Scheduling HITS game

Greetings. Some of you know me already from SOWG.

To Digby and HITS group members: I would like to organize a couple battles between the HITS group and a group that I form. I have 6 players ready to play a HITS game with your group and there is also an option to play the same teams in a gcm game. If a gcm game is unwanted then that is fine we are content to playing a HITS battle with your fine group here.

Even teams. I was thinking three infantry brigades, one cavalry brigade, and two batteries of artillery. That is room for 5 or 6 players. For mods I am happy with Marching Through Georgia's Flank and courier mod. We have no problem with stock artillery. I would like to think about 200 yard rifles though. I also would like to discuss fatigue not being so severe. Fatigue to me is more important that rifle ranges. A 1.5 hr game on any map.

This is meant to be in the spirit of gentlemen's competition and I fully intend to keep the battle honorable.

Any questions or comments will be appreciated.

Digby has my email.

With all due respect,

RC Harmon
NY Cavalry

Hi RC

Great to hear from you and a great idea to set us a challenge.

With six a side we could probably do a bigger battle than that. What we usually do is have a division commander who also takes 1 brigade and any divisional artillery batteries, and the other players on the team take a brigade each. With six players we could even form a small corps with:

Corps commander (also takes 1 div, 1 brigade and the artillery of 1 division)
Brigade commander in his div
Brigade commander in his div

The second Division commander (takes a brigade and the artillery of the second division)
Brigade commander in #2 div
Brigade commander in #2 div

Or if a small corps organisation is too tricky then:

Division commander + 1 brigade + division artillery
5 x brigade commanders

Either way we would need a custom OOB.

Cavalry is ok... I guess... but it seems to not work too well in SoW, either seeming too powerful or not powerful enough. We haven't yet struck a balance with it. If we had cavalry in the game I think I'd prefer to have a more cluttered battlefield such as any of the small Gettysburg Maps, ECF or Foxes Gap. Crampton's Gap and Antietam would do too probably.

On the open maps like Alpine we have found cavalry to be over-powered. We could of course make them the type that can't charge mounted.

I'm actually very happy with the fatigue rules - it makes you use roads for your approach march and if you do that, the troops remain fresh. If they do get tired by all that fence hopping a player has to lie them down and rest them for ten minutes, which can be a tricky thing to do if you're under pressure to move elsewhere or defend yourself!

As for 200 yard muskets that would seem odd to me now but I could live with it. We'd have to write up a custom mod to include all these bits. MTG's mod also includes new reduced rates of fire and morale break levels which makes games less bloody (or is supposed to).

What maps do your team of players have. Do any of them not have Antietam or Pipe Creek?

Digby,


We have all maps so that isn't a problem. I'll make Sharpe get Pipe Creek.

Two regiments of cavalry I have found to work okay. I am not happy with cavalry yet, but having only two regiments keeps them from being too overpowered. Also with cavalry I reduce their rifle ranges to 120 yards. This way it takes some skill to properly fight with them, but they are not these supermen running all over the place and shooting everything up either. With cavalry this way, it can be properly used for scouting and skirmishing and if one side makes a mistake like leaving artillery completely unprotected they can make that side pay.

Custom OOB will be made and it can be organized in anyway you like. We may decide to place all of our artillery under one commander, etc. Also divisions or corps can be organized to preference. As long as the numbers and quality even out.

Time frame might be next Sunday?????? This way the mod and oob can be made available to everyone before the battle and each of us can sign off on them. It would be important to agree on a mod so it can be distributed as soon as possible.

Rifles at 160 is okay with me(I need to confirm with my fellow players to be certain), but I'd like to come to a compromise on fatigue. I used to be outdoors all the time and jumping a fence is nothing takes a little time, but not much energy. Jackson would march his guys mercilessly and then throw them into a battle. I request further discussion on this point. Plus roads on some of these maps do not work.

NY Cavalry wrote:

Rifles at 160 is okay with me(I need to confirm with my fellow players to be certain), but I'd like to come to a compromise on fatigue. I used to be outdoors all the time and jumping a fence is nothing takes a little time, but not much energy. Jackson would march his guys mercilessly and then throw them into a battle. I request further discussion on this point. Plus roads on some of these maps do not work.

The Hits & Couriers mod fixed most of the road issues on all the maps. I am finishing up a second round of fixes which bring the expansion packs maps up to the same standards as the G'burg ones. I've finished all except the Antietam PM map. I guess I could release a updated mod with all but that one in it. But if you only want to fight a 1.5 hr battle, we'd have to use one of the small maps anyway.

