Needing advices for creating boardgame

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

Hi, I'm actually working on a Civil War boardgame combining with plastic cards rather than wooden blocks (no materials at home). The main part is done (the rules) but, when I get into details, the officers' tactical skills and initiative are quite difficult to manage, in order to bring more balance and historical value when battle phases are played.

(Brief explanations = to create the rules, I was mainly inspired by Dixie Card Games and Bobby Lee Boardgame).

In a battle phase, each player places his cards (units of 2,000 (II) to 3,000 (III) effective men) on his battlefield part (rear-line left wing, rear-line right wing, reserve).

The front-line is common to both players and determines who's the attacker and who's the defender.

Battle phase is composed of many rounds. For each round, a player has three choices :

- moving unengaged units.

- disengaging units from combat.

- firing at the enemy with engaged units (aka units placed on the top of left & right wings, in contact with enemy units).

One unit cannot move and fire in the same round (exceptions, see General Abilities).

A unit (representing approximately a brigade) can attack with 2 (II) or 3 (III) eight-sided dice, with a standard combat value of 1.

The combat value represents the maximum score obtained with the dice to inflict a casualtie on an other unit. To boost this combat value, the generals necessarily provide tactical values and bonuses.

There are three general ranks available =

- Brigadier-General (Division Command (CS) or Corps Command (US)), who can command only standard units

- Major-General (Corps Command (CS) or Army Command (US)), who can command BGs or standard units

- Lieutenant-General (Army Command (CS) or Army Group Command (US)), who can command every cards of lesser rank (BGs, MGs and standard units)

Each general card contains several pieces of informations, otherwise than name and rank =

1) - Initiative Value (A, B or C, regarding strategic and moving skills in front of an enemy). It determines more generally which player begins the battle phase. Exceptionally, a general in attacking posture will fire directly against units commanded by a general with a lesser Initiative Value (B or C, regarding the value of the attacking general). In any other case, the battle phase isn't affected by the Initiative Value.

2) - Command Capacity (number or subordinate the general can control in a single position, ranging from 2 to 6).

Example : an LTG with a CC of 5 can commit into the front five subordinates units (either MGs, BGs or standard units). It can be clever to gather many subordinate generals under his command in order to allow a great concentration of fighting units (in this case, the LTG can command three MGs, each of them also commanding subordinate units, either BGs or standard units. The BGs under their commands can also be in charge of other subordinate units, creatin a huge chain of command).

3) - Tactical Value (and Tactical Bonuses) represents the battle skills showed by the generals. A Tactical Value (TV) is ranging from 1 (weak) to 3 (strong) and is attached to the Initiative Value (for example = A2, B3, C1, etc.). Only MGs and LTGs have Tactical Bonus (TB), which provides 0 (weak) to 2 (strong) points more to the TV of their subordinates.

During a combat, the generals who are directly in command of the engaged units (subordinate generals) provide their own Initiative Value and Tactical Value to the engaged units, while their direct commanding officers provide them Tactical Bonuses.

I know that these rules can be exceptonally boring and clumsily explained but I hope it would allow the full comprehension of what is the purpose of this thread : I need some advices to complete my generals stats before printing the cards. If anyone is looking for a better explanation, don't hesitate ! I did'nt write in English for several months and I believe that I've lost my touch with the process.

Nevermind, here are my first edition project for the CSA. Enjoy and react !

Officers List (CSA) (for #/#, the 1st number is the attack bonus, the 2nd is the defense bonus):

- LTG Sidney Johnston (A3 - 2/1) = CC3
- LTG Bobby Lee (A3 - 2/2) = CC3
- LTG Joe Johnston (A2 - 1/2) = CC3
- LTG Beauregard (A2 - 1/1) = CC3
- LTG Bragg (A1 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG Polk (B1 - 0/0) = CC2
- MG Van Dorn (A1 - 0/0) = CC2
- MG Magruder (B2 - 0/1) = CC2
- MG Hardee (A2 - 1/1) = CC4
- MG Longstreet (A3 - 1/2) = CC4
- MG Jackson (A3 - 2/2) = CC3
- MG Kirby Smith (A2 - 1/0) = CC2
- MG Ewell (B2 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG A. P. Hill (B2 - 0/0) = CC3
- MG D. H. Hill (B2 - 0/1) = CC3
- MG Hood (A2 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG Anderson (A2 - 1/1) = CC3
- MG Early (A2 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG Stewart (B2 - 1/1) = CC3
- MG S. D. Lee (A2 - 0/1) = CC3
- BG Ewell (A2) = CC2
- BG Loring (B2) = CC3
- BG Cheatham (B3) = CC4
- BG D. H. Hill (B3) = CC3
- BG Hindman (B2) = CC2
- BG Breckinridge (A2) = CC4
- BG McLaws (B2) = CC2
- BG A. P. Hill (A2) = CC4
- BG Anderson (A2) = CC3
- BG Buckner (B2) = CC4
- BG Hood (A3) = CC2
- BG Pickett (B1) = CC3
- BG Cleburne (A3) = CC2
- BG Early (A2) = CC3
- BG Johnson (B2) = CC2
- BG Rodes (B2) = CC3
- BG Heth (A1) = CC3
- BG Stewart (B3) = CC2
- BG S. D. Lee (A2) = CC2
- BG Gordon (A3) = CC3

The Union list will follow soon.

 

[Pat Answer]

Your English is good and your ideas are sound.
Translating leader skills and initiative into a die roll modifier is indeed one of the greatest difficulties in creating games! I really like your chain of command here: ranking generals exercising tactical bonus through subordinates. What I've been finding interesting in my own design work is a way to emphasize the leader's ability to get units to and engage them in a battle. I wouldn't change your tactical bonuses (which are pretty close to what I've seen elsewhere - SPI "War Between the States" for example). But your system (from this small glimpse of it) seems to allow you to reward initiative even more. So your 'command capacity' numbers are where I might look to differentiate "star" generals from the merely competent.
Just one quick take, for what it's worth.

In any event, yours is a very interesting project. Please(!) contribute more -maybe a detailed example of three or four full game turns so we can see how the whole system fits together?

