American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I am a huge fan of the John Tiller ACW games, and have been ever since I purchased BG2: Gettysburg in 1997. I know there are many members of the ACWGC who have directly and indirectly contributed to giving us the WDS ACW system that we currently enjoy, with its huge library of games. I want to thank them up front for their time and effort. Playing the games has led me to read and learn more about the ACW, and that has been as fulfilling as the games themselves.

I have always been more interested in game systems that were more simulations than games. At the end of the day, a game must be playable, but I prefer a system where most of the design decisions are weighted towards an accurate simulation of the warfare being modeled over pure playability. Part of what I love about these games is that they are quite faithful simulations of ACW combat (at least as I understand it).

Still, no system is ever perfect, and like every wargamer, I have frequently thought about different aspects of the system and wondered if there were ways to ‘improve’ the model. So, in an effort to declutter my mind, I’m finally going to take the time to commit these thoughts to the forum here, and hopefully generate a little discussion.

My main thesis is that there are too many casualties in the games. This is a fairly common critique, and I can certainly live with the idea that perhaps many of the ‘casualties’ simply represent stragglers and individuals separated from their units in chaos of battle. Still, I think there are better ways to model ACW combat within the current WDS system, which will produce reasonable numbers of casualties and also give a historically accurate feel to combat. The main points of my idea are below. I will post each one in a separate thread for a more focused discussion.

1. The results of each individual fire combat are pretty reasonable. If there are too many casualties at the end of a battle, it is because individual combats are taking place for too long.
2. Individual combats are going on too long because the ammunition expenditure is too low and resupply too easy.
3. Individual combats are going on too long because units are not making enough morale checks and therefore not routing or becoming disrupted often enough.
4. Stacking rules are allowing too much firepower to be concentrated, elevating the number of casualties in any given combat.

Lt Col Matt Clausen
1st Brigade
3d Division
V Corps
Army of the Potomac

"My main thesis is that there are too many casualties in the games."

I've generally justified that in my own mind in that casualties do not just represent the killed/wounded/captured but also include 'those who have lost the will to fight'. They are no longer effective units and are therefore removed.

1. I suspect that this can often be attributed to the selection of Optional Rules, especially Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates and Rout Limiting. If they are deselected then the individual combats will not continue for too long. One side will either be too fatigued to be effective and/or will simply run away taking other units with them (routs were infectious). Still, I have yet to have an opponent who will agree with those Rules being unchecked so I simply live with it and justify it as stated above.

2. Playing as the CSA, you do not usually have copious amounts of ammunition. You cannot fire off everything available or you'll run out well before the end of a battle (especially so with artillery). I suspect it was very rare for an army to run out of small arms ammunition although sporadic shortages were not uncommon.

3. Yes, see 1 above.

4. Agreed.

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