deal with, and a sword covered in very sticky Yankie blood which needs cleaning.

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

This thread is fun I will join in ...

It does seem a bit harsh to me to be knocked down to Lieutenant if you have a high rank on the other side. Maybe Colonel is better? Don't know. I imagine most of us don't play the games to accrue OBD points anyway, so it's probably not a huge deal. And as has been pointed out, we are all free to play (and encouraged to play in some cases when new folks join) a maneuver in which the more experienced player typically plays as the opposite side they are used to. If the rule is intended to keep most people on the side they joined, I think it's fine as-is. Doesn't stop any Rebs from playing as the Yanks from time to time if they want to. Thanks all for the comments!

_________________
Major Gen'l Tim Isgro
3rd Div / II Corps / ANV

I heartly concur with your viewpoint sir. I have too, on more than one occasion, been required to don the 'Blue' and God spare us from any delusions and most particularly from a prohibionist outlook. I would however suggest that a New Zealand is best enjoyed as a white wine, specifically from the Marlborough region of that country, a splendid crisp and fruity concoction of the finest grape the country may provide.

_________________
Karl McEntegart
Major General
Officer Commanding
Army of Tennessee





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

New Zealand does produce some good reds but, for a good red from the southern hemisphere, I recommend Australia. I don't know what the prices are like in the U.S.A. but here I can buy the same wines I bought in the 1980s for the same, sometimes less, cost today. Almost every red from the Barossa in South Australia is good, some are great.

[For the record, I have donned the Blue twice this month and several times in the past. However, my heart and my loyalty shall remain with the Confederacy.]

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

Any Red wine any day! I am going to have to try an Australian Barossa!

Anyone ever try a Red Zinfandel? It is in fact made and they are very rich in flavor. Most people think a Zinfandel is only a rose but no it comes in red too and many are fabulous!

Lately I have taken to Portuguese wines, but, I am biased as I do speak the language.

_________________
General Kyle FitzMaurice
Commander Army of the Tennessee
USA