—your fellow game enthusiast

 

[DixieRifles]

This sounds a lot like Dixie Card game. I am no expert as I dont game any now.
We played an expanded game with Dixie Cards. Instead of 2 players and 3 front lines we had 6 players and 5 or 6 front lines. One player on each team was overall commander and moved troops from Corps reserve. Two other players were Division commander who controlled 3 brigades and his reserves.

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

@Pat Answer , I will try to detail it more with examples of game turns.

Each game turn represents a period of approximately three months (the length of a long military campaign). The game begins in Spring 1862 and could be played up to Spring 1865. There can be two, three or four players (see below).

1) The board part (see Bobby Lee rules on PFD, I think they are available online).

This board is divided into two sections :
- one depicts the eastern theater (including Virginia, Allegheny Mountains, up-North Carolina, Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania)
- the other depicts the western theater (limited by the Mississippi River, including Northern & Middle Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Northern & Middle Alabama and Western Georgia, aka from Vicksburg to Atlanta).

This division allows the teams to be composed of one or two players each (one for each theater). Instead, one player in the Union team can play against two players in the Confederate team and vice-versa.

I haven't created the board yet but it's quite clear in my mind, the West deals with the campaigns fought by the Army of Tennessee (CS) and the Army of Mississippi (CS) and the East deals with the campaigns of the Army of Northern Virginia (CS).

The board is used to move units from a position to another; a unit moves faster in a controlled territory (2 moves) than in an enemy territory (1 move).
- the fortified cities (Washington D.C. or Vicksburg for example) provide a entrenching bonus when a battle is fought in such place, reducing the attack to -1 die for each attacking unit (units having III attack with 2 dice while units having II attack with 1 die).
- the logistical cities provide reinforcements to the units after each game turn.

The board part will be very simplified compared to because players have to move cards (approximately 4.5x6cm) instead of wooden blocks, of little dimensions. A territory is linked by rails to other territories created a chain of supplies from logistical cities to units. If enemy units cut off entirely the chain of supplies, the city cannot provide reinforcements at the end of the turn.

2) The combat part

For this part, I was mainly influenced by Dixie Card Games, as @DixieRifles noted.

I proposed below an example of a battle in the Eastern Theater.

There is three battlefield section
- A CS part (Reserve + Left Rear Line + Right Rear Line)
- A US part (Reserve + Left Rear Line + Right Rear Line)
- A middle part (Front Line, "Offensive Line" (#))

A team must control one portion of the enemy rear-line to be victorious, either Right or Left Wing. Initially, I planned no limit of time, but it turned into a total annihilation battle and it wasn't particularly fun to watch the complete destruction of an army with only one single fight. So I will add some improvements with time-phases (dusk, noon, dawn, night).

A player can choose to retreat rather than fight. In this case, all units engaged at the moment of the retreat are reduced to one step (III=II and II=eliminated).

If both players don't occupy the Front Line during two successive turn, it ends battle without victory. The players send back their troops on the board to the territory they occupied previously.

Before the battle start, each team places its units on its own section (hidden).

CS Order of Battle :
LTG Joe Johnston (A2 - 1/2)
- MG Longstreet (A3 - 1/2)
- - - BG Anderson (A2) controlling three units (II + II + III)
- - - BG D. H. Hill (B3) controlling three units (II + III + III)
- MG Magruder (B2 - 0/1)
- - - BG McLaws (B2) controlling two units (III + III)
- - - One unit (II)

US Order of Battle :
LTG McClellan (C2 - 0/1)
- - - BG Sumner (B1) controlling four units (III + III + II + II)
- - - BG Porter (C2) controlling four units (III + III + III + II)

The CS team begins because Johnston has a better Initiative than McClellan.
The deployment of troops isn't immediately revealed to the other team (a vertical board must have a "fog of war" role until the beginning of the battle).

CS Reserve	CS Rear-Line	# - Front-Line - #	US Rear-Line	US Reserve
LTG Joe Johnston - MG Magruder - - - BG McLaws (III + II)	LEFT WING - MG Longstreet - - - BG Anderson (II + II + III) - - - (II) RIGHT WING - - - BG D. H. Hill (III + III + II)	NONE​	RIGHT WING - LTG McClellan - - - BG Fitz-John Porter (III + III + II) LEFT WING - - - BG Sumner (III + III + II)	- - - (III + II)

The CS team starts to move BG Anderson's units (three units, II + II + III) to the Front Line, while Longstreet keeps his position with one unit (II). Anderson has a better Initiative Value than Porter, so he can attack immediately the Union troops. The Combat Value is equal to 3 (Anderson provides to his units a Tactical Value of 2).
- The first unit (II) scores 6 and 4, that's a miss.
- The second unit (II) scores 3 and 4, one hit (applying to one of Porter's III units rather than eliminating the II one)
- The third unit (III) score 2, 3 and 7, two hits (applying to two of Porter's units, the III one and a II one, leaving only two units of II under Porter's command).
The CS team decides to finish his turn, keeping D. H. Hill and Longstreet in position rather than moving them forward.

CS Reserve	CS Rear-Line	# - Front-Line - #	US Rear-Line	US Reserve
LTG Joe Johnston - MG Magruder - - - BG McLaws (III + II)	LEFT WING - MG Longstreet - - - (II) RIGHT WING - - - BG D. H. Hill (III + III + II)	- - - BG Anderson (II + II + III)	RIGHT WING - LTG McClellan - - - BG Fitz-John Porter (III + II) LEFT WING - - - BG Sumner (III + III + II)	- - - (III + II)

The US team is threatened on its right, and decides to transfer the two reserve units on its right wing, while moving one of Sumner's unit (III) back to the Reserve, leaving Sumner with two units (III + II).

Porter, with his two remaining units, defends against Anderson's attack and gets benefit from McClellan's Tactical Bonus of +1 in Defense, adding it to his Combat Value and boosting it to 4 instead of 3. With his depleted troops (III and II), Porter achieves a good success.
- The first unit (III) scores 3, 4 and 5, two hits (Anderson looses one II unit and reduce his III unit to II).
- The second unit (II) scores 8 and 1, one hit (Anderson looses one II unit, leaving him only one II unit left).

