"A Civil War gaming condundrum on scenario design." Topic

I'm a member of a couple of gaming groups. The one that meets most regularly plays a number of periods, including ACW. This period causes most problems for us for the following reason.

The people who chose to play Confederates are all the most plodding and defencively minded people imaginable. They will not attack even if the scenario demand is as part of the victory conditions. We try to play scenario driven games and so points values are not an issue but the Confederates get upset unless (a) they have better troops – because CONFEDERATES! (b) they want better equipment– because CONFEDERATES! The Union players, on the other hand are all the ones who are prepared to attack, no matter what.

We're mid-westerners so we play Western Theater battles. Our results are as follows:

Perryville (Mk I) – Confederates refuse to attack. Union comes off the hill and crush them. Confederates butt hurt.
Stones Rives – Confederates refuse to attack. Union comes over the river and crush them. Confederates butt hurt.
Perryville (Mk II) – Union given the Confederate order of battle with names changed. Confederates vice versa. Union come up the hill and crush them. Confederates butt hurt. Confederates whine the Union had better troops and equipment. Pointed out this was Perryville replayed with the sides switched. Confederates still but hurt and claimed the game was rigged!

So we said, "you come up with a scenario!" They did, Kennesaw Mountain. Result. Me as Union general "So you expect us to attack up hill against entrenched troops?" Confederate scenario designer "It's 1864, the Union attacked all the time like this!" Result, Union storm the hill repeatedly until the position was carried. Confederates subdued but not whining as much.

With the Seven Years War we have a similar problem – the Confederates always play Prussians but because of the rules (Koenig Krieg) create Prussian super soldiers the rules save them; so the win/loss ratio is closer.

It's now my turn to design a scenario. I'd like to do a Western scenario with Union on the tactical offensive. I don't want to another attack on a dug in position. I'm thinking maybe doing Raymond during Grant's overland campaign, but I'm open to suggestions.

We're also getting into the Mexican/American War – the Union players have all bought Mexicans and the Confederates Americans. So I see that becoming a problem child too.

Roll dice to determine who plays on what side. Keeps all the same folks playing all on the same side and ruining the scenarios.

Or, fire the ones who do not want to game in the spirit of the scenario. :)

"Confederates butt hurt." Just reading that over and over again amuses me.

In our club, we mix up the teams/players all the time. Things would get very stale if everyone was always on the same team.

Historical scenarios are my favorite, but they do require clear victory conditions from a good designer. If you want a scenario where the Federals are on the tactical offensive in the West, I like Champion Hill for a medium-sized game and Chattanooga for a mega one. In the latter game, the rebels have a great position but are seriously outnumbered. Bentonville (Day 1 only) can also be a fun scenario, as it begins with the Confederates launching a surprise attack, but really does become a meeting engagement soon afterward.

If you guys are willing to look east, there are some really good scenarios with the Federals on the tactical offensive.

Mixing up the teams and having clear objectives from a well-designed scenario are really the only ways to mitigate your dilemma, though.

Seems like you need to game with someone else.

How about a general meeting engagement from a Charles Grant type scenario book and, as Darryl mentioned, you roll for sides?

"Confederates butt hurt."

Words to put the fear into any rebel soldier. :)

Play the Battle of Nashville if they don't like attacking.
Let them really whine after that!

Kim

Great idea to secretly switch the orders of battle – LOL. Can't believe that your Confederate contingent failed to draw a lesson from that.

What ACW rules does your group play?

B

Randomize sides. If they are not willing to do that, then they are war-gaming for the wrong reasons IMHO.

They must not be real rebels. A real rebel always want to get at the Yankees.

Roll dice to determine who plays on what side. Keeps all the same folks playing all on the same side and ruining the scenarios.

That's what we do 16thC Japanese games. It's really the ACW and 7YW games that are the problem.

Kim and 6mm great suggestions.

We been playing Fire and Fury.

Heh, heh, heh, he said "butt hurt".

It's interesting that you are in the west and the Confederates are plodders. I am in the East and anyone playing Confederates turns out to be rash in the extreme. This almost replicates the original cast (Hood as exception, but then he was originally in the east). Is it something in the air?

We re-fought Stones River three weeks ago and the Confederates lost after a heroic (and sanguinary) struggle.

I've always wanted to run an ACW campaign and assign the players based on what generals they are most like. Never did it because we would probably have some bruised egos.

I did run a SYW game where I had the players dice for which side they were on. Then dice for who was Frederick on the Prussian side. He then got to assign his Prussian commanders to their commands (Taking into account their real world tendencies). The opposing army was mostly Austrian but was a coalition so they had to randomly determine who commanded what.

It ended up being interesting since their was one "unknown" Prussian commander that assured Fredrick he was a great cavalry commander pre-game but then blundered his way around the field blocking friendly artillery fire and constantly facing the wrong way, resulting ultimately in an Austrian victory.

