Yanks Score Comeback Win: Results for HITS/GCM Game 5

The Yanks came from behind today in an extremely hard-fought battle in the Cumberland Gap. "The American Gibraltar" turned out to be that and more as the stubborn Rebels fought tooth and nail for every inch of ground at the key points they had come to regard as their own.

We had 13 players for this game (including 4 with brigade sub-commands) and rolled out, for the first time ever, specialized artillery division commands while other players focused exclusively on leading formations of infantry. All of this combined for a fight that was interesting as it was intense.

In the end, both sides lay exhausted, with upwards of 40-45% casualties for each. Truly a desperate and memorable fight!

Battle Report: http://www.sowmp.com/gcm/battles/battle/14083
Battle Replay: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zt19xisjwkek7us/Battle_14083-01262513%20162831.rep.zip

The replay in this one is particularly fascinating and makes several points:

-The result could very easily have gone the other way. In fact, it amazes me that it did not after viewing the movements of both armies from the command map. A slight march-route adjustment here or there could/should have spelled disaster for the Union cause;

-I have renewed both my admiration and contempt for AI brigade leaders. Of my 4 brigades, all of which received identical orders, 3 made it to the final destination to fight against General Hays on our north flank at Montgomery/Goodwin. One of my brigades (the third in line under Col. Kerr), however took the "scenic" route and somehow ended up far down on our southern flank to fight alongside Gen. Elson's division. I had given them an attack stance early in the march and they apparently performed quite well once they found their way to the fight -- but I never laid eyes on them once our initial march had commenced and I had ridden far out in advance of our column. Bottom-line, they did at least as well as the brigades that remained under my view lending valuable assitance to our southern push. Hmm, not sure how I should interpret that!

Anyway, everyone who played in this one should check it out. There are lessons abundant and revealing all around.

General Palmer, I have just reviewed the replay, it it does indeed allow a great deal of knowledge, which of course was not available at the time. Indeed, this is the essence of Kriegsspiel, and I was very glad to have been part of it.

My report of the battle is as follows.

As we approached the contested area, I ordered General Hays to guard General Robinson's artillery division. Having all one's eggs in one basket is a double-edged sword. The artillery were directed to the open ground NW of the first objective. General Robinson made an early reconnoitre of the area, and deployed his guns. Hays division moved east into the woods, and to the North of the objective.

I had ordered General Suchet to move to the South of the first objective. This he was able to do, and managed to set up his division as Yankee divisions approached. General Suchet's division fought a long had fighting retreat for the rest of the battle, precisely as ordered.

General Will, in his first of such engagements, and commanding my reserve brigade, moved up with Suchet, as per my instructions, and supported his efforts very well, I believe he caused a significant nuisance to the enemy as they engaged General Suchet.

With the artillery and Hays' division to the North, and Suchet to the South, I was just waiting for general A V S Jones. The fighting in the South seemed to be fierce, and I could see that General Suchet would greatly benefit from the arrival of A V S Jones, who I had instructed to take the right flank of the army.

Unfortunately, A V S Jones must never have received my original courier message, nor any other message elicited to him. As the fighting in the South grew stronger, I could see that Jones division was moving Northwards of General Suchet, towards the centre of our line where I did not believe we were under threat. After trying to re-iterate my instructions to move to the South, and still seeing no sign of subordinate recognition, General Jones continued to advance towards the centre of our line.

I could see that Jones must have become overcome with bloodlust, as has been noted before of this otherwise very capable general. Blind to requests and direct orders, he believed he would take the primary objective himself, and hold it. Seeing that this was his intent, I could see that our right flank was now under the greatest danger.

I communicated this to General Robinson of the artillery, who sent several batteries to support General Suchet in the South. Hays and Robinson were undertaking capital efforts in the North, and held against several enemy assaults.

A V S Jones' assault in the centre was quite devastating to the enemy early on, and I later learned that Jones himself was riding at the front of his lines when a sharpshooter's bullet found him. With Jones out of action, I rode over to his division to find it in disarray. His four brigades had become so intertwined with enemy formations that several regiments were becoming cut off. One brigade was so far advanced that they found themselves the lines of retired enemy troops, nowhere near any objective. From there, no couriers could reach them. Most of the rest of Jones' division was decimated or worn out. I tried to command the fragments of it that I could, but this was a daunting task, as I could not hope to understand Jones' intentions in this advanced position.