This leaves Anderson in a bad situation, having one single depleted unit (II) against McClellan's reinforced flank (the two units left plus the two reserve units added). The US team has finished its turn.

CS Reserve	CS Rear-Line	# - Front-Line - #	US Rear-Line	US Reserve
LTG Joe Johnston - MG Magruder - - - BG McLaws (III + II)	LEFT WING - MG Longstreet - - - (II) RIGHT WING - - - BG D. H. Hill (III + III + II)	- - - BG Anderson (II)	RIGHT WING - LTG McClellan - - - BG Fitz-John Porter (III + III + II + II) LEFT WING - - - BG Sumner (III + II)	- - - (III)

The CS team decides to call off the attack and tries to disengage Anderson's command from the Front Line with a Moral die-roll (aka the unit must score with two dice (his actual strenght of II) at least once the score of the total Combat Value (Anderson's 2 + unit's 1 = 3).
- The unit scores a 2 and a 5, so it can succesfully get back to Longstreet's command on the Rear-Line.
McLaws's two units are transfered to Longstreet's.
McLaws himself with his superiors Magruder and Joe Johnston are sent to the Right Wing replacing D. H. Hill.
Without attached units, a general can move freely from a controlled area to another, so D. H. Hill is directly put under Longstreet, alongside Anderson.

The CS team decides to wait for a Union offensive, rather than suffer more losses in attack.

CS Reserve	CS Rear-Line	# - Front-Line - #	US Rear-Line	US Reserve
NONE	LEFT WING - MG Longstreet - - - BG D. H. Hill (III + II) - - - BG Anderson (II + II) RIGHT WING - LTG Joe Johnston - - MG Magruder - - - BG D. H. Hill (III + III + II)	NONE	RIGHT WING - LTG McClellan - - - BG Fitz-John Porter (III + III + II + II) LEFT WING - - - BG Sumner (III + II)	- - - (III)

The US team passes, wanting to avoid a costly attack with average leaders in command.
The CS team passes, having lost the benefit of initiative gained on the first turn.

The battle ends.

*IF THE CS TEAM HAD DECIDED TO MOVE AT LEAST ONE UNIT TO THE FRONT-LINE, THE BATTLE WILL CONTINUE.


"Voilà", I hope that this example clarifies a bit much the spirit of the game (at least in its battle gameplay rather than its board gameplay).

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

I made a mistake while counting units under Porter's command. Instead, he has only one unit at III and three unit at II. I forgot to notice one loss during Anderson's assault.

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

I had quite difficulties translating battle gameplay into this damned table, which is not very easy to handle at first try. Sorry about the resulting mess (and also about the numerous spelling mistakes).

 

[Ethan S.]

I have trouble understanding the rules of "Go Fish", but this looks okay to me, lol!

 

[Pat Answer]

I had quite difficulties translating battle gameplay into this ****ed table, which is not very easy to handle at first try. Sorry about the resulting mess (and also about the numerous spelling mistakes).

No worries. I think I get the basic interaction and I really like how it takes the decisions of both sides to resolve a battle. The more dice you roll - in theory - the closer combat results can resemble history: it was extremely rare in the ACW (or throughout the early modern period for that matter) to see one army destroy another similarly armed and organized.

(I borrow maps a lot. One of these years I'm going to have to bite the bullet and try to create my own. )

What you call "cards" sounds like what are "counters" in some board games - may be varying dimensions but often 1/2 inch (~12 mm?) squares of cardboard - each of which might have unit or leader information on it. Sometimes these are double-sided so they can be flipped to represent losses, etc.
I ask because there are also (playing deck) card games in which greater or lesser luck of the draw tells the player such things like who can move where and when.

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

What you call "cards" sounds like what are "counters" in some board games - may be varying dimensions but often 1/2 inch (~12 mm?) squares of cardboard - each of which might have unit or leader information on it. Sometimes these are double-sided so they can be flipped to represent losses, etc.
I ask because there are also (playing deck) card games in which greater or lesser luck of the draw tells the player such things like who can move where and when.

Actually, because of my lack of materials (printing, paper, ink, etc.), I choose for the moment a true one-sided card game played on a board like wooden blocks (which hampers quite a lot the handling of units, because there must be enough surface to move the cards without possibility to create a "fog of war" effect). I'll try to make some examples of cards and show them later, but I had a long, very long period of reflexion about that matter :
- how can I put less cards on the board without runinig combat sequences;
- should I make the cards revolve as for wooden blocks, making units with three steps instead of two;
- how many generals would I put without having problem with too many or not enough;
- etc. lots more.

Instead of that, I'm pretty proud of it because I wanted to create a boardgame on this conflict since I was fifteen, nearly eight years ago, and never get that far in all of my previous projects (cards, boards, dice, quizz, kind of "monopoly", etc.).

Thanks a lot for encouraging me ! with the current world situation, I can use my free time to perfect it day after day to finally be able to play it with my little brother, without boring him with all this "Civil War stuff".

More soon and thanks again.

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

I was thinking, are all the CS generals enumerated in my first post representing a pertinent choice ? Would it be more historically respectful to include such leaders as G. W. Smith, Pemberton, Holmes or even Price ?
Again, I'm both trying to respect historical accuracy and to propose an entertaining game, so does anyone have suggestion of other memorable generals that can be included ?

Actually, my choice was reduced by two factors :
1) the role they had (had they commanded big units, in a large scale battle, with a decisive impact (positive or negative), etc.)
2) the availability of images on internet (because I'm copying their faces, work them on Paint and put them on the cards directly).

That's why, when I wanted first to include more divisional commanders on the CS side, I was confronted with some restrictions :

- David R. Jones was a senior subordinate who participated in many battles under Longstreet, he was first made Major-General on March, 10th 1862 but for some reasons I don't know, his promotion was rejected after Antietam, on September, 24th 1862 (because of bad fighting, insubordination, or anything else ? Can't say why). He was part of my first printing project of the game when I realized that I cannot get a satisfactory image of him, only a engraving face and no clear photo of his face. So, too bad for him, I put him away for the moment.