Just be warned that Raymond is stacked against the Confederates so they'll whine no matter what happens. 6mm's suggestion of Champion Hill is a good one. But I would suggest you change the generals' names, the army names, and the place name so the Confederate players don't know that they are Pemberton's Army of Mississippi fighting Grant's Army of the Tennessee at Champion Hill. See how things go from there.

They must not be real rebels. A real rebel always wants to get at the Yankees.

cfuzwuz got it right.

Jim

138, the problem is your Confederate players are descended from George McClellan and they are conflicted. It's simply not in their DNA to attack, regardless of uniform color.

I agree with 79th PA though… Play a meeting engagement with an objective in the middle of the table. Whoever holds the objective after so many rounds is declared the victor. See what happens.

And bring a bit of cheese for the expected whine. At least it might assuage their sore butts.

138:

Fire and Fury rewards aggressive play.

You can't (at least it is very hard to) remove someone from a position by fire, you really need to charge in.

By not charging they are giving up a +1 to close combat.

Sound like they really want to play WW-1 Germans.

As to the Meeting engagement idea: objective on your 1/3 of the table 2 points, middle 1/3 5 points, enemy 1/3rd 10 points (plus standard Fire and Fury VP)

138SquadronRAF: As others have stated above, we have found that dicing for which players are Union or Confederate works well. Another thing we have been using is that one side has what we call the "onus to attack", (determined by a di roll). Although we play non-historical battles, the side with the "onus" looses the battle if the game is determined to be a draw, (draws are few as it happens). Thanks, John Miller

This might be a bit extreme … however, when my son and his friends were playing and one of his friends was "turtling" and pretty much ruining the game for everyone, I ruled that his troops were aggressive minded even if he wasn't, and that they would start to desert every turn they were forced to sit and watch. After a few failed morale checks and a few stands removed as "deserters" he got the message and threw in. :)

Not to worry, by the way – it was all done in fun and everyone ended up having a good time.

Rebelphiles are a troublesome lot. We do not allow the same people to play the same side all the time. We make everyone switch sides. Pull names our of hat to determine who plays what.

Everyone will at one time or another will play with each other. It seems as if it is always the die-hard Rebel players which cause the most trouble.

Also when you set up your scenario then YOU can pick out who is going to play whom. Put the most aggressive player on the side that is suppose to attack. The guys who like defense then they get the other side. But above all, break these guys up. Everyone should be willing to play either side.

Also do not allow the two sides to see the other sides OB and victory conditions. Type it up and print and give each side only their OB and reinforcement schedule.

In the end if they can't play right then sometimes you just have to stop inviting certain individuals who ruin it for everybody else. You will save yourself some heartburn.

Maybe something like the scoring system in Longstreet is what you need. It scores each player individually and rewards those that launch attacks more than those that defend.

if that doesn't work, it looks like a summer of the the 64 to 65 Virginia campaign.

Meeting engagement instead of historical battle. Assuming that you have six players, put six dice in a container, three of one color and three of another and have players draw. I have blue and gray dice so blue is Union and gray is Confederate. Prepare a series of random index cards (I have about 75 for JRIII) and have each player draw a card and that is his brigade. Has worked for about 40 years with the understanding among the players you get what you draw. It should be noted that some cards are "good" and some are "not so good" with most being average.

One thing that I have done is to use battles from other periods as ACW games. I also reverse this and use ACW battles for other periods as well. For example, Antietam makes and excellent ancients scenario with the Romans in the part of the Confederates, and Barbarians in the role of the federals.

But I digress. Consider using the Battle of Watling Street with the confederate representing Boudica's Britons, and the federals replacing the Romans. Have a road clogged with a stream of carts and wagons, representing the federal baggage train, ambulance trains,etc, all trying to escape towards, say, Chattanooga, running behind, and parallel to, the federal line. If the baggage can escape off the table in "X" turns, then the federals, acting as a rear guard, win.

That puts the impetus on the confederates to attack and break through the federal line and get in amongst the baggage train.

Give the confederates a 3:1 troop advantage, but give the federals the terrain advantage, hasty works, etc.

Another variation of this scenario is a federal cavalry division trying to break through a confederate rear guard trying to protect Lee's long train of wounded retreating from Gettysburg. Start in early evening, going into night, with rain starting at turn "X".

Regardless, don't overlook using other historical battles as the basis for an ACW game.

There are plenty of scenarios in my Chickamauga and Atlanta books that have the Confederates on the offensive. If the Rebels don't move, the Union wins by default by Victory Point locations.

Jay's Mill is a meeting engagement. I'm sure the Confederates will default the defensive. Let Brannan's men crush them. Cracking the Center with Cheatham's Division is a good "meeting" engagement in the middle of the woods as well.

There are several good scenarios with the Union on the tactical offensive in my Atlanta book. McPherson at Resaca is mostly open field and not a rush against earthworks. Latimer Farm and Bald Knob are both small battles for possession of outposts. Its heavy skirmishing on the regimental level.

Also, nothing wrong with giving them what they want. Plenty of scenarios with the Confederates on the defensive as well. Hopefully the Union players will walk all over them like the Kennesaw scenario you described. The Confederate players need to get into the spirit of gaming so everybody can enjoy the sessions.

Make sure your Confederate players always play Joe Johnston.

Nothing wrong with random commander assignment, but what about the old classic--one side designs the scenario, but the other side chooses which side to play?
(NB: if the two sides differ over, say, favored terrain and troop density, the warranty on this one lapses suddenly.)

TKindred,

Great idea, I am starting to do that myself.

Plenty of excellent scenario books with battles and parts of battles no one knows much about. I actually collect them. I never let the players in my games see the book or that there is a book. I just copy the book in my usual scenario format for each side.

My father used to run a Brawner's Farm scenario at conventions. If the Rebs wanted to hide behind the railroad cut, he would have a "General Jackson" command stand appear on the battlefield, take direct control of a brigade for a turn and order everyone in the brigade forward. You don't argue with General Jackson… caused some sad occasionally, but, this is why we have commanders in the army. :)

Hello 138SquadronRAF!

It seems like your experiencing disappointing club member behaviour, which is partly outside of the scenario design. You need to look at the members in a bigger picture. Our club is presently 51 years old and I've pretty much seen them all. Some people just seem to put themselves inside a box and as time goes on they reduce the size of their box. In other words whatever shortcomings they may have had when they started become more pronounced as they age with the club. They need incentives or simple goals to keep them focused on moving ahead.

Most scenarios have a natural winner and loser. Some by intent and others by default. A problem often appears when the players who live in their box or have a narrow focus or thin skin, etc. play the losing side. Even though they may very well understand that the odds are stacked against them they lose sight of this during the game and start to look for excuses which cover everything except themselves.

It sounds to me that your Confederates fit somewhere in this profile. So perhaps what we do can be utilized by you to some extent.

Our rules are simple and are used for all horse and musket periods. Within them we track three things during a game, whole units removed from play, army cohesion loss and army control loss. If you don't have all of this you can simply just track units removed. We set a time limit on the game with the side who suffered the most being identified as the losing side when the time expires. This forces players into a series of struggles regardless if they should be attacking or defending. A winner will emerge and everyone will understand how it happened.

We play every scenario twice (usually the second game is played at the next club meeting) with both teams switching sides. For the first game players can decide which side they want to start on by any method they want. Some seem to like a certain side better for whatever reason, while others often roll a dice. After both games we add the scores together. The winning team is the side that achieved the highest overall score. This balances the scenario no matter how good or badly it may have been designed, and it also challenges both sides to play a ever better game the second time. People who only play in one game simply miss out in claiming an overall win or loss.

To further enhance the game and encourage people to try their hardest to win we have a yearly contest going on. Every time you command a side that wins a single game you get a point towards becoming a supreme commander of the club. At the end of the year the player with the most points joins the supreme commander club. For us that means they get first choice at command for any game their in and they can strut around the club at any time like a peacock. We also record an AAR after every game and any players who get an honourable mention for performing any acts of outstanding valour or otherwise brilliant moves also get a point towards joining the "Old Guard". Again the player with the most points at the end of the year joins the guard. The guard are simply recognized as the veteran or better players of the club. Obviously something to aspire too.

So collectively this encourages everyone to have a good time and a lot of laughs. Everybody tries to jockey for position both during the games and afterwards in conversation or emails, etc. It also pushes the drive to succeed all the way through the team no matter what side their on or what size of command they had. Nobody ever really faults the scenario, as their too busy trying to outperform everybody else.

Best regards,

Glenn

The 'refuse to attack' player has always baffled me; I've run into my share over the years. If your objective is to attack you attack! How complex an idea can this be?

-Will

Two infamous examples that come to mind:
We were playing the British at Hubbardton, Hessian commander insists on deploying into battle line immediately and unlimbering his artillery (we started far outside of firing range). He then proceeds to advance into the woods at the rate his unlimbered cannon was able to move (which was 1" per turn in woods). Player extremely surprised after 4 hours of playtime that his only contribution to the battle was a single cannon shot on the last turn. Despite this the British players managed to nearly win the battle!

Second example was sci-fi micro armor; the defenders were a forlorn hope effort to hold the attackers off as the royal family or some such was evacuated from the local space port. The victory condition was literally how long the defenders could hold off the overwhelming enemy force; they were outnumbered by 5 to 1 or more, attacking force did not have to worry about casualties. Significant portion of the enemy force refused to advanced into the 'deathtrap'. Multiple turns into the scenario and no forward advance on behalf of most of the attacking force. Attacking supreme commander ends up calling in artillery strikes on his own forces to induce them to move up. Defenders end up counter-attacking and routing the attacking force from the field. The GM was speechless.

Anyway, I know these are off topic but it just goes to show how annoying and common this problem is. :)

-Will