American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

The debates here the last few days over reconstitution of forces and the "audience" for HPS games has gotten me thinking.

*watches 93.71% of the club flee for the hills*

Anyway, one of the little "problems" that we have, is that right now, there are almost no options for Computerized ACW games. Currently there are three I know of, and soon to be a fourth.

1) TS/HPS games
2) the Take Command Games
3) the one from Matrix off the "Crown of Glory" Engine
4) Coming soom from AGEOD, a strategic game off of the "Birth of America" engine.

Now, when you look at that list, you'll notice something. The TS/HPS games are the only ones that are remotely within their genre. The others are all good games, but they are doing different things. The TC games are RT, and the other two are strategic.

Thus, if someone wants to play a turn based tactical computer game of the American Civil War, they have no choice but to play TS/HPS (unless they want to go back and play the old Civil War Generals series, or even older games).

The "problem" with that, is that people will come in with very different expectations as to what they want in a game. Do they want the rough equivalent to the first release of Avalon Hill's "Gettysburg", or do they want "Terrible Swift Sword"? If there were more games in the "turn based tactical" genre, then we might have games more suited for the "gamers" and others more suited for the hard core simulationists.

That's one of the underlying problems with the club right now, is that we mix those two types (and the various gradations in between) into one club. So, we have some people who want to take the basic games we have, and pile house rules upon them, in an attempt to make them "more historical", while we have others who just want to fire up the game and just start moving pieces around.

The chaos that is caused when those sorts meet "in the field" is legendary. The gamer is suddenly presented with a bewildering set of "special rules", everything from command restrictions, to when you can, or cannot fire artillery, to night rules, to "embedded melee" (though that is pushed more in the NWC). His frustration is palpable. On the other hand, the simulationist is constantly ready to tear his hair out when he sees that his opponant is missing or sidestepping the "rules of the game".

Who is right? Both and neither. However, what that eventually leads to is the rise of cliques within the club, as gamers don't want anything to do with simulationists, and simulationists don't want anything to do with gamers (this is an exaggeration, but not that big of one).

This is hardly anything new. I've been in the wargaming hobby since 1978 or so, and this is the same debate that went on between proponants of Afrika Korps and The Campaign for North Africa. However, because of the lack of titles, the two camps are forced to coexist here. In the "glory" days of Board Wargaming, you could play AH Gettysburg, or Devil's Den or Terrible Swift Sword. Today though, if you want to play Gettysburg (at least on the computer)? Your options are BG Gettysburg or HPS Gettysburg.

I'm not in a position to solve this obviously, but it is something for us to be aware of as we think about where our club is, and where it is going.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

I have also been watching this debate but I take a different view of what it indicates about who plays these games. I think by their very nature when someone chooses to play a "Gettysburg" game they have expectactions to its "historical" accuracy. When someone purchases an HPS Campaign series game they expect it to reporduce combat during the Civil War error. The only question of debate is how much. If they strictly wanted a "game" then they could have gone to www.itsyourturn.com and played seemingly endless numbers of games for free.

At one time "war gamers" represented a large enough body of customers to demand and receive a lot of attention. We supported Avalon Hill and SPI plus numberous small companies that turned out two or three games per month. The advent of cheap computers and a wide range of game types have seriously cut into our numbers and as reflected by the number of companies producing hex based games our market share. Those who look to these games for fun games with an historical flavor have long since been drawn off to the much more interactive (and user friendly) RTS games.

What is left still messing with board games on a computer are the fustrated historic gamers looking for the ultimate simulation.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

I agree that everyone here (or nearly so) wants a level of historical accuracy. That said though, that said, I still think that the basic point stands. On the one extreme, are those who want games with a veneer of historical accuracy (or maybe "flavor", and on the other extreme are those who feel that with the introduction of 17 pages of house rules you might have something resembling an acceptable simulation.

Our club, by the nature of it tries to shoehorn those extremes, as well as the various gradations in between, into one group, and it isn't always a comfortable fit.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />I agree that everyone here (or nearly so) wants a level of historical accuracy. That said though, that said, I still think that the basic point stands. On the one extreme, are those who want games with a veneer of historical accuracy (or maybe "flavor", and on the other extreme are those who feel that with the introduction of 17 pages of house rules you might have something resembling an acceptable simulation.

Our club, by the nature of it tries to shoehorn those extremes, as well as the various gradations in between, into one group, and it isn't always a comfortable fit.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am not a proponent of "house rules" except to correct obvious errors in the game. But I also know that the power of the current generation of PC's has hardly been touched in converting these "board" games to computer games. I want the so called "house rules" incorporated into the game where they belong. My ideal is a regiment should be as accurately simulated as todays flight simulators do airplanes. They should move, fight, and interact in an histoical way without input from the player. Of course this is the ideal, where command structures, formations and units are simulated within an historical context.

That said I know it isn't going to happen unless two or three hundred thousand gamers decide historical games are the in thing and join us. In the mean time I try to come up with simpler solutions that I think HPS could include with minimum changes to their current game engine.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Imagine what it was like for T. J. Jackson to get his foot cavalry to an objective in the Valley. Imagine being R. E. Lee managing the counter attack on the Federal incursion across the Rappahannock in the Wilderness. Imagine U. S. Grant sitting under a tree whittling with his knife in the same Wilderness ordering the Army of the Potomac to fling itself on the Army of Northern Virginia.

What we enjoy as wargames on the computer are as far from the stress of actual command as one can possibly get. There is a bit of the fog of war but very little friction. We get to micro-manage down to battery & regimental level. We move every darn piece at the same uniform rate down the pike (no foot cavalry for us). Nobody drops out of the column to pick cherries or apples or talk with the local damsels. Everybody takes the correct fork in the road. Everybody starts on time. No straggling to contend with.

The most historical of wargames would have you sit on a chair in a bare room & have people come in every now & then & report how things are going on a simulated battlefield. You would issue orders & hope 1) the courier arrived promptly, if at all, 2) the orders were transmitted in a way that resembles your intent, 3) the subordinate commander has the presence of mind to understand the orders & the gumption to carry them out.

They might lead you blindfolded out to the map occasionally & lift your blindfold enough for you to peer at a small segment of a map which might resemble the battlefield & might not.

The most historical wargame would have you completely unfamiliar with the territory & supply you with erroneous, outdated maps. It would supply you with information that was also outdated or flat out wrong. You wouldn't have a clue to the precise location of your Corps & Divisions never mind where the heck this or that Brigade decided to wander off on some path where they weren't supposed to go because a) the Brigade commander was drunk & didn't bother to read the map, b)...

I think you are beginning to catch my drift.

What I want in a wargame is an attempt to 'suspend disbelief' enough for me to pretend I am U. S. Grant. What I don't want is an opponent who uses the inability of the game to match reality in order to take an advantage. I don't need a large set of 'house rules' to tell me when this is happening. I use the acid test: if the play is gamey then it ain't historical. Period!

You all know what I mean. The uber-combined arms stack of infantry & artillery that attacks in column straight at one regiment in the line, for example. There are multiple other examples I could cite. What is gamey? If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck then it is probably a duck.

I have been fortunate to have found a few opponents who game the way I do. It is a wonder to behold. Neither uses the artificiality & shortcomings of the game to advantage. They smack me righteously.
We game together in the 'historical' spirit in spite of the lack of correspondence of the game to reality. None of us would like to participate in a real Civil War battle (if you did then I would seriously question your sanity) but we really have fun pretending to live out what we have read about.

I don't know if this little rant of mine helps but I think it is good from time to time to look at things differently. I also think it is good to take the time to thank those who work very hard for little reward to bring us the games we use to suspend our disbelief successfully enough we can hardly wait to play the next turn.

Col. Dale Henken
First Divsion
XVI Corps
Army Of The Tennessee

General McClellan,

Excellent insights. Thank you for sharing.

I'm also intrigued by Col. Henken's ideas on uber-fog-of-war! The closest we come is the Tessier-style games (if you don't know what I'm talking about, touch base with U.S. General Ken Miller). I think it's great issuing orders then sitting back and wondering why the *%&@ you sent them to is either a) dawdling or b) heading off in a different direction entirely from the one you had in mind!

The only 'problem' with that system is we still get to see the replay of our opponent's turn. In my mind, we would be told (at best) what map the battle was being fought on -- with no units on the map whatsoever. It would be up to us, as players, to report up and down the line each turn what, if anything, we encountered.

I've discussed this with General Miller. I think he sees my point, but even <i>he </i>doesn't have the time or inclination to try to pull something like that off.

I often think I might be willing to try, but only on a very small scale, such as a Wilson's Creek battle -- with players representing brigade commanders!

Again, though, this is a great thread.


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Lieutenant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army

Very interesting topic. I believe that everyone likes different things about wargames. As a result you tend to associate with people that generally like the same things. I don't see it as a problem but as you mentioned Gary we must be aware of it and not set things up for one particular group (a constant battle in my days). Perhaps you see this as happening. For the club to be successful I think we need to have a broad approach and try to make it enjoyable for as many types as possible. The club structure and rules should reflect this. I find that the club has evolved, over the years, into a complex structure with a certain rigidity that is not letting new people enjoy the experience as much as they could. I always looked at the club as a community with the resulting 'cliques' being formed however there needs to be enough latitude and interest to allow for many different types of people and games to be played.

Personally I enjoy more the strategic and operational aspects of the games. Liking the bigger maps and scenarios that allow for maneuver and for principles of speed and concentration to shine. The tactical battle is a small but important part of the big picture. The deciding factor is who has the most and can sustain the momentum. For this reason house rules have not been a major interest for me or the difference between single or multiphase play. For those who want to have 17 to 100 pages of house rules and enjoy that aspect then go ahead and enjoy. However they must not be imposed.

For this reason I think the club has to be for all types. A place not to dictate what or how you will play but a place were people who like wargames to come together and find others of like interests.

I think that the TS/HPS titles have a strong interest,are great games, and have sustained the club. How many other Civil War games have come and gone and have not lasted long enough to be included in the Club? The continued improvements and titles have sustained this club. Without them the club would have disappeared a long time ago.

I am amazed that we still get 20-30 people joining every month. However only a couple continue on and participate. Are we doing anything wrong? That is the most serious issue I think. No new members no sustainability.

Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

I think the keys on this are the following:

1 - What Gary describes and others support on types of gamers is largely true.

2 - It has "always" been that way.

3 - That folks had more fun within the Club "back then".

4 - The "comfortable fit" or commonality we all share is the love of games AND history. It's not just one or the other, it is some variations of both.

So let's look at changes - both why folks think that "back then" is more fun than now, and what needs to be done goinbg forward.

As Pierre points out, we get lots of fish sniffing at the bait, several nibbles, but only hook a very small number. I attribute that fallout rate within that cycle of events to the pain of trying to find your niche within the Club and games. Takes too long and is too painful, with peoples small amount of time to devote here...


General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/

I have to agree with Kennon when it concerns "house rules". One of the reasons I have largely abandoned board war games was the 200 pages of rules that had to be read and understood in order to play the game.

With HPS, boot it up and you are playing. Even 17 pages of 'house rules' are a nightmare to me, and I just couldn't be bothered with them. If it isn't hard wired into the simulation, forget them.

Ok, a gentleman's agreement not to have infantry in colum melee attack, but even that had some historical precedence. But pages and pages of house rules. No, no, no. That is why I have jumped to computer games, although I still "dabble" with Strategic Board War games since this niche isn't adequately covered yet in computer games.