- Jone M. Withers was, as for Jones, a senior subordinate with long service in the Army of Tennessee. He has a decent picture on the internet (looks good with his fine mustache and his uniform) but his battle records are not well-known except that he was praised for gallantry by both Polk and Bragg at Stones River. No more details about his tactical abilities (I first planned to rate him A2 but what can it based on ?). So again, put away for the moment.

- John P. McCown shares the problems depicted above with many other officers. The list would be long but I prefer to suggest a list of "which generals do you think I can (or must) put in my game ?" and which should not appear ?:

I propose below a full list and show who is in the game and who isn't for the moment.
I used here historical ranks rather than the one I chose to use in my game and classified them into three categories :

A) The CSA

1) Army Commanders
- GEN Albert Sidney Johnston (in game)
- GEN Robert "Bobby" Lee (in game)
- GEN Joseph "Joe" Johnston (in game)
- GEN P. G. T. Beauregard (in game)
- GEN Braxton Bragg (in game)
- GEN Edmund Kirby Smith (not in game)
- GEN John Bell "Sam" Hood (not in game)

2) Corps Commanders
- LTG/MG James Longstreet (in game)
- LTG/MG Edmund Kirby Smith (in game)
- LTG/MG Leonidas Polk (in game)
- LTG/MG Theophilus H. Holmes (not in game)
- LTG/MG William J. Hardee (in game)
- LTG/MG Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (in game)
- LTG/MG John C. Pemberton (not in game)
- LTG Richard "Dick" Ewell (in game)
- LTG A. P. Hill (in game)
- LTG D. H. Hill (in game)
- LTG John Bell "Sam" Hood (in game)
- LTG Richard Taylor (not in game)
- LTG Jubal Early (in game)
- LTG Richard "Dick" Anderson (in game)
- LTG Alexander P. Stewart (in game)
- LTG Stephen D. Lee (in game)
- LTG Simon B. Buckner (not in game)
- LTG Wade Hampton (not in game)
- LTG Nathan B. Forrest (not in game)
- MG Braxton Bragg (in game)
- MG Earl Van Dorn (in game)
- MG Gustavus W. Smith (not in game)
- MG John B. Magruder (in game)

3) Division Commanders
- MG Benjamin Huger (not in game)
- MG Mansfield Lovell (not in game)
- MG George B. Crittenden (not in game)
- MG Richard "Dick" Ewell (in game)
- MG William W. Loring (in game)
- MG Sterling Price (not in game)
- MG Benjamin F. Cheatham (in game)
- MG John P. McCown (not in game)
- MG D. H. Hill (in game)
- MG Jones M. Withers (not in game)
- MG Thomas C. Hindman (in game)
- MG John C. Breckinridge (in game)
- MG Lafayette McLaws (in game)
- MG A. P. Hill (in game)
- MG Richard "Dick" Anderson (in game)
- MG J. E. B. Stuart (not in game)
- MG Richard Taylor (not in game)
- MG Simon B. Buckner (in game)
- MG Samuel G. French (not in game)
- MG Carter L. Stevenson (not in game)
- MG George E. Pickett (in game)
- MG John Bell "Sam" Hood (in game)
- MG David R. Jones (not in game)
- MG John H. Forney (not in game)
- MG Dabney H. Maury (not in game)
- MG Martin L. Smith (not in game)
- MG John G. Walker (not in game)
- MG Franklin Gardner (not in game)
- MG Pat Cleburne (in game)
- MG Isaac R. Trimble (not in game)
- MG Jubal Early (in game)
- MG Joseph Wheeler (not in game)
- MG William H. C. Whiting (not in game)
- MG Edward Johnson (in game)
- MG Robert E. Rodes (in game)
- MG W. H. T. Walker (not in game)
- MG Henry Heth (in game)
- MG John S. Bowen (not in game)
- MG Robert Ransom (not in game)
- MG William D. Pender (not in game)
- MG Alexander P. Stewart (in game)
- MG S. D. Lee (in game)
- MG Cadmus M. Wilcox (not in game)
- MG Wade Hampton (not in game)
- MG Fitzhugh Lee (not in game)
- MG John A. Wharton (not in game)
- MG William T. Martin (not in game)
- MG Nathan B. Forrest (not in game)
- MG Charles W. Field (not in game)
- MG James P. Anderson (not in game)
- MG William B. Bate (not in game)
- MG Robert F. Hoke (not in game)
- MG W. H. F. Rooney Lee (not in game)
- MG John B. Gordon (in game)
- MG Joseph B. Kershaw (not in game)
- MG Bushrod R. Johnson (not in game)
- MG Stephen D. Ramseur (not in game)
- MG Edward C. Walthall (not in game)
- MG Henry D. Clayton (not in game)
- MG William Mahone (not in game)
- MG John C. Brown (not in game)
- MG (BG) William B. Taliaferro (not in game)

B) The USA

1) Army Group Commanders
- LTG/MGR Ulysses S. Grant (in game)
- MGR George B. McClellan (in game)
- MGR Henry W. Halleck (not in game)
- MGR William T. Sherman (in game)

2) Army Commanders
- MGR John C. Frémont (not in game)
- MGV Nathaniel P. Banks (not in game)
- MGV Benjamin F. Butler (not in game)
- MGV David Hunter (not in game)
- MGV Ulysses S. Grant (in game)
- MGV William S. Rosecrans (in game)
- MGV Don Carlos Buell (in game)
- MGV John Pope (in game)
- MGV George H. Thomas (in game)
- MGV William T. Sherman (in game)
- MGV George G. Meade (in game)
- MGV Phil Sheridan (in game)