The stock fatigue in the game is not onerous at all. You may be thinking of the results from the GCM mod. I believe fatigue was greatly increased in order to discourage column charging and double-timing everywhere. We typically fight for 1.75-2 hrs and find the game quite playable. It requires good battle management, i.e. frequent rotation of regiments in and out of the battle line.

I'm opposed to increasing the range of rifles to 200 yd. The average Civil War encounter occurred at ~116 yd. (The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat, Reality and Myth, Hess, E.J., pp 107-115.) That's not much different from the European wars 50-60 years prior. Attacking a supported battery will certainly give a regiment a bad day, but picking off gunners at long range did not happen frequently. For a good discussion of the subject see Battle Tactics Of The Civil War, Griffith, P, ch 7. Cannons were fearsome weapons and infantry tended to give them a wide berth. But we also don't fight them ahistorically by poking them through a regimental line. We do however fall back onto a gun line when things go badly which presents the attacker some difficult choices.

There are a few changes we made that your group may not be familiar with. Firing into the flank of rear of the enemy will cause that unit to rout very quickly. Also, it will take far fewer casualties from frontal fire to cause a unit to break. The stock game settings allowed a unit to continue firing until casualties reached ~50%. It is now much less and more dependent on a units experience and the nearness of a commander. Again, good battle management is key. The units will retreat and reform fairly quickly, but as you know, they do not regain all their morale, even if the bar registers high.

With the number of proposed players, it strikes me that anything less than 2 or even 3 hours will limit many aspects of the game. I suggest that a 3 hour game be set up that would allow the cavalry to "scout" and locate the enemy; time to "develop" a combat plan; etc., etc., etc., (as the King of Siam was fond of saying.).

Just my penny's worth.

J

I'll need a copy of the mod so I can try it out and make sure that it is acceptable to all parties on my end.

I do want more flank and rear fire penalties, etc.

I am interested to look at the mod.

TS I believe has a way to send and receive files.

You can find it on the SOW website. Here is the link. It is in the 1st post. Note there are two versions depending on the resolution of your computer screen.

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/modifications/21443-courier-and-mini-map-mods-updated-to-14025

This is starting to look very good with positive ideas all around. RC, what we have done in previous games where we had a pre-written scenario is use Doodle to set up a number of proposed game dates and times and let people express their preference there. See this thread for an example:

https://kriegsspiel.forumotion.net/t302-mp-scenario-3-falling-into-a-trap-26th-may

We then choose the day that the majority can attend. It sucks of course if you can't attend that day but it is the fairest and easiest way to get players to commit to a game in advance.

I suggest setting up a doodle page and our past experience in the HITS group is that we tend to be able to generate the most players at about 7:30pm UK time (5 hours ahead of US East Coast time) on a Saturday. Saturday is the best day for us as it means the American players are not at work so they can attend earlier than in the week, and also as there is no work in the morning for most players, us Europeans can stay up later as well. Sunday is the second choice as long as the game doesn't go on too long.

A doodle page with a choice of about 3 weekends, Sat and Sun each time would be a good idea.

If the two sides are given the same number of regiments and guns and they are free to then devise an OOB from those building blocks that suits their six players, would that work okay? We would have to impose a couple of structure rules such as no more than 1 corps commander and no more than X division commanders and a brigade being a minimum of 3 regiments (excluding the 2-regt cav bde).

Did you want identical troop quality or are you okay to have some randomisation of that?

If we are moving towards designing a full OOB should we design a complete scenario with some written objectives? Perhaps if we do that we should play the game twice, one team taking each side so that its a best score out of both battles?

As to length of game we have found (with our sandbox "hunt down the enemy") style games that even 120 minutes is sometimes not long enough and we most commonly play for 150 minutes now. We can get a corps vs corps game to conclusion in that time even on a big map like Antietam or the Pipe Creek ones.

If you want to go with 90 to 120 minutes and only a large division or small corps on each side as Kevin says, definitely best to use one of the small maps.

It appears that MTG mod will be okay. There must be a rifles mod to limit the range of cavalry weapons to 120 yards or I'd rather not include cavalry.

Sure a doodle page sounds good. I don't have a problem with hunt them down. I'll pose the question to a designed scenario and see what the interest is.

I sent a sample oob to digby.

I am not that familiar with what kind of average ranges cavalry carbines were fought from, so I'll leave comments on that to the experts.

I got the OOB you sent me, RC, it looks easy to shuffle things around to make up any formation size we need.

If I am understanding this properly:

We will use MTG mod and a new riles file will be added adjusting the weapons that the cavalry will use to 120yds(or another mod used).

90 minute game on a smaller map. It might be good to use Pettigrew/Trimble.

6 players

We are okay with these rules. We want to practice a bit among ourselves to get everyone familiar with HITS.

OOB is even and designed to each sides desire.

I think simple and hunt them down is good enough for us. I am open to one or two objectives.

Am I correct in my assumption?????

6 players per side, yes?

Rather than more modding, how about we leave the cavalry with 160 yard carbines but make them small units, say under 200 men each, or 1x200 and 1x150 men, something of that size? I am thinking that with 120 yd carbines vs 160 yd muskets the cavalry will be shot to bits and if they take a position on a defensive fence line or wall the infantry will just shoot them down from outside their range so forcing the cav player to bring his dismounted men out in the open and then they'll die even faster.

In most stand up straight firefights we've had, dismounted cavalry always seem to lose anyway. Their unrealistic power is in their mounted charge, not their dismounted firing ability. A very cluttered battlefield like PPT would fix that or we could agree to have them as type 2 cavalry who can't charge mounted.

Thoughts on that?

Cavalry is only going to be two regiments total as it is. I have been trying to get a role for cavalry in SOWG. The settings I propose have had the best results. The only thing that is lacking is fatigue is much too high for cavalry.

Cavalry should not be able to stand up to infantry. If used properly they could be an effective blocking force. It is best to use cavalry to scout and help protect the flanks. Late in the game they could become a real force if fresh cavalry is brought up to engage tired/weak infantry.

The infantry rifles had advantages over cavalry weapons. The loaded slower, but had longer range and was a heavier projectile. If infantry can take canister at 200 yards and be powerless, I don't see what the problem will be with cavalry.

When the cavalry were given the repeater rifles they became a more powerful force. Sheridan effectively used his cavalry against infantry, but that was later in the war when cavalry units were being outfitted with Spencers and the southern army was unable to field full regiments. Even then, Custer vowed never to charge disciplined infantry in decent position because he tried it and he didn't like the results.

If you tried to use cavalry under these conditions you just might like it and see that there is a historical use for cavalry in SOWG.

The problem with the non-infantry units, i.e. artillery and cavalry is that they all use the same AI. So in the game the artillery is just infantry with really big guns and cavalry is just infantry with really fast legs. The result is that the player has to devote considerable time to maneuvering those two arms in order to have them do a historically passable job in battle.

Because of this shortcoming, I've usually avoided using cavalry in my games. I just didn't see any advantage to using them if I have to have them TC'd all the time and babysit their every move. Only at the end of the battle would I un-TC them and let them go off attacking disrupted regiments or picking off unsupported artillery. That is one unintended consequence everyone may want to think about. If the cavalry is present then it is only prudent to keep all the artillery in the front line so it is always supported. The napoleonic artillery charge will be back.

NY Cavalry wrote:If infantry can take canister at 200 yards and be powerless, I don't see what the problem will be with cavalry.

Its very different. Infantry can move, guns can't unless they run away, so infantry CHOOSE to go within 200 yards of artillery. Cavalry with a 120 yard range vs a 160 yard infantry range cannot choose to get within 120 unless the infantry let them but the infantry can choose to stop at 160 and kill them without any loss which does not seem right.

About the cavalry fatigue: I also think they tire too quickly. Raising the caliesthenics to 8 (or 9 for elite cavalry) works very well.

Is there already a date set for the game?

No date yet. It could be next weekend though, or the weekend after that.

I wanted to make a comment about the moral that infantry units have in MTG courier mod.

It was tough on troops advancing into enemy fire and I'm sure we can agree on this. I am just wondering what is the standard that is being used in the mod? It is not as clear cut as you might think. Over the course of the war, as soldiers learned and adapted to battlefield realities the fighting prowess changed. If you look at the units that fought at Brwaner's Farm there is a marked difference from the way units behaved later in the war. At Brawner's Farm it was a stand up fight that took a terrible toll on both sides and yet the troops stood there and took it and gave as good as they got. Can you compare that fight(and similar such fights) with the 5th Corp attacks on Laurel Hill? Soldiers later in the war learned what a hopeless charge was and would just go forward enough to be able to fall back. Other times they would charge ahead. My point is what period of the war are you trying to simulate? The Brawner's farm fight and Pender's charge at Seminary Ridge or the later war engagements from the Wilderness onward; because they are two different realities.

Withdrawing troops from combat is one of the hardest things to do. In SOWG battles this is the way it is. This is another reason that I think the game is so good. It is damn hard to disengage troops.

I bring this up because I took a brigade into an attack with this Mod and I knew it was going to be a tough fight and when it failed, and I had to withdraw, it was as good as over for me. There was no withdraw. The troops were worthless and doing the things we all hate like standing with their backs to the enemy. The regiments were unable to fall back in any order where they could be reformed and rallied. The solution to this would be to not have attacked. A failed attack should not mean the end to the brigade unless it was sent in as Pickett's Division was.

I respect what you guys are doing over here with HITS.

I'd like to add one more thing. On the final drive to Richmond many AOP officers commented how the Southern Armies attacks no longer possessed the magnitude of force that they were used to. From my reading of the civil war this was also true for the AOP. There are three things that I attribute this to.

One: the largely volunteer armies were receiving lots of conscripts. The south was conscripting maybe earlier, but their quality of the army remained higher longer.

Two: Losses in regiments were really starting to add up and brigades were organized not with 3 and 4 regiments, but 5, 6, 7, and 8 regiments. The US Army has concluded that moral begins to affect the combat effectiveness at 10%.

Three: The soldiers had learned. They were more careful especially in the AOP about advancing(attacking). Again, I will use for an example the 5th Corps attacks against Laurel Hill.

It is not as clear cut as it may seem. There was a definite change of the fighting ability of the individual soldier(willingness to risk his life) in the eastern theatre. Gettysburg is a good example of the determined fighting of the prewar years and also the good use of breastworks which were by this time becoming standard. Armies learn and adapt.

I hope I am making my points clear.

I started a new thread for this as its a new topic in its own right.

As far as the mod goes Fatigue is okay along with flank fire, but the frontal adjustment to fire is a problem. I would want that part returned to stock.

Since Baldwin was using the old value, you were playing essentially with the stock value. The actual difference between 100 and 150 is small. If your men were not receiving flank fire then it was just bad dice rolls. I remember one game in which I had one regiment break and within 5 minutes all the other regiments of that brigade headed for the rear too. Their casualties were not very large, 10% or less.

Also, NYC, remember that a couple of weeks back you were playing with us vs the Italians on the East Cav Field map when we attacked down behind the Brinkerhoff Ridge and our side won. You didn't have an issue then (John was hosting with the same version of the mod that Baldwin had the other night), so I would suggest that the attack the other night against the Spanglers Wood position was just plain hopeless (no reflection on anyone's tactics BTW, these things just sometimes happen) and you could well have had a similar result using GCM.

I think you need more HITS sessions to form a more objective view. There's too low a statistical sample of games right now to really make a sound decision. Please bear in mind we've been playing like this for months and have recently moved onto a yet more damaging version of the mod (the frontal fire morale issue) than you saw on Wednesday, all in the quest for a battle that feels more real, not less.

I hope I haven't caused offence and you are extremely welcome to keep playing with us, and your feedback is valued.

I am going to have to state that to familiarize ourselves with the new frontal fire settings will take 6 months. The other mod changes should be fine, but the frontal fire is going to be hard to get used to and in the end I am not convinced that any changes are needed and if yes then to what numbers. Then it all is just an experiment.

Thanks for the games and the interest in the thread. I'll still be around maybe we can play in the future.

We've only been playing with the frontal fire rule for about six weeks, maybe two months. You don't need long to get a feel for it; it's mostly about always keeping a reserve (usually half your brigade), rotating units into/out of the line, having your general keep a close eye on winning/losing firefights and being near th emen to encourage them. Sending your general back to quickly rally a retreating unit is also wise although on the first 2 or 3 times a unit falls back, its own commander will rally his men and bring them back.

The rest of it is just sensible tactics, using cover and high ground and having a sense of when your men are getting 'twitchy' - the usual stuff. Keeping separate player commands close together also helps greatly to lower the courier ride time to aid communications, though all these things should be obvious to a seasoned wargamer.

During the time you're getting familiar with the settings, any of the GCM people can come over as a group for casual and practice games.