I now realised that, since the centre was gone, an attack here was being invited. Fortunately, the enemy were unaware of this for long enough for me to ride to general Hays and inform him of this predicament. General Hays was reluctant to move his command south, as he believed this would have invited an assault on the Northern objective. I now realise that the artillery division could probably have held its own against such an attack. Nevertheless, later, Hays' division did move towards the centre. But while we had committed all of our reserves (General Will was especially effective at maintaining his troops, and deploying them where indicated), I now see the enemy had rested up some tired regiments, particularly near the centre.

Suchet's division was shattered, but was heavily fortified by artillery, so both flanks were protected, but now Hays' worn out division faced rested troops in the centre, and was unable to hold.

For the first half of the game we enjoyed a strong position, and A V S Jones was able to attack the enemy at his leisure in the centre. But I believe the turning point was the loss of A V S Jones - with him gone, and the centre of our line in disorder, it was only a matter of time before the enemy found our weakest spots.

Summary of subordinate performance:

This completes my report.

You humble servant,

R E Lee

Report on the performance of the Union Army at the recent Battle of the Cumberland Gap:

I expected the enemy to approach the first Objective from the NW. I sent Scot forward to scout the heavily wooded area around the Objective. Soldier's Division consisting of 6500 veterans were to approach the designated area from the SE, ultimately anchoring it's left flank on Creek running south of the Objective; Mitra and his 4500 Carabinieri were to approach the battlefield from the East. I expected him to arrive well before Soldier did so I ordered him to secure the area and move his division north as the second division arrived. Palmer was way behind; I ordered him to move to the expected area of conflict as soon as possible, I intended to use him as a reserve force, to be deployed according to the enfolding situation, which should have already enfolded by the time of his arrival.

I gave orders to Seitzinger and his division of well above 10 batteries to take the road to the front and deploy on top of a small ridge overlooking our right flank, the enemys left. As I approached I saw Confederate couriers moving into the woods infront of the ridge designated for placement of the guns. Suddenly gunfire errupted South of my position. Suchet had stumbled upon the column of guns and Mitra's infantry. A couple of guns were routed and before I knew what was happening my Roman friends were locking horns for supremacy of the woods. Scot's Brigade, slightly sticking out of the line to cover the objective was already being pressed by elements of at least two divisions. He requested reinforcement's to be sent which I passed on to my closest Commander; Mitra. I asked him to deploy a Brigade on Scot's right as soon as humanly possible. I myself, being busy directing the rest of the Artillery to the ridge could not see for myself how Mitra and Suchet's battle for the woods went. My lack of knowledge resulted in a second order to Mitra to send reinforcements. I understood that they couldn't be dispatched anytime soon so I abandoned that plan immediately. I sent a courier to Palmer to change course and to attack the enemy's left flank via Montgomery. Hay's had by then stepped out of the woods; Scot was falling back in disarray and I feared an early deceisive defeat of our Cause.

I ordered Soldier to make haste to attack Suchet's flank, which I expected to be exposed since he was fighting Mitra along the creek. I saw the head of Palmer's Column in the distance. Scot was ordered to reform behind the guns. By then Jones' division poured through the gap Scot's retreat had created. Hays' was advancing on the Grand Battery I had assembled on the ridge to hold our right flank. Without any infantry support, Hay's boys managed to shoot up several of my guns before they could be driven back. Palmer then arrived in timely fashion and began to engage Hays in the most furious manner. I was confused because I only saw one of his brigades, and a second one way behind on the road. I decided to leave the artillery to itself since Palmer had drawn Hay's attention to inspect our center and left. Scot was still rallying his men and giving them some much needed rest behind our artillery.

On my way towards Mitra's men, I saw Jones pushing Mitra's right flank who still seemed to be entangled with either William or Suchet. Heavy melees were taking place in the woods as regiments were pushed into each other without regard for limb and life. Mitra, fighting elements of three divisions held valiantly. I looked south and saw that Soldier and Scarface had launched their assault on the exposed Confederate right, rolling up the enemy line. I ordered Scot to gather his men to attack the rear of the Confederate line facing south to fight Mitra's right.

The guns brought up by Robinson discouraged us to put troops into the open so instead, we mopped up resistance in the woods ahead. Mitra was still busy with the remains of Jones, Soldier's men had to rest. I then ordered Palmer to deter the forces in the north, which I expected to be minor, to send
his men towards the center objective. Misjudging the amount of forces he was facing, I ordered him to carry the maneuver out as fast as possible; he did but took heavy losses and had to ultimately retreat to the guns to rally.