3) Corps Commanders
- MGV Irvin McDowell (in game)
- MGV Ambrose E. Burnside (in game)
- MGV Samuel R. Curtis (not in game)
- MGV Franz Sigel (in game)
- MGV John McClernand (in game)
- MGV Lew Wallace (not in game)
- MGV George H. Thomas (in game)
- MGV William T. Sherman (in game)
- MGV Edward Ord (in game)
- MGV Edwin V. Sumner (in game)
- MGV Samuel P. Heintzelman (not in game)
- MGV Erasmus D. Keyes (not in game)
- MGV Joseph Hooker (in game)
- MGV Fitz-John Porter (in game)
- MGV William B. Franklin (in game)
- MGV Darius N. Couch (in game)
- MGV Henry W. Slocum (in game)
- MGV William F. Smith (not in game)
- MGV John Sedgwick (in game)
- MGV Alexander McCook (not in game)
- MGV Thomas L. Crittenden (not in game)
- MGV Joseph K. Mansfield (not in game)
- MGV John G. Foster (not in game)
- MGV Jesse Lee Reno (not in game)
- MGV Christopher C. Augur (not in game)
- MGV John G. Parke (not in game)
- MGV Gordon Granger (in game)
- MGV Jacob D. Cox (not in game)
- MGV James B. McPherson (in game)
- MGV George Stoneman (not in game)
- MGV John F. Reynolds (in game)
- MGV George G. Meade (in game)
- MGV Oliver O. Howard (in game)
- MGV Daniel E. Sickles (not in game)
- MGV Winfield S. Hancock (in game)
- MGV George Sykes (not in game)
- MGV William H. French (not in game)
- MGV John M. Schofield (in game)
- MGV Frederick Steele (not in game)
- MGV Abner Doubleday (not in game)
- MGV John A. Logan (in game)
- MGV Francis P. Blair (not in game)
- MGV Phil Sheridan (in game)
- MGV Gouverneur K. Warren (in game)
- MGV David B. Birney (not in game)
- MGV Alfred Pleasonton (not in game)
- MGV Andrew Humphreys (not in game)
- MGV Quincy A. Gillmore (not in game)
- MGV Andrew J. Smith (not in game)
- MGV Horatio Wright (not in game)
- MGV John Gibbon (not in game)
- MGV George Crook (not in game)
- MGV Godfrey Weitzel (not in game)
- MGV Alfred H. Terry (not in game)

 

[Pete Longstreet]

I'll be honest... my head is spinning a little bit... but you have my attention and I'm very impressed as to the progress you've made.

 

[DixieRifles]

For this part, I was mainly influenced by Dixie Card Games, as @DixieRifles noted.

You did a much better job of explaining it and displaying the layout than I did. We would have one player commanding each of the Left Wing, Right Wing and the Reserves.

 

[Pat Answer]

That's quite an impressive list of candidates you've compiled!
Always a tough call as to which leaders to include, but I would be guided first by what level (grand strategic, operational, grand tactical, etc.) is being simulated and second by how close to history (or not) you want the overall effect to be.
In a strategy game I might want army and corps leaders only. But I might also want to be able to promote generals who in the real war for whatever reason never attained corps command, so 'extra' names would be a good idea. And so on...
You have pretty detailed battles here so division and even brigade commanders make sense. Of course you literally have hundreds of choices and not everyone will make the list. My only advice would be to ensure both sides have a range of leaders from great to mediocre so each player faces challenges - i.e., put Holmes and Pemberton in for the CS and Butler and Banks in for the US (LOL!)...

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

@Pat Answer

My first intent was to simulate a grand-tactical level boardgame with only two theaters (US Army of the Potomac vs CS Army of Northern Virginia in the East / US Armies of the Cumberland and of the Tenessee vs CS Armies of Tennessee and Mississippi in the West). However, few corps leaders were available on the CS side and too much on the Union side. I rearranged then the ability to promote subordinate generals to corps command with the inclusion of great or/and influent divisional commanders, such as Cleburne (who led temporarily the First Corps at Jonesborough) or Loring (commanding the Third Corps at Kennesaw Mountain after Polk's death).

I realized then that most of Union corps leaders had commanded approximately same amounts of troops than their CS divisional counterparts with similar semi-independent role (for example, I think Cheatham, Hindman and W. H. T. Walker, acting semi-independently at Chickamauga, had similar roles than either Thomas, McCook, Crittenden or Granger). In this case, CS corps commanders acted more like wing commanders than their Union counterparts.

So I've decided to include more generals in charge of division for the CS team and less generals in charge of corps for the US team, keeping only those who were in charge of more than an actual corps, with a decisive role in the greatest campaigns (that's why I chose to retain Granger, he was in charge of the Army of Kentucky from October 1862 to June 1863 and was one of the hero of Chickamauga, helping Thomas to defend against the Army of Tennessee).

Finally, one of my factors cannot be justified : I retained officers that I like to study, with negative or positive impact on the army.
Even if they had a great role and were in charge of numerous troops at a time, some generals just don't stand for my list choice because of my "historical (dis)liking" factor :

- Horatio Wright, replacing Sedgwick at the head of Sixth Corps after Spotsylvania in May 1864, appears to me as an avergage general who cannot be evaluated properly, having never fight before at this level. He had been assigned to many administrative roles, with authorities over famous leaders as Burnside (Department of the Ohio) and I don't find him really interesting (sorry for Wright fans !).

- John Grubb Parke is a more complex case because he fought on several occasions and was a competent leader but I would rather see him as a divisional commander than a corps commander, having succeded to Burnside only after the battle of the Crater, when the defeat of Lee's troops in Richmond was just a matter of time. Many other commanders than I find interesting are also filling this divisional role, as Sykes (in charge of the Regular Troops), Newton, Doubleday, Humphreys, Reno, etc.

- Banks would have been retained if I've decided to include more theaters like Trans-Mississippi Department. But I didn't, so I assume that Banks, Butler, Curtis, Steele and other generals that fought most on other theaters than the one depicted in the game are purely set aside (as for Price and Holmes for CSA).

The list I made above was a way to show how complex and arbitrary my choices would be, with such a panel of factors.

To put it more simple (I hope), for the Union side, the one I retained have more than a wing-commander role than a subordinate-corps-commander role (for example McDowell, with more than three divisions under his command, having led the Army of Northeastern Virginia at 1st Manassas, or Sedgwick, commanding an ad-hoc left wing at Chancellorsville). I'm working on a final list to submit my choices to your expert appreciation.

Thanks a lot for your advices, this is exactly what I needed (in order to know where I was really going with this game).

More to come.

 

[Waterloo50]

Hi, I'm actually working on a Civil War boardgame combining with plastic cards rather than wooden blocks (no materials at home). The main part is done (the rules) but, when I get into details, the officers' tactical skills and initiative are quite difficult to manage, in order to bring more balance and historical value when battle phases are played.

(Brief explanations = to create the rules, I was mainly inspired by Dixie Card Games and Bobby Lee Boardgame).

In a battle phase, each player places his cards (units of 2,000 (II) to 3,000 (III) effective men) on his battlefield part (rear-line left wing, rear-line right wing, reserve).

The front-line is common to both players and determines who's the attacker and who's the defender.

Battle phase is composed of many rounds. For each round, a player has three choices :

- moving unengaged units.

- disengaging units from combat.

- firing at the enemy with engaged units (aka units placed on the top of left & right wings, in contact with enemy units).

One unit cannot move and fire in the same round (exceptions, see General Abilities).

A unit (representing approximately a brigade) can attack with 2 (II) or 3 (III) eight-sided dice, with a standard combat value of 1.

The combat value represents the maximum score obtained with the dice to inflict a casualtie on an other unit. To boost this combat value, the generals necessarily provide tactical values and bonuses.

There are three general ranks available =

- Brigadier-General (Division Command (CS) or Corps Command (US)), who can command only standard units

- Major-General (Corps Command (CS) or Army Command (US)), who can command BGs or standard units

- Lieutenant-General (Army Command (CS) or Army Group Command (US)), who can command every cards of lesser rank (BGs, MGs and standard units)

Each general card contains several pieces of informations, otherwise than name and rank =

1) - Initiative Value (A, B or C, regarding strategic and moving skills in front of an enemy). It determines more generally which player begins the battle phase. Exceptionally, a general in attacking posture will fire directly against units commanded by a general with a lesser Initiative Value (B or C, regarding the value of the attacking general). In any other case, the battle phase isn't affected by the Initiative Value.

2) - Command Capacity (number or subordinate the general can control in a single position, ranging from 2 to 6).

Example : an LTG with a CC of 5 can commit into the front five subordinates units (either MGs, BGs or standard units). It can be clever to gather many subordinate generals under his command in order to allow a great concentration of fighting units (in this case, the LTG can command three MGs, each of them also commanding subordinate units, either BGs or standard units. The BGs under their commands can also be in charge of other subordinate units, creatin a huge chain of command).

3) - Tactical Value (and Tactical Bonuses) represents the battle skills showed by the generals. A Tactical Value (TV) is ranging from 1 (weak) to 3 (strong) and is attached to the Initiative Value (for example = A2, B3, C1, etc.). Only MGs and LTGs have Tactical Bonus (TB), which provides 0 (weak) to 2 (strong) points more to the TV of their subordinates.

During a combat, the generals who are directly in command of the engaged units (subordinate generals) provide their own Initiative Value and Tactical Value to the engaged units, while their direct commanding officers provide them Tactical Bonuses.

I know that these rules can be exceptonally boring and clumsily explained but I hope it would allow the full comprehension of what is the purpose of this thread : I need some advices to complete my generals stats before printing the cards. If anyone is looking for a better explanation, don't hesitate ! I did'nt write in English for several months and I believe that I've lost my touch with the process.

Nevermind, here are my first edition project for the CSA. Enjoy and react !

Officers List (CSA) (for #/#, the 1st number is the attack bonus, the 2nd is the defense bonus):

- LTG Sidney Johnston (A3 - 2/1) = CC3
- LTG Bobby Lee (A3 - 2/2) = CC3
- LTG Joe Johnston (A2 - 1/2) = CC3
- LTG Beauregard (A2 - 1/1) = CC3
- LTG Bragg (A1 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG Polk (B1 - 0/0) = CC2
- MG Van Dorn (A1 - 0/0) = CC2
- MG Magruder (B2 - 0/1) = CC2
- MG Hardee (A2 - 1/1) = CC4
- MG Longstreet (A3 - 1/2) = CC4
- MG Jackson (A3 - 2/2) = CC3
- MG Kirby Smith (A2 - 1/0) = CC2
- MG Ewell (B2 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG A. P. Hill (B2 - 0/0) = CC3
- MG D. H. Hill (B2 - 0/1) = CC3
- MG Hood (A2 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG Anderson (A2 - 1/1) = CC3
- MG Early (A2 - 1/0) = CC3
- MG Stewart (B2 - 1/1) = CC3
- MG S. D. Lee (A2 - 0/1) = CC3
- BG Ewell (A2) = CC2
- BG Loring (B2) = CC3
- BG Cheatham (B3) = CC4
- BG D. H. Hill (B3) = CC3
- BG Hindman (B2) = CC2
- BG Breckinridge (A2) = CC4
- BG McLaws (B2) = CC2
- BG A. P. Hill (A2) = CC4
- BG Anderson (A2) = CC3
- BG Buckner (B2) = CC4
- BG Hood (A3) = CC2
- BG Pickett (B1) = CC3
- BG Cleburne (A3) = CC2
- BG Early (A2) = CC3
- BG Johnson (B2) = CC2
- BG Rodes (B2) = CC3
- BG Heth (A1) = CC3
- BG Stewart (B3) = CC2
- BG S. D. Lee (A2) = CC2
- BG Gordon (A3) = CC3

The Union list will follow soon.

Hi there, just Wondering if you have thought of adding a solitaire element to the game, I own a number of popular war games like 'the hunters' and the Battle of Britain and the one thing that makes both games sell really well is the fact that they can be played as single or double player. It strikes me that successful games have well designed modifiers which add an element of surprise and unpredictability to the game. Simplicity seems to be the key with these types of games. In the game 'Hunters' an officer can be promoted and win awards depending on how well he functions, obviously your game will reflect real history but maybe you could include a fictional commander, it could perhaps add another element of interest to the game play for the players, a way of measuring how well the player would do against a reallife opposition. Anyhow, I just want to say that you definitely have the basis for a great game there, on behalf of casual players like myself my only request would be that you don't over complicate with to many complex rules. Good luck with your game, well done.

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

So, having re-worked on it, I propose here some card prototypes, depicting playable officers in the game.

1) RANK
The Stars (left-top) are showing the actual rank of an officer = a Lieutenant-General (***) is superior to a Major-General (**).

2) SENIORITY
The letter next to the name (left-bottom) are used for seniority if two officers have the same rank (for example, Joe Johnston, Bobby Lee, Sidney Johnston and Bragg, all having an A-seniority, can command Lieutenant-Generals with lesser seniority, such as Polk or Longstreet).

3) COMMAND CAPACITY
The grey "fortified" rectangle (blue for the Union) at the top of each officer's face shows the number of stars this officer can command, the Command Capacity. One unit represents one star, the subordinate represent two or three stars, depending on their ranks (for example, Sidney Johnston has a Command Capacity of 6, he can command directly three Major-Generals or two Lieutenant-Generals).

I'm assuming that each combat unit represents two (II) or three (III) brigades, making them more or less the size of a small division (2,400 to 5,400 men). This said, Longstreet could command a maximum of 6 "divisions" when Major-General and, when promoted Lieutenant-General, increases his Command-Capacity to 8. I've mainly used American Civil War's Orders of Battles on Wikipedia to know approximately the maximum Command Capacity of each commander (Van Dorn commanded two Major-Generals at 2nd Corinth, 2 stars each, giving a total of 4 stars). I arranged Bragg's one because 3 (**) would be too small for his rank and seniority and 6 (***) deals with his irascibility while commanding too many officers (so, he cannot command three corps, each under a LTG but can command two wings, each under an LTG).

4) TACTICAL VALUE
The Tactical Value are showed in the yellow rectangle (right-top). The first number is for Attack, the second is for Defense. The Combat Value ranges from 0 (weak) to 3 (strong).

5) TACTICAL BONUSES
Some officers provide tactical bonus to their subordinates, showed by little colored squares on the right flank :
- the green one represents a Skirmisher / Entrencher / Driller ability and give to all units fighting under this officer a protection bonus of 1 (it means that when enemy units have succeeded their combat dice-roll, one hit can be deducted from the total of inflicted hits). For example, Joe Johnston is a retreating master and can use this ability to avoid severe losses on a fall-back action. Longstreet possesses amazing entrenching skills, allowing his men to be protected when fighting.
- the red one is an Offensive Bonus, it provides +1 Combat Value to each subordinate unit / officer under command.
- the blue one is a Defensive Bonus, it provides +1 Combat Value to each subordinate unit / officer under command.

All this abilities are used when the commanding officer is in the fight, on the left or right wing, and therefore doesn't applies to every units on the battlefied.

Is it OK or should I make it more simple, with less colors or numbers ?

 

[Pat Answer]

Very, very nice!

The only suggestion I have would be maybe put the rank/stars box along the left side of the portrait with the seniority letter so there is more room at the top for the command capacity and rating numbers. These should grab the eye if they are main basis for the tactical decisions of the player.
Other than that you capture a lot of information in a few symbols a player should be able to get used to after a couple of games.

Glad to see you're still at this!

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

Hi everyone,
I changed (again) my card prototypes, I think that it's simpler now than before. The Command Capacity was replaced by another military characteristic : the Commander's Tactical Initiative (aka the number of subordinate officers / units that a general can "activate" during one battle phase; basically, it means movement ability on the battlefield and it has to respect the chain of command).

However, some details still unchanged. I keep using D8 for Combat Rolls.

1) RANK & SENIORITY :
- the number of stars show the rank of the general (Major-General / Lieutenant-General).
- the numbered letter on bottom-left side, next to the name of the general, indicates his seniority (for example, MG Van Dorn outranks MG Longstreet, MG Jackson and MG Hardee but is outranked by MG Polk and MG Bragg). It is based on their historical ranks (or potential, in the case of LTG Van Dorn, probably promotable as soon as October 10, 1862).

2) TACTICAL VALUE & TACTICAL BONUS :
- the yellow rectangle with two values, one for offensive actions and second for defensive actions. It provides Combat Bonus to a unit under direct command (aka not linked via another general)
- the little colored squares represents the bonus given by generals to their direct subordinates only (red shamrock is +1 Attack while Blue Spades is +1 Defense).

Example : LTG Bobby Lee provides +1 in Attack and in Defense to LTGs Longstreet and Jackson. While attacking a Union position, if LTG Longstreet has direct command of engaged units on the battlefield, he gives to these units his own tactical value (2) plus the tactical bonus provided by his commander (+1), meaning that an average division with Combat Value of 2 attacks with a Combat Value of 5 !

3) TACTICAL INITIATIVE :
- the orange square on middle-top, ranging from 1 (bad) to 3 (good).
- it is used to move subordinate units or subordinate commanders in battle. It must respect the chain of command from the highest-ranking general (usually an Army commander) to the lowest-ranking unit.

*(I know that Jackson may deserve TI3 (good) rather than TI2 (average), but I chose to lower his military skills because of his eccentric command style, not fitting with every subordinates; for Longstreet and Hardee, I've decided to give them the maximum value because of their outstanding administration skills and great ability to command large formations in battle, even if they failed to get cohesion and coordination at some points of the war = Gettysburg and Knoxville for Longstreet, Atlanta Campaign for Hardee; it was also a way to bring balance to the military command with a representative bunch of excellent, good, average and poor commanders).

Example : A standard battlefield consists of three major parts : a left wing, a right wing and a reserve.
Let's say that LTG Braxton Bragg opens the fight with two top-subordinates, namely MG Polk and MG Hardee. Hardee is given the left wing while Polk controls the right one. The reserve has no commanding officer meaning that each of its units is directly commanded by Bragg until sent to the front-line (either on the left or right wing).

At Battle-phase N°1, because Bragg's Tactical Initiative numbers only "1", the Confederate Player only could only one unit or one subordinate within Bragg's commanding range (either Hardee, Polk, or a unit from the reserve).

The Confederate Player decides to activate Hardee's Left Wing. Now, with Hardee's Tactical Initiative numbering "3", he could move up to three subordinate units under this commander (he can either move up to three units forward to engage an advancing enemy unit, he can decide to make up to three units retreat in the face of stronger odds, or he can decide to do nothing).

At each Battle-phase, engaged units are not concerned by this Tactical Initiative, as they are fighting with enemy. A general can use his Tactical Value to disengage a unit, but he must do a Morale Dice-roll to achieve success. Otherwise, the unit is routed and is put on the reserve.

I didn't created yet Unit Cards. Ideally, each is representing a division (numbering one, two or three brigades). A Light Division is composed of two (II) Brigades (one (I) when depleted). An Heavy Division is composed of three (III) Brigades (two (II) when depleted). The number of Brigades indicates the number of dice (D8) that an engaged unit rolls.
A division can possess an average Combat Value (2 out of 8) or a good Combat Value (3 out of 8). The maximum score a unit can achieve with every kind of bonuses provided by officers is 7 out of 8, the minimum being 2 (no bonus).
There is of course less units with good Combat Value : on the Eastern Theater, C.S. side, only one Light Division (Texas Brigade + Law's Brigade) and one Heavy Division (Stonewall Brigade + Taliaferro's Brigade + Jones' Brigade) possess such fire-power. While I was hoping to make more units at CV3 (including part of McLaws' Division with Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade), I realized that it was more challenging to make only two "shock troops" divisions, but the game is not finished yet and therefore I might change my mind about this.

Anyway, I hope you'll enjoy my explanation and my project. With scholar studies and work at home, it wasn't an easy task to deal with it. Sorry about the multiple details but I really wanted to have your opinions on my changes, especially replacing the Command Capacity with the Tactical Initiative.


I will end this thread by proposing a C.S. Order of Battle version of my game for the battle of Gettysburg to help comprehend the whole thing :

Army Commander : LTG [A2] Bobby Lee (TI3 - 3/3 - ♣/♠)

- Right Wing : LTG [B1] Longstreet (TI3 - 2/3 - ♠)

- - - MG [B4] McLaws (TI2 - 1/2) ; II-CV2 / II-CV2
- - - MG [C2] Hood (TI2 - 3/2 - ♣) ; II-CV3 / II-CV2
- - - MG [C2] Pickett (TI2 - 1/1) ; III-CV2 (Pickett's division minus Corse's bigade)

- Left Wing : LTG [B3] Ewell (TI2 - 2/1)

- - - MG [C3] Early (TI2 - 2/1) ; III-CV2 / II-CV2 (the two Louisiana Brigades are put together)
- - - MG [C3] Johnson (TI2 - 2/2) ; III-CV3 (Stonewall Division)
- - - MG [C4] Rodes (TI2 - 1/1) ; III-CV2 / II-CV2

- Reserve Wing : LTG [B4] A.P. Hill (TI2 - 1/1)

- - - MG [B5] Anderson (TI2 - 1/2) ; III-CV2 / II-CV2
- - - MG [C5] Heth (TI2 - 1/1) ; II-CV2 / II-CV2
- - - MG [C5] Pender (TI2 - 2/1) ; II-CV2 / II-CV2
- - - *MG [C3] Trimble (TI2 - 2/1) ; #

TOTAL : Four LTGs , ten MGs and sixteen units.

Cavalry Units are not planned yet. Also, not all the division commander of the C.S. Army would be playable (Pender, for example, isn't in my game for the moment, I included him here to show how it looks).

 

[Scott1967]

the yellow rectangle with two values, one for offensive actions and second for defensive actions. It provides Combat Bonus to a unit under direct command

Bit harsh on Bragg tactically he was not inept he just had poor leadership skills i would give him a 2 in Attack and 1 in defence

Lee on the attack a 3 seems a bit high after all he led two failed invasions and didn't cover himself in glory in the seven day battles.

Jackson on defence also seems high i would drop to a 2.

Buy hey I understand you need to balance your game accordingly I hope you don't mind my observations it is your game after all.

 

[Gavrilo Sartorys]

Jackson on defence also seems high i would drop to a 2.

I hesitated but Jackson was perhaps a better leader than Longstreet, when commanding his troops directly. He doesn't provide a defensive bonus despite his high tactical value and that's why I preferred to keep 3 in Defense. But of course, I should deal with many other commanders and this would probably change after every playable general would be created. That's only prototypes and not definitive form and that's why such advices are very useful.

I may have rated Sidney Johnston too high but he was clearly a born-leader when on the offensive, inspiring his troops directly on the front-line (maybe I should cancel his Attack bonus).
For Lee, 3 in Attack seems a rather fair and historical value to me, because on the overland Campaign, twice he wanted to lead directly his troops to the front, inspiring the soldiers for a counter-attack. And for his bold moves at tactical scale, I think he deserves 3 in Tactical Initiative (even if he wasn't able to coordinate his Corps Commanders properly at Gettysburg), making him the (potentially) best tactician of the war. But again, it still a game and a bad luck with dice-roll could change everything, even with excellent commanders.

Bit harsh on Bragg tactically he was not inept he just had poor leadership skills i would give him a 2 in Attack and 1 in defence

Bragg was unable to get along with his subordinates, this is translated by his Tactical Initiative (1). Even if it seems harsh, I think that he deserves no more than 1 in Attack, because of his piecemeal assaults at Shiloh, and uncoordinated moves in other battles. However, I may give him 1 in Defense rather than 0. He still be better than some Union commanders who have 0 in both Attack and Defense (Butler, Banks, etc.) but he is definitely not a good commander in my game. Of course, the player could use him in an aggressive strategy mode rather than in defensive operations.

This is only a small part of his military skills depicted here (he was a skilled administrator but not an inspiring leader), and his high seniority prevents him to be expulsed too quickