"Should you be able to fight more than one battle???" Topic

Okay guys here's my question, still doing some fine tuning on my home made game covering the whole war 61-65. Each turn is divided into a random number of phases. Each phase is meant to represent roughly two weeks, each side getting to move once.
The map is divided into areas (each area roughly 50-100 miles, depending on the terrain population, etc), not a hex grid system. Some area's do or will have forts in them. So…..my question is. Do you think in a roughly two week time that its realistic that an army could fight a major battle and also be able to set up an assault on a fort or, given the way the armies and leaders behaved that it should be two different battles that would have to be in two different phases? Let me know if I am not explaining my question enough. Keep in mind I'm trying to represent what was the norm, not the exception.
Or to put it another way, if we are looking at the game board, should an army be able to move into an area, win a battle and then be able to also attack the fort in that same area in the same phase or would it feel more "realistic" that you would "clear" the area in one phase and have to wait until the next phase to attack the fort?
So…….thoughts?

It would depend somewhat on the size of your army. I would think if your army is big enough and their line of communication is clear then it could be done.

Not quite sure what you mean by "fort" in the American Civil War? Are you thinking of major entrenchments such as at Vicksburg, or more simple wooden forts – that are much more appropriate for earlier wars?

Sure, if you had the men, the supplies, the weather, etc. Right off the top of my head I would be inclined to have the army commander roll the dice after one battle in order to determine if the army was capable of further offensive operations that turn and, if yes, at what level of capacity or efficiency will they perform. I am assuming that you mean a significant fortification.

I'll argue that defeating an army (assume something like Army of the Potomac defeating the Army of Northern Virginia) would pretty much take most of the fight out of both parties for that 2 week period. The victor might invest the fort, but likely will need some time to rest & rebuild.

I know that fort covers a large variety in ACW. Because of the level of the game there are basically two types the stand alone fort and a fortified city like Vicksburg, Washington etc…..to answer MajorB. Perhaps a compromise rule/die roll depending on how "beat up" the victor was would be best?
AS always the challenge with this level game is to have some realism but keep the rules clean, fast and simple to keep a game of this size moving along. For example, as you would expect, even the biggest of battles can be resolved in about 5-10 minutes.

Grant took forts Henry and Donelson in 10 days.

The question about "what is a fort" matters too. I'd argue that in many cases if you defeat the army n an area, at this scale, the fort would surrender. Forts only hold out if the cavalry is coming. If you beat the cavalry, they look for terms.

I see nothing improbable in an army having multiple potential major actions within a two week period. It happened a number of times in the ACW. Even when you have a field army in a fortified position such as Lee's army in April, 1865, it was possible to force them from the position and have follow up actions within a two week period. As gamer says it depends in part on the condition of the victor after the battle.

I am familiar with those examples and you guys make good points all. As many of you know part of the challenge is showing how over the coarse of the war, normally, generals on both sides took a lot more time in-between major actions vs later in the war when grant and others started making "continuous" fighting more the norm than the exception. I think a good compromise will be to allow them to do so but they suffer a slight "organization" penalty to represent they are moving and fighting faster than what the army is used to unless the army leader has the "campaigner trait"???? FYI I have a number of "traits" certain leaders have, mostly good, some bad to help show the particular skills, style and flavor of the better known generals…..the players seem to like that mechanic a lot as it helps breath life into the little counters:)

My answer depends on just how many battles you believe took place during the Seven Days, and how many areas make up the Valley of Virginia. Also on whether you want a system under which Meade simply could not attack Lee before he returned to Virginia following Gettysburg. Same with Bragg following up Chicamauga.

Always start with the history.

If you plan om doing the entire period of the conflict,
are you also going to implement the improvements or
degradation in the logistical abilities of each side ?

Same question about the resource pools for each side,
both in manpower and animals (horses/mules). The N
benefited from the immigrant influx and harvesting
machines.

The S suffered as Northern forces liberated slaves,
especially along coastal areas and as Southern
railroads, never really good networks in any case,
suffered degradation due to poor or insufficient
maintenance of rights of way, rolling stock, etc.

Or will you just focus on combatant forces operating
in a sort of vacuum ?

Good question

While most ACW big battles were followed by a hiatus of weeks to months, there certainly were periods of intense combat – Seven Days and the Wilderness spring to mind

I agree that it depends on the size and condition of the army, the condition of the enemy and how robust the logistical chain supporting the army is – but it certainly could be done

From a design pov, we like our little lead heroes to charge around doing all sorts of stuff real generals would gape in wonder at. Clausewitz noted that the natural state of all armies is complete inertia, and to get them to do anything at all is a considerable achievement. So for mid nineteenth century non mechanised armies, I would say fighting a major battle, then taking a major fortress by storm in a two week period is unlikely. It means there is some point in having fortifications too.

Thanks for the additional input, very good points as always. For those interested: Ed Mohrmann, yes the change in the fighting ability of each side will be represented in several ways and allow the north to start "steam rolling" after mid 63. To Robert, when you consider trying to keep a game of this size moving at a reasonable pace a "major battle" in the terms of my game is meant to cover all the fighting that takes place in a certain area over the two weekish time frame. The "summary" style of resolving the fighting could represent several different types of fighting. It could represent just one major three day battle or several smaller one day battles that took place in the same amount of time. The lasting affect is the same, armies in the area clashed and depending on the leaders, tactics chosen and die rolls one side wins, forces the other side to with draw from the area and both have to consider how much damage their army/forces involved took because of it and decide if they will push forward later in the same turn or wait until fresh troops arrive next turn. I have found doing a game this size, in order to resolve a large battle in 10 minutes you can only "bother" the players with so much detail and have to leave a certain amount abstract. I have found this works because since you are fighting the whole war the main thing players need to know about the fighting is what shape each side is in after wards. Hope that helps and perhaps is of interest to some…….

I think an easy way to do this is a fort acts like it's own area. So, you fight your battle. One side loses, one wins or you stalemate. Depending on the results can one side still strategically move or not? If you still can they can attack the fort and continue on with the current turn. If not, they wait the next turn, a siege. This would also mean the opposite side would have the next turn to try to break out or relieve the fort if they had the strength to do so.

Sounds like a cool project, would be fun to see some TMPers fight on the tabletop the battles your strategic level game generates.

Timbo W, thanks, actually…..funny you should say that. Because…..the basic army units you buy are brigades that then are put into divisions in the various corps, so yah for those that wanted to you could translate a major battle and even know if some of the "famous" brigades are there or not, know what states they come from, etc, how much arty & cav is involved, etc as well as which major generals were involved. That was part of what I wanted to do with it.