Civil War Battles - Optional Rules Guide 1.3(4.04.1)

[BigDuke66]

Welcome gentlemen,
this "Guide" aims to achieve an environment that shifts the gameplay into realistic and historical correct lanes. The designers & programmers aimed for the most realistic and historical correct environment with the way the game works, its maps, OOBs, scenarios, leaders, etc. and so the player himself should not stop but continue on that road.

I also hope that a generally agreed set of optional rules, under the premise that you aim for what fits best to history, will help to find opponents faster as one can resort to these instead of trying to chose rules that are beneficial just for one side without taking a look at how it worked in real life.

While some rules sure lead to arguing because they themselves don't sound very realistic the overall effect & purpose still is realistic & historical correct and that is what's important.

***
Manual Defensive Fire - ON
It makes a PBEM much longer by adding several phases within each turn that need mail exchanges but this is necessary because phase gameplay handles defensive fire at 100% and not at 50% like in turn gameplay. In turn gameplay the defender is simply too weak to stop assaults but phase gameplay makes the defender much more likely to hold his position like it often happened in the Civil War. So the benefit it that the phases force a much more historical gameplay and with that historical results while some gamey tactics possible in turn gameplay are banned.


Optional Fire Results - ON
The long turns(20 minutes) would make the results of a firefight more predictable because even if some greater variations occur in some volleys they even out in the overall course of the firefight. Besides that unlike the Napoleonic times the muskets had evolved from a smoothbore flintlock muskets to a percussion lock rifled musket that fired a Minié ball, overall these modern muskets raised the precision but also the reliability and so that would make extreme high or low fire results less common.


Optional Melee Results - OFF
The melee in the “Civil War” series can be seen, unlike the Napoleon series, as the pure hand to hand combat or the attempt to conduct hand to hand combat, this comes from the fact that a unit that is disrupted can't do melee, and that holding back fire will only result in a 10% bonus in the melee. Now the hand to hand combat could produce a variety of outcomes because either it was conducted as the defender stayed to fight or it was not conducted because the defender retreated before actual hand to hand combat happened.
This demands a broader range of results what is achieved by turning this rule OFF. Also from a historical perspective the less predictable results would fit better because it can on one hand turn the player away from conducting melee in fear of a bad result but on the other hand also turn him towards melee in the hope of a good result.


Quality Fire Modifiers - ON
Quote from the user manual:
"The rule is meant to reflect the more efficient and higher rate of fire that higher quality units were capable of, and the corresponding lower rate of fire that lower quality units generally had. Units with experience were able to keep their guns unjammed during a hot battle, even to the point of having slightly smaller caliber bullets on hand to use after their guns had become clogged from burnt gunpowder. Lower quality units could not sustain high rates of fire due to their inexperience and poor training. They also had poor habits such as sometimes inadvertently firing their ramrods at the enemy and thus reducing their ability to fire. For the same reason, higher quality units were more proficient with the use of the bayonet and thus the justification for the Quality Melee Modifiers Optional Rule."
This justification sounds logic, although it does not count for artillery units.


Higher Fatigue Recovery Rates - ON
Quote from the user manual:
"In the game, Fatigue is used to represent combat fatigue, not the physical state of being winded. As such, the physical effects of combat fatigue are felt long term and do not wear off through simple rest. In many Civil War battles, the end of the battle was determined by fatigue and not by losses. In larger battles, commanders had to be careful to rotate their fighting units and not commit any one force too long to battle. Having higher Fatigue recovery rates would permit the unrealistic ability for commanders to rest units for short periods of time and then recommit them to battle, something that was not common historically."
While this is true the manual points out that the long term battle fatigue effects should also be simulated with fatigue and not only physical fatigue. The higher fatigue recovery depicted in the game can be seen as the recovery of physical & combat fatigue. This is because in the low range recovery is 5 times the normal, in the medium range 3 times normal and in the high range recovery is not affected at all by this rule. Here you can see that low intensity combat(short firefights or artillery fire) that leads to low or just medium fatigue(that can be seen as rather physical fatigue) can be recovered quick if the unit is moved out of the combat, if the unit is "overused"(what can happen quickly in assaults that suffer from infantry & artillery fire before engaging the defender in a melee) it will suffer from it in the way that the high fatigue recovery is conducted just with normal speed(simulating rather combat fatigue).
The higher fatigue recovery leads to several things, the player thinks twice before engaging a well set defensive line as the fatigue gained by such an assault is hard to recover as it likely reaches the high fatigue terrain. So no more "Oh lets see if I get away with my assault." because such an assaulter would be vulnerable to counter attacks that can lead to the assaulter being driven past his own starting position. If players now consider it a good idea to attack they will also consider to disengage sooner as not to drive their units into the high fatigue range unless the victory is within reach. Lastly players will rest their forces after such a disengagement as to regain combat power for either new assaults or to stabilize a defensive line.
The point about the higher fatigue recovery is that the current usual level of 5% day recovery is so low that is just doesn't matter and is not in any way considered by the players, so it's no factor at all. But with this optional rule it becomes a factor and has a positive effect on the way combat is conducted.


Victory Points for Leader Casualties - ON
Quote from the user manual:
"Every rule must be evaluated for what it motivates players to do. In this case, awarding points for leader casualties motivates the player to hide his leaders away from the battle to avoid losing Victory Points. For example, the player would never risk a good leader like Lee in the front line for fear of losing Victory Points and would keep him carefully hidden away in some safe place. Conversely, players would be motivated to focus their fire primarily on hexes containing leaders in hopes of picking up Victory Points. Having this rule as a default rule would skew the battles away from the historical outcomes in a way that would detract from the games as learning tools. Given the tactical nature of the battles, losing Lee for example is felt even in the absence of this rule since his replacement, and all replacements in the line of command, will generally be of lesser quality than the original leader and thus this will have a detrimental effect on the Confederate Army."
Besides this justification one must also consider that the endless throwing of replacement leaders(especially those on brigade level) into the battle to achieve combat bonus is also punished by this rule. Every leader that is lost is replaced by a replacement leader, even a replacement leader himself. This goes on endless but with this rule their loss will now cost VP. Besides this no VP for leader losses would ignore the long term effects of losing precious leaders in a campaign, what goes much beyond a single battle.


Rout Limiting - OFF
Quote from the user manual:
"The routing logic causes the rout of a single unit to sometimes spread to adjacent units and so forth in a way that can have a major effect on a force. Establishing the correct balance in this logic is a matter of interpretation. If you have a large rout occur, check the following factors that affect morale. Did your units have High Fatigue? Were they Low or Out of Ammo? Were they of mediocre quality? Was it a Night turn? Experience has shown that game players conduct their attacks with far greater aggressiveness than was ever shown on the actual battlefield. Historically, leaders were very cautious in the commitment of their troops and were careful not to keep units in battle for too long for fear they would not hold. If you have just had D quality units, low on ammo, with Fatigue level 900, rout during a Night turn, don't think that this was an unrealistic event."
So this forces the player to use his units in a "cautious" way like leaders did back in these times and not throw them careless at the enemy like it's World War 1. It also leads to the use of historical battle formations by leaving room between attack columns to have them not interfere each other. It may look a bit harsh at times but, besides the mentioned things, the player can take precautions to not let routing spread to other units by placing leaders as "speedbumps".
Overall the player should not be reassured of his line but rather made insecure by this rule to make him behave historical.


Density Fire Modifier - ON
Seems likely that a more stacked hex leaves less chance to miss the enemy, his ranks are too closed and hitting his formation may even cause multiple casualties.
One can argue that, with the stacking limit in the Civil War series at 1000, this rule already comes into play from 666 men and beyond. This means that already a "full" regiment of about 1000 suffers under this rule, especially with the more effective weapons of this time.
But there is no pass through effect(like in the Napoleonic series has) where firing on one unit would also lead to casualties in other units in that hex. And one must consider that the average size of a regiment in different battles throughout the Civil War was almost always far blow 1000. An example is given by "Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America" by Thomas Livermore, it concludes that federal regiments averaged 560 at Shiloh; 650 at Fair Oaks; 530 at Chancellorsville; and only 375 at Gettysburg. None of them would have been affected by this rule.
Overall the stacking should be punished, also from a game perspective as these monster stacks must come at a price or else they would be the rule and not the exception.


Night Movement Fatigue - ON
It sounds logic and is based on the PDT data entry and so may or may not be generally used, just like the scenario designer intended it.


Limited Artillery Unlimber - ON
This OR generally makes sense as a clear FoF what was wanted for the artillery. One can argue that if artillery is depicted in sections this should be OK because 2 guns could very well be placed in a such areas(forests or villages) even if the FoF ahead was not clear. But as then would have to use a house rule that really only 1 section is used in such a way per hex.


Mounted Cavalry Skirmishers - ON
One can very well imagine that cavalry would/could send some scouts ahead and so recon even when mounted. Also it plays out the role of cavalry as reconnaissance unit better. One must consider that the engine shows enemy’s only up to 2 hexes while on the move, this could lead to bumping into enemy units, what would be unrealistic in case of cavalry.


Higher Disrupted Movement - ON
The higher flexibility of Civil War formations compared to the Napoleonic time and their so called "skedaddle"(run away hurriedly) would likely allow a higher rate of movement even when disrupted. Besides that some Napoleonic games/scenario already use 2/3 disrupted movement and I don't see why it should be slower in the CW series.


Optional Melee Resolution - OFF(For Phase gameplay, works only in Turn gameplay)
As the gameplay is done in phases this rule has no effect. But even if it doesn't work in it should be turned off to prohibit any possibility of interference.


Alternate Fixed Unit Release - OFF
The standard line-of-sight release function seems enough and the possibility of surprises is kept. Players might actively seek to open lanes of advance to trigger the release of fixed units premature and without taking a risk of them being surprised, also because fixed units would work as some form of early warning radar as a release means that the enemy is within 5 hexes, all this is prohibited by turning this rule off.
Also a fixed unit will likely simulate a unit that is not ready for combat for various reasons or that doesn't even guard its perimeter, and so it deserves the risk of being surprised and the need for it to be guarded by other units.


Quality Melee Modifiers - ON
Quote from the user manual:
"The rule is meant to reflect the more efficient and higher rate of fire that higher quality units were capable of, and the corresponding lower rate of fire that lower quality units generally had. Units with experience were able to keep their guns unjammed during a hot battle, even to the point of having slightly smaller caliber bullets on hand to use after their guns had become clogged from burnt gunpowder. Lower quality units could not sustain high rates of fire due to their inexperience and poor training. They also had poor habits such as sometimes inadvertently firing their ramrods at the enemy and thus reducing their ability to fire. For the same reason, higher quality units were more proficient with the use of the bayonet and thus the justification for the Quality Melee Modifiers Optional Rule."
Just like with the "Quality Fire Modifiers" this justification sounds logic.


Isolation Rules - ON
Quote from the user manual:
"This rule is intended to have two effects.
Commanders were always very cautious of their flanks. They often withdrew from a position before they had been overwhelmed simply because their flanks were threatened. This rule is intended to motivate the player to think in these terms. Secondly, units that had been surrounded would often surrender and not fight to the death. The 1/4 modifier to defending strength is intended to reflect the tendency of the Isolated units to surrender when pressed."
Here again the player is forced to care about his flanks and his line of communication. On a grand scale no WW2 encirclement's happened in the usual open field battles, if such is wanted the scenario designer usually takes care of it with a supply source to allow holding out even when encircled. Historical considerable measures were done to extend the own line and keep the line of communication open. It also reflects the officers tendency to see doom with an enemy in their flank or back, this simply doesn't raise the fighting spirit but achieves the opposite and makes the officers act to prevent such situation at any cost.
Same counts for the soldier on a smaller scale, a unit would try to deny the enemy their open flank or even back, if the unit was cut off and encircled it did not raise the fighting spirit but but achieved the opposite.


Weak Zone-Of-Control - ON
It seems likely that moving into the firing arc of a unit would cause some effect but with this rule active still only one hex movement inside the enemies zone of control is allowed, that seems enough impact on the movement. Besides this the defender will surely fire a volley of defensive fire and can spoil the flanking move of that unit by this. It also counters the isolation rule a bit as it leaves room for small maneuvers in the face of the enemy.


Partial Retreats - OFF
Quote from the user manual:
"Retreats from a hex by units that have just lost a melee are necessarily very chaotic events.
Certainly with a breakdown in command and morale, it would not be possible to find some optimal displacement of units that would just fit in the retreating hex. A good analogy would be a burning building where quite often a large number of people perish even though there are exits readily available. The dynamics of this situation is known as "choking" and results in greatly reduced flow through openings. Based on this, there is justification for concluding that obstructions to their retreat would often result in the surrender of the defeated troops rather than some optimal reduction."
At first it seems that two points speak for turning it on.
1. The optional rule "No Melee Eliminations" from the Napoleonic series is missing in the CW series, that opens the way for wiping out whole stacks.
But this is only a problem if the retreating units have no empty enough hex to retreat to, what can only happen if the defender formed an initial defensive line without providing the proper space for retreat.
2. The optional rule "Multiple Infantry Melees" from the Napoleonic series is missing in the CW series, that opens the way to attack infantry multiple times.
But this is only a problem if there is at least one unit in a target hex that did not melee in that melee phase, what only happens if the defender did not provided proper space for a retreat, still there is the need that another attacker is in contact with the hex that the unit retreated into and that he is able to conduct a melee.

Both points seem to count only seldom and only if the defender uses a rather unhistorical tactic of constantly max stacking his line, this should be punished by turning this rule off.
It should also not be forgotten that the overall advantage is with the defender and that melee can only happen if the attacker comes in contact with the defense line without behind disrupted. Also the stacking limit is usually at 1000 men what is far above the average unit sizes of many units especially later in the war.


Automated Defensive Fire - OFF(For Phase gameplay, works only there)
There are some problems with this rule.
1. Despite the fact that the fire done by ADF can be roughly adjusted using the Auto DF Dialog, there is neither a way to exactly set the range nor to turn firing off. This can lead to wasting ammo what hampers the Confederates more as they are usually shorter on ammo and most of the time are the defender in a scenario.
2. The AI does no optimal job in choosing the targets for the defensive fire, by this the defensive fire is less effective, again it's often important to bring the fire onto the most dangerous unit of the attacker.
Overall the waste of ammo and the less effective defensive fire leads to the conclusion to do the defensive fire manually.
But it also should be noted that you should go at least for this setting as this is still better then turn gameplay.


Flank Morale Modifier - ON
It seems likely that a unit with support on the right and left side is more sturdy and assured in its position compared to a unit that stands alone or is at the end of the line.


Full Melee Defensive Fire - OFF(For Phase gameplay, works only in Turn gameplay)
As the gameplay is done in phases this rule has no effect. But even if it doesn't work in it should be turned off to prohibit any possibility of interference.


Bridge Limit and Repair - ON
Limiting the capacity of damaged bridges is simply logical, just as it's logical to be able to repair them.


Artillery Capture - ON
Capturing artillery was a common thing in the Civil War, and especially the Confederates raised their number of artillery pieces by capture.
If the players worry about being forced to “occupy” the enemy artillery unit the whole time to achieve the full victory points, both players should agree on simply giving full points for each artillery piece to the player who either possesses the battlefield after the battle or has the pieces on their side of the “frontline”. This just demands common logic from both players and a little check at the end of the game. Altogether worth it if you want to play historical correct.


Artillery Retire By Prolonge - ON
As artillery was already able to move prolonged at the time of Napoleon, it only seems logical to allow this in the Civil War.


Artillery Ammo by Cannon - ON
It seem this higher detail in depicting ammo would raise the realism so it should be used.


Proportional Opportunity Fire - OFF(For Phase gameplay, works only in Turn gameplay)
As the gameplay is done in phases this rule has no effect. But even if it doesn't work in it should be turned off to prohibit any possibility of interference.


Mixed Organization Penalty - ON
It seems not unlikely that units from different brigades could hamper each other when being to close together(in the same hex) but lead by different brigade commanders.


Extreme Fog of War - ON
For now I suggest to used it as it seems to be an overall improvement of FoW that was too weak.



***

So this is it, hopefully it will help players to chose the best optional rules for games closest to history because that can very well be a problem without extensively examining the rules and wrongly chosen rules may very well ruin any fun in the game not to speak of the silly unhistorical outcomes that can happen.

This is Version 1.03, from 28th December 2023.

CAUTION
Be aware that while this set of OR in my guide was tested with several scenarios they were rather small. A test on a grand scale battle is still needed to solidify this guide. So feedback, especially for such battles, is very welcome.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I'd like to offer a counter-arguement to some of your Optional rules uses if that is okay.

Quality Fire/Melee Modifiers - I like to play with these off. The Confederates will almost always have higher quality units in the games and that gives them several inherit advantages, the primary one being able to rout less and undisrupt quicker. Using these rules just gives them another advantage on top of that and I think it is too much

Rout Limiting - In general I like to play with this on on but will accept it off but only if Flank Morale modifier is on. In my years of experience I find this just gives too much of an advantage to those high quality rated Confederate units and results in just too much routing. I've seen games end because unlimited routs will wipe out whole sections of a line because of the generally low quality of Union troops. I think in general it gives the Confederacy too much of an advantage but could probably be used where the ratings are more equal such as in the Peninsula game.

Higher Disrupted Movement - I like to use on. I've seen instances where disrupted units in certain terrain just can't escape units, especially higher rated Confederate ones since the Confederates often will melee and then reform and do it all over again until you eventually rout. I think a "disrupted" unit, who would have a rather loose formation would actually be able to make good time especially if they are "skedaddling" out of harms way. I could see where this might be abused on the attack but in general I think the plus to the defensive side out weighs that.

Partial Retreats - I use on. My understanding of the rule is that if the retreating unit would overstack the hex it retreats to then only the portion that would overstack would be eliminated. Without the rule I believe the entire unit would be destroyed.

Full Defensive Melee Fire - I absolutely insist on using this rule. Before this rule it was not uncommon for a D quality Union infantry regiment to watch a Confederate unit march across 5 hexes of open ground and then melee that unit without receiving one defensive fire. With this rule a unit will at least fire one shot if meleed. I think this tends to help the defense which is needed in my opinion to make the game a bit more historical.

There is my two cents worth.

[BigDuke66]

Thanks for making this sticky and thanks for the feedback.

Quality Fire/Melee Modifiers
But isn't the usual Confederate Unit also smaller than a Union unit and doesn't the Union army also have more units on the field as it usually fielded more men in most battles?
I didn't check that out as I don't want to spoil me the fun to find it out but men shortage seem plausible especially in titles that cover later phases of the war.
The 10% bonus for melee & fire seem to be a counter for this, CS with smaller but better units vs Union the bigger but also worse units.
In the usual non-phased gameplay the CS units would surely at least once make defensive fire and so lose 10% bonus for melee while the union could hold their fire to keep that bonus.


Rout Limiting
I have a bunch of titles about the higher level in campaigns and titles with details about soldiers life, equipment, etc. but currently I miss something between it that tells me how warfare was conducted on a Division and Brigade level, maybe that would tell how it would be better to attack with these formations.
Currently I would simply say leave room between different brigades, the Overland titles already introduced a modifier of -1 Moral when units from different brigades are in the same hex.
Also the placement of leaders as speedbumps with there moral bonus to Moral checks could keep the rout from spreading.
Again extra attention is need to make an in-depth defense that can still hold even if the first line falls back.
Just a quote from wikipedia:
"Attacks were carried out in several manners, including single or double rank battle lines with individual regiments side-by-side in a line of battle, assault waves (with multiple regiments or brigades in successive waves spaced out loosely one behind the other), brigade columns (all regiments of a brigade in line one behind the other in close formation), and other formations."


Higher Disrupted Movement
Now that is interesting, on page 54 in the user manual it's said:
"Disruption is meant to include effects such as being pinned under fire and a general state of confusion resulting from combat."
That sounds not as "harsh" as that the formation is totally unordered with officers desperately trying to form it again and so resorting to a slower pace like one can assume for the Napoleonic series, OK you can still attack there but the modifier is 1/3 attack strength what makes melee with such a unit in 99 out of 100 cases a very bad idea.
I think it could very well be that the civil war units were better at disengaging even when under pressure.
On the other hand it seems that I can very well move backwards without penalty and still face the enemy and so every time he catches up I can fire at him, well but that be so no matter if 1/2 or 3/4 movement.


Partial Retreats
Now that is a good one, I totally overlooked that the optional rule "No Melee Eliminations" isn't in the CW series.
I have "Partial Retreats" OFF there because "No Melee Eliminations" is ON and so no units easily killed.
As this is missing here I think "Partial Retreats" has to be used to prevent whole stacks from being wiped out and have at least some escape.
I will change that in my first post.


Full Defensive Melee Fire
But isn't this only to provide 100% fire value(instead of 50% in case of computer controlled defensive fire) IF a defensive fire is triggered?
I don't read out of it that DF is triggered definitely when the enemy sets up a melee.
I guess even with this rule you could have bad luck and no defensive fire is triggered.
BTW what goes into to the calculation if or if no defensive fire is triggered? I still don't see a system behind this.

[BigDuke66]

By now I have adjusted my ORs a bit to achieve a gemplay closer to history.
Current settings are like this:

Main difference is that phased gameplay is now used but workload is the same like turnplay as also the OR "Automated Defensive Fire" is used.
This was simply done to removed the disadvantage that the defense had to bring it closer to history.
I will update the initial post as soon as I have done some games with these and can confirm that I have achieved a gameplay closer to history.

[Havoc]

Agree that Final Defensive Fire is a must. These ACW games are already lopsided in favor of the attacker when it comes to fire and melee. Attacker fires with full value unless they move and even then it is not uncommon to run right up and melee without an effective response. More often than not, a Confederate 600+ regiment runs the gauntlet of smaller Union units (that inflict only 2-10 casaulties at a pop in passing), then stops and shoots the target Yankee unit for 25-40 dead, then melees for many more.

Final Defensive Fire restores some of the advantage that historically belonged to the defender and makes it a little more difficult to run up to the enemy line to fire and melee with impunity.

[-72-]

I read that a lot - the 'favours the offense' thing - and if you know where to set up your defensive lines taking advantage of terrain ( including elevation, support your line with artillery on even higher elevations) - you'll probably find that the system is not so favourable to the offense -particularly if you keep your forces under command control at all levels of your OOB - you'll find that not only did you stand up to their rush -that once it comes time for you to take a shot at them in your own offensive fire phase in the next turn -things don't generally turn out so well for the guy that tried to go you initially.

I just love playing guys that dive into me on offense. It is even better when it is part of a linked campaign.

I wouldn't get to worried about an individual combat's results -as if your opponent overplays that - and then turns around and winds up getting cut off -they are dead meat - as all you need to do then is simply win the following melee - and their entire force is wiped off of the map. In that sense what I am saying is - it is all about context of a particular battle and not an individual combat result.

The other thing - is never lose sight of the objective of the scenario that you are playing - sometimes many get way too caught up in things and forget what it is exactly that they are doing (in other words -you can actually get to your opponent and basically goad on some unwise attacks - I guess Lee called it 'having his blood up (for a fight). Otoh- I think I heard that phrase connected with Pickett's Charge which didn't turn out so well for him then either.

[Havoc]

"...you'll find that not only did you stand up to their rush -that once it comes time for you to take a shot at them in your own offensive fire phase in the next turn -things don't generally turn out so well for the guy that tried to go you initially." - Supports my belief that your fire is not as effective till you can fire offensively.

Infantry in defensive positions should be able to wreak havoc (no pun intended) on advancing enemy infantry, not 'plink' them randomly, then sustain heavy casualties when the massed enemy regiments stop and fire. Watch your replays and then again when you fire and maneuver. You'll see that firing offensively have a much greater impact than defensive fire, as the defensive fire is individual, random in it's response, and weaker. Attackers can mass the fire of multiple units when they do finally fire, which helps negate the penalties for moving. Granted, this is not an absolute and there are instances, based upon quality and state of organization, where the total defensive fires are effective. But generally, I find them to be weak in comparison to the results gained by offensive fire.

I inflict the most casualties during the fighting when my units fire offensively. This means, as stated in the previous post by trauth116, that if you are defending, your line must survive the initial rush of your opponent, pass morale checks, then fire offensively in your following turn. If you are in a position where you must give ground constantly to delay the enemy, or avoid being enveloped/overrun, then you end up giving poor responses in your return fire each turn. Returning fire without moving requires the defender to stay in position to get the full effect. Pulling back increases the range and reduces the effect. Simple logic:

Attacker: Advance to point blank and fire = Take random, weakened, individual unit fire, then fire and inflict heavy casualties on the target unit.
Defender: Retreat back multiple hexes and fire = Take fire retreating, then respond with a weakened volley.

Good example would be in Gettysburg; try defending initially as Buford did historically and you will find your cavalry regiments mauled and overrun by Heth's infantry...

The melee optional rule helped a lot in ending blitz attacks on defensive lines. That, and final fire by the defensive unit, restores some of the balance. Historical Civil War battle tactics were defense oriented. Assaulting prepared positions head-on without a heavy advantage in numbers was usually (and horrifically) fatal. If you play without the alternate melee and final defensive fire optional rules and are still suffering more losses than the defender, then IMO you are executing your attack poorly, or chose a poor target for your focus of effort.

I am more than willing to put it to the test against anyone who is willing to play the first day of Gettysburg as the Yankees without the alt melee and final def fire optional rules.

[-72-]

The problem with your example is it sort of implies unfamiliarity with the battle of Gettysburg as well as the first day.

Buford's cavalry only stood so long as it took 1/I to get into position. They also did not have to overly expose themselves to do this -use your reverse slopes in a game and ZoC -and if you run into a CSA player that pitches into you blindly- they you pretty much have an idea of what type of player you are up against (which is to say -a rash one.).

I don't play the single day -only the three day battle, as if you isolate the first day - then you are ditching the entire context of the battle. For the record, it is not really that balanced in favour of the Confederate -although I did get a Union player to concede once when I got the score to the point where it forced him to attack me. (Which is what can happen if you get a Union player that is into standing and not preparing a position and falling back to it.).

I also beat a Confederate player (a couple of them, mind you) - by doing just that.

I am not arguing the math calculations - the idea with the defensive fire is that you get the chance for multiple opportunity fires during your opponent's movement phase -but then again this can be modified by- unit quality (which is an optional rule), and if you have changed the defensive fire range settings - which I generally do -not point plinking away at 500 yards and risking a low ammo result -not unless I have a lot of protected wagons.

Again - as I was saying - you set up a line on some high ground or with intervening low ground to keep your opponent off of you - you stack to the max limit in the hex to prevent your own guys routing through your hex, you base your line upon your weaponry to its max advantage (napoleons closer to the front than 3 in rifles), create breastworks covering as many angles as possible in the time you have created for yourself -and by the time your opponent makes their way up to Cemetery Hill - then they got a big problem.

That being a position that can and will fire from a position of depth, multiple times... and with a height advantage on top of that. As a CSA player (or an attacking player) -you have some problems then. Even more if you blow a melee attack.

I guess the point is - that sometimes you cannot pick and choose your attack's focal point if the defensive point is actually the main objective on the map -or a series of interconnected objectives -which is exactly what you are facing in Gettysburg as the Confederate player.

The other point is - as a defending player you have to work some to put yourself in that position - you need to really know your map that you are playing on. You make the attacker have to attack you where it is to your advantage.

Optional rules can play a big part in how this all plays out - I usually don't care and let my opponent pick out whatever rules they want ... which normally never works to my advantage, although I have run into some guys who inexplicably don't use artillery capture- (and recapture) and then wonder why it is that they end up losing a battle because they lost guns that they can't recover because they no longer exist on the map -- never minding the fact that when recovered I think they function as F morale units (? not sure on that one - that might only be when they are used when captured)... what I am saying is - that it is the points back on the board that are really what is important. I think they do function at a reduced capacity once recrewed ... which is why losing a crew can be important...

I am not interested in PBEM at the moment... Gettysburg is all about how well each player knows the battle and the entrance points (I know Gettysburg probably better than any other -in the sense that I have been playing it out since TSS days before computers...) and timing of reinforcements - not to mention the relative quality.

I did recently finish up playing a Spotsylvania match from Overland (as part of a campaign) with Don Van der Griff -the match ended due to his other duties overseas. Don was a tester for Overland (one who came along after I had left the project myself). I don't think that he realized I was a tester as well - and while he misunderstood what I was doing in our first couple of matches -and called me 'by far the most cautious player he has ever played', I think he got a different opinion in the 3rd match at Spotslyvania.

These scenarios can become about intangibles like player psychology -in the sense that you can work things so that your opponent thinks one thing- but it is really actually another all together -in this case Don thought I was retreating in total disarray instead of deciding I had inflicted a casualty imbalance and that was going to be good enough for me. He was also, I think, ticked because he managed to throw away about 40 odd (not a typo) artillery pieces for (imo) no apparent reason... I tended to protect mine a bit better ... let the infantry stand in front and below them as a buffer -do the heavy damage with the arty... got multiple pieces -hey you got multiple firing opportunities (ie -not plinking then.). Anyway the point being - he was in the process of making a massive assault on what he thought was my left flank ... it sort of was -excepting for the fact that I had the entire IX Corps massed on his own flank -and they were fresh.

He got beat by my initial limited attacks, but could not come to terms with that and it (I think) got to him to the point where he did something unwise- and threw troops already partially (to substantially) fatigued at me -and I guessed that he had no reserve whatsoever ... looking at the map after he conceded - it turned out that was indeed exactly what happened.

Christian, I know that you are in the ACWGC - and I tell you what- probably the single best player on the Union side is Alex Krolikowski - if you can get some tips from him (or even just play him in a maneuver if he is willing - you will learn a lot about the system.).

[BigDuke66]

"Favored" is maybe the wrong term, the attacker usually has full control of everything in his hands, where to attack, with how many, how long preparation by artillery etc., and so can get the optimum out of it while the defender gives away his best tool to stop the attacker to the AI.
And under AI control the opportunity defensive fire is very uneven and outcomes can be extreme with unimportant attackers receiving a lot defensive fire while critical attackers can get to a melee even unopposed.
While defensive fire in phased play with the Automated optional rule is still done by the AI and still not smart at all you can at least depend on a full volley on the closest enemy and that gives a good chance to make a lot casualties and raises the chances for a Moral Check, if that leads to disrupting him his offensive fire is considerably lowered and he can't even do a melee.

While everything looks fine in fair situations, turn play simply doesn't work out when having special situation for the defender, I just played Carthage a 51 turn battle were I should retire south with about 100 men hunted by 4000 Confederates, that didn't go past turn 21 when my force was down to 65 men because my own defensive fire was always worth a crap that simply didn't lead to him being forced to make moral checks so his overall very low Moral values could have impact.
Another situation was Wilson's Creek where Sigel's force tried to hold the ground but got overrun again because the defensive fire didn't trigger when it was crucial but even when triggered the 50% volley didn't lead to disrupting him because 1/2 casualties also lead to considerably lower chances of forcing a moral check.
And now comes the best part, as he had overrun my supplies and artillery he switched to defend them and what did I do? Go offensive and melee him, got all my stuff back and send his units running because defense again did simply not work out.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the in opportunity fire can easily be "gamed", first you can do stack movements and so lower the number of opportunities where there could be defensive fire at all, then on the attack you can easily switch out units that get disrupted while on their way to the target and end up with units able to melee although the defender might even disrupted some units before.
All this doesn't work in phased play.

This leads to the conclusion that in turn play almost all the time the only hope is being offensive, if you have to switch to a defensive stance your basically done because if your offensive didn't push the enemy back how should your troops now hold on the defense.
All this makes a rather strange gameplay that not really mirrors the historical battles.

I guess like Gettysburg also Fredericksburg could show this, with he 50% opportunity defensive fire the Union would surely be able to get to the Stone Wall and beyond it.

We can be thankful that phased play can be done easily in the CW series, in Napoleonic there is no automation and phased play has to be done completely manual what takes a lot time.

[BigDuke66]

@trauth116
From your post I get the impression that defense can work out in turn play but only if the opponent makes considerable mistakes in his offensive operations.
The defense positions you describe are the way that every player should think twice about attacking them and only do so if there is absolutely no other way, if they fall for your traps it isn't a prove of turn play works but only that your "tricks" worked.

Collecting all the beneficial things for a defense and hoping for a careless attacker should be the only way to achieve a defense that can hold, usually no matter how weak a defense is it often was hard work to get even that line broken.

Question would also be why should a do games in turns when doing it in phases seems to carry no additional work and gives results for the defense that are at least in a wider range predictable.
There is a reason that even in turn play the additional melee phase optional rule is usually turned ON by all players, basically you can go for doing it all in phases right away when sticking with the automated defensive fire.


BTW does the range setting(A/I> Adjust Auto Defensive Fire) work with opportunity fire?
AFAIk it is only there to set a range for the automatic fire and not for opportunity fire.