Meanwhile, Confederate resistance in the woods was mopped up and we consolidated our southern forces to advance on the center objective. It fell after ten minutes of fighting. Seeing that only 2-4 enemy regiments were left, I ordered the army, which consisted of ~15 regiments, to rest and rally for the final push on the third and last objective which, I believe, we would have taken easily since the approach was guarded by woods and orchards.

After all, a thrilling victory.

I might add that I don't personally hold with detailed public evaluation of single commanders and certainly not with a workman blaming one of his tools for his defeat this agressively.

MajorByrd wrote:
I might add that I don't personally hold with detailed public evaluation of single commanders and certainly not with a workman blaming one of his tools for his defeat this agressively.

Hey Byrd, I've said that the turning point was the *loss* of Jones. I was trying to submit a report in character, and in humour - if you believe what I wrote was aggressive, then I'm afraid I have mislead you, as that was not my intention.

I've removed the individual bits from my post, as I wouldn't want to upset anybody's fragile sensibilities, although I maintain that it was done in humour and in character.

I'm still struggling to see how telling Will that he could take some of Jones' brigades next time isn't just a bit of a laugh. Is there something I'm missing? Did Lee not scold JEB Stuart for disobeying instructions? Did he not scold Heth and A P Hill for disobeying instructions? Is this not Kriegsspiel?

It was a great game, and my sincerest apologies to Jones should he have rendered my post in such a personal manner.

Sheesh.

Hmmm I do admit that I have a tendency to misunderstand postings like that; still tough for me to make stuff like that out sometimes as english just ain't my mothertongue. Without the tone of voice I just miss stuff like that occasionally. But I do get it now that you explained it. No hard feelings eh.

MajorByrd wrote:Hmmm I do admit that I have a tendency to misunderstand postings like that; still tough for me to make stuff like that out sometimes as english just ain't my mothertongue. Without the tone of voice I just miss stuff like that occasionally. But I do get it now that you explained it. No hard feelings eh.

None at all sir. And clearly I must have been slightly paranoid about it anyway, so I'm glad that nasty business is cleared up. I do hope nobody found my comments patronising, which I think would be a fair criticism, but again I would claim it was part of the fun.

Nevertheless, I mean to show you no mercy in future engagements (providing my commanders do not all mutiny on account of my harsh treatment of them ).

Now, onto more important matters: Palmer, I had a thought about asymmetry as I do.

It seems that in these GCM/HITS games, ordering one's division into the attack is the easy part. Pulling them back out is the tricky part. But fighting withdrawals, and organised retreats are an essential part of battlefield strategy (well, this is true of mine anyway!) People have mentioned how hard it is to reign ones brigades back once they are in the fray, and I know from experience that the main job of the human division commander in these conflicts is going to be taking command of one brigade at a time with a view to pulling them out and maybe moving them elsewhere.

So, how about a conflict where withdrawal is the name of the game for one side. I'm talking about perhaps a 2:1 imbalance in sides. The side with inferior numbers (the "defender") will be forced to perform a "delay" or a "fighting withdrawal" for the entire battle. I believe this would be a very exciting scenario, and very educational. Of course the time limit would be a crucial factor.

It would be useful (but not essential - there are work arounds) if the GCM scenario generator could do any of the following:

1. Get the starting forces (of either side) to appear near a particular edge of the map.
   
2. Get the objectives to appear near a particular edge of the map.

If it can't, no problem. We could for example remove objectives altogether, and say that the attacker must "reach X map edge before the time runs out."

I think it might encourage the use of skirmish formations, and help understand how to control our brigades in the GCM/HITS rules in these circumstances. This knowledge will become useful in normal meeting engagements too.

Actually, I wondered if the changes you introduce each week are working towards some grander aim (like how a campaign might work)? For example, Army commanders could choose how to organise their artillery (by division/corps/army, now that we know that this can be done, and the pros and cons of doing so. In which case, my ideas on fighting withdrawals would probably be part of that roadmap, as withdrawals are going to be an important part of any campaign.

Any thoughts?

Ollie

So, how about a conflict where withdrawal is the name of the game for one side. I'm talking about perhaps a 2:1 imbalance in sides. The side with inferior numbers (the "defender") will be forced to perform a "delay" or a "fighting withdrawal" for the entire battle. I believe this would be a very exciting scenario, and very educational. Of course the time limit would be a crucial factor.

Great ideas and I too think that building in more assymetry adds intriguing possibilities. However, there are some limitations to what we can do. For instance, Garnier's system builds in balanced numbers of men and guns between the sides at game creation.

It would be useful (but not essential - there are work arounds) if the GCM scenario generator could do any of the following:

1. Get the starting forces (of either side) to appear near a particular edge of the map.
   
2. Get the objectives to appear near a particular edge of the map.

The game generator places objectives randomly but always in reference to the center of the map as defined by a percentage. For instance, (the setting we use) calls for the 3 objectives to appear within 10% of the map center. It is certainly possible to broaden this to a larger number or even the entire map. But this would mean they could pop up virtually anywhere and would be impossible confine to map edges.

One very nice control available now is the ability to custom draw the outline of the map. In the games we've played so far, I've used the entire 5mi x 5mi maps, to create the greatest potential space between the armies at the start of the game. A smaller map subset can be used, however, that would direct the fighting around a desired terrain feature e.g., a creek, large hill, etc. I plan to use this ability some in future games, keeping in mind that larger areas are desireable for allowing the CinC's more maneuverability in planning their approach marches.

Actually, I wondered if the changes you introduce each week are working towards some grander aim (like how a campaign might work)? For example, Army commanders could choose how to organise their artillery (by division/corps/army, now that we know that this can be done, and the pros and cons of doing so. In which case, my ideas on fighting withdrawals would probably be part of that roadmap, as withdrawals are going to be an important part of any campaign.

An aspect of assymetry that is open to us, as you know, is in how the CinC's choose to organize their infantry and artillery. In HG5 we experimented with a pure corps/army organization in setting up Muleskinner's command. But there are other options too, including:
-the old division-level artillery structure (each infantry division brings a battery or 2);
-corps/army pooled guns, (guns placed in a single division like Muleskinner's) but a CinC could also direct that his artillery division commander be given a small brigade of infantry to guard the guns;
-Partially-pooled guns (e.g., for 80% of the artillery force). The remaining guns could be kept back to be handled as a strategic reserve by the CinC or to accompany a pre-designated corps commander in a flank move, etc.;
-Guns split up between 2 experienced infantry division commanders. This is a lot to command, so it would best be used when a new player has been tagged with handling one of the division's infantry brigades;
-or any other combination of these concepts.
Of course, the army CinC's may choose different organizational structures, even within the same game. It just takes a few more minutes during game creation to make this all happen.

One change I'll be making in future games (and something I should have done in HG5), is to scale down the amount of infantry per division. Divisions of over 4,000 infantry are way too clumsy for even experienced players. Brigades of somewhere between 1,500 and 1,800 men (without guns) are about right for new players IMO. This will also have the effect of limiting the number of guns. Robinson did well to command his dozen or so artillery batteries in HG5, but that's probably more than we want to saddle even a seasoned artillery specialist with.

A campaign like the recent KS Western Campaign is not really possible in HITS/GCM, because at the heart is the programmatic creation of randomized, balanced games. On the other hand, this limitation is also a strength in the sense that HITS/GCM games can be created quickly and played frequently, without the need for someone to spend hours customizing a scenario before each game. And they can be easily adjusted on the fly for the inevitable last-minute adds and drops to the player roster.

Thanks for the creative input, Ollie! It's my intention to push the system to its limits in exploring how to improve on the HITS/GCM experience!

WJPalmer wrote:
A campaign in the same sense as the recent KS Western Campaign is not really possible in HITS/GCM because the programmatic creation of randomized, balanced games. On the other hand, this limitation is also a strength in the sense that HITS/GCM games can be created quickly and played frequently, without the need to for someone to spend hours customizing a mod each week. And they can be easily adjusted on the fly for the inevitable last-minute adds and drops to the player roster.

I hadn't realised that balance was such a key element of GCM. I had heard that you get "sliders" to configure the size of such-and-scuh, so I assumed you could control the number of troops on each side.

I completely agree that a very attractive feature of GCM is the ease with which a game can be set up, and this is why it's so successful. It's a shame about the auto-balancing feature. Hmmmm.....

Hmm....

Dammit, I'm trying to think of a way round this... could force the defending player to march half his units out of the way, but this is a bit ugly. Objectives, etc we can already deal with satisfactorily I believe - an your notes about selecting the map region are very interesting. Hmm....

D'you think it's worth a question to Garnier? It would seem relatively straightforward to have a control that controls the ratio of troops, rather than fixing it to 1:1, and that's the only change needed.

Never hurts to ask. He's typically very responsive to enhancement requests where he sees value and don't involve major structural adjustments.

But I wonder if simply being able to create numbers imbalances will add much to our games without more control of such things as placement of objectives and beginning troop locations.

It would be easy to make an "uneven" game using GCM random divisions:

Add an extra division to the defending side and adjust division sizes as needed.

Make the game 2 1/2 hours long and have the objectives show up right away.

The attacking side must remain in place while the defenders march and set up, also marching the extra division to one predetermined corner of the map.

Let the fun begin!

Saturday it was a typical case of Murphy law, it happen to my division to meet the enemy in the worst place at the worst moment. I was verifying the ground of my foreseen placement at north with Byrd, when it came the message of KgSoldier about enemy near the southern objective; moving south, I met part of my brigades moving to north with some regiments fighting with part of batteries at the extreme south of woods. I ordered them to move back to south and when the request of Byrd came, a brigade also to north, but they were so intermingled because of switching from the marching column that it was impossible organize brigade lines, so the best I could it was try to cover more space possible for hold to the center: in particular I tried to not lost the contact with KGsoldier at south, trying to avoid that Suchet division split us, and press Suchet for avoid too many of his regiments faced KG. Unluckily the woods where i was didn't permit me to have a clear vision of my flanks nor of enemy lines and I was also to the low ground respect the enemy. My troops collapsed to the right before and partially to the left, because of fatigue and losses combined but luckily they held a sufficient time.

To create unequal forces, is the following possible? Say we have 6 humans to a side and we want the forces at a ratio of 2:1. Ron creates 5 dummy players that will be on the side with the smaller number of troops. Since these players don't really exist, they will be CinC controlled when the battle starts. The CinC can then TC them and march them to a part of the map where no fighting is likely to occur. He can use waypoints to keep them hugging the edge of the map while they are moving. The result would be a fight at 2:1.

Uncle Billy wrote:To create unequal forces, is the following possible? Say we have 6 humans to a side and we want the forces at a ratio of 2:1. Ron creates 5 dummy players that will be on the side with the smaller number of troops. Since these players don't really exist, they will be CinC controlled when the battle starts. The CinC can then TC them and march them to a part of the map where no fighting is likely to occur. He can use waypoints to keep them hugging the edge of the map while they are moving. The result would be a fight at 2:1.

Since we can adjust division sizes, we would probably only need one "dummy" division.

kg little mac wrote:

Uncle Billy wrote:To create unequal forces, is the following possible? Say we have 6 humans to a side and we want the forces at a ratio of 2:1. Ron creates 5 dummy players that will be on the side with the smaller number of troops. Since these players don't really exist, they will be CinC controlled when the battle starts. The CinC can then TC them and march them to a part of the map where no fighting is likely to occur. He can use waypoints to keep them hugging the edge of the map while they are moving. The result would be a fight at 2:1.

Since we can adjust division sizes, we would probably only need one "dummy" division.

Kevin, Soldier already mentioned this idea elsewhere. While it would work in principal, I think it would be really rather annoying in practise.

- There would probably have to be a delay while the dummy forces "got out of the way."
- There is the potential that the enemy sees the dummy force first and mistakes it for the real force, at least for a while.
- There is the potential that it isn't put out of the way enough, and we end up bumping into it towards the end game. The defending commander would have enough on his plate without fiddling about with the dummy division!

I'd be happy to give this method a try (after we've had more of a discussion about victory conditions), but I just feel that it would play against the main strength of the GCM/HITS games - which is "no messing about".

I still want to ask Garnier if it would be difficult to implement a "ratio" slider at game creation.

Ollie

Soldier's correct that it would be relatively easy to create side assymetries using a single division and the sliders. I suspect the most straightforward way to do this would be to have the CinC's enter the game via the battle queue before launch and have the host simply dump whatever men and guns into each of these that we want removed from play. In game creation terms, this would also make the process of marching them away pretty easy as the Army CinC will spawn with his own division. With a few clicks he can TC his division, brigade and battery C.O.'s and send these extras packing to sit out the battle at the nearest map edge.

In the game coming up this Saturday (Feb 9, which will be posted today or tomorrow), I'd like to play once more as symmetrical sides. I think we need one more week to develop our experience with artillery commands and division sizes. (Would like to avoid introducing too many new variables at once). But beyond that I'm open to creative suggestions for different sorts of assymetrical game setups in the weeks that follow.

WJPalmer wrote:In the game coming up this Saturday (Feb 9, which will be posted today or tomorrow), I'd like to play once more as symmetrical sides. I think we need one more week to develop our experience with artillery commands and division sizes. (Would like to avoid introducing too many new variables at once). But beyond that I'm open to creative suggestions for different sorts of assymetrical game setups in the weeks that follow.

Sounds like a good plan Ron, am looking forward to it!

Blackstreet wrote:

kg little mac wrote:

Uncle Billy wrote:To create unequal forces, is the following possible? Say we have 6 humans to a side and we want the forces at a ratio of 2:1. Ron creates 5 dummy players that will be on the side with the smaller number of troops. Since these players don't really exist, they will be CinC controlled when the battle starts. The CinC can then TC them and march them to a part of the map where no fighting is likely to occur. He can use waypoints to keep them hugging the edge of the map while they are moving. The result would be a fight at 2:1.

Since we can adjust division sizes, we would probably only need one "dummy" division.

Kevin, Soldier already mentioned this idea elsewhere. While it would work in principal, I think it would be really rather annoying in practise.

- There would probably have to be a delay while the dummy forces "got out of the way."
- There is the potential that the enemy sees the dummy force first and mistakes it for the real force, at least for a while.
- There is the potential that it isn't put out of the way enough, and we end up bumping into it towards the end game. The defending commander would have enough on his plate without fiddling about with the dummy division!

I'd be happy to give this method a try (after we've had more of a discussion about victory conditions), but I just feel that it would play against the main strength of the GCM/HITS games - which is "no messing about".

I still want to ask Garnier if it would be difficult to implement a "ratio" slider at game creation.

Ollie

Well. . . if we give the defending force a half hour to get to the objectives and get set up on defense before the attacking force is allowed to move, that should give the defending commander plenty of time to move the dummy division to a designated corner of the map.

As well. . . as part of the scenario, we could allow the defending commander to use the dummy force as a relief force after a predetermined amount of time.

And no doubt. . . the first few times we try a game like this, we will most assuredly find aspects we don't like and want to change.

I've really enjoyed the HG games. They've been highly competitive, but everyone has taken victory or defeat in stride and seems to realize the games are just for fun. That last one was epic (perhaps we should send General "GCM games are played in helicopter mode" Georgia on vacation more often.

I'm all for experimenting with HG games. If one goes entirely off-kilter, no worries, we adjust and move on.

kg little mac wrote:I've really enjoyed the HG games. They've been highly competitive, but everyone has taken victory or defeat in stride and seems to realize the games are just for fun. That last one was epic (perhaps we should send General "GCM games are played in helicopter mode" Georgia on vacation more often.

I'm all for experimenting with HG games. If one goes entirely off-kilter, no worries, we adjust and move on.

I completely concur, (except the bit about taking defeat in my stride!)

The other bit of the discussion needs to be about side objectives. If the objectives can only be set up in the middle, do you think it is reasonable for the defenders to try and just "hold" them for some time? This would seem like a "hold" objective, which might be fun.

But I had been thinking about more of a withdrawal type of game, where one side is (attempting to) widthdraw in good order for pretty much the whole game. However, I can't quite work out how that might work. Any ideas?

The best way to do that would be a custom scenario where the defending side starts on an objective. Have the objective be one of those that disappears after a set time and a new one pop up somewhere nearby in the direction you want the 'orderly retreat' to take place. Rinse and repeat as often as desired. Unfortunately, this can't be done in GCM at the moment. I do recall back in GCM V2.0 (we're on v3.0 now) that games could be set up in this way to a degree, so perhaps Garnier could bring it back with little work on his part. Couldn't hurt for us to ask.

We have run similar scenarios as face-to-face kriegsspiels in the past. In one example I can remember, one side represented the valliant rearguard of a defeated army. They had to hold various lines/positions for a specific period of time, to allow the disorganised parts of the army to evacuate in reasonable order.

We didn't have the Gettysburg game then, so couldn't use game-generated objectives. Instead we handled that issue via pre-game briefings for each side. This had the advantage that the objectives could be specifically tailored to the scenario and map being used.

This approach also gives the person running the game a chance for a bit of fun. For instance the pursuing force might not be given full details of the degree of disorganisation they are facing, and other key information. Does the rearguard consist of just 2 divisions in good order, or might there be 3? How soon to you need to reach the key bridges over Bear Creek in order to disrupt the retreat? Might there be reinforcements approaching to assist the defeated army?

Hope that helps.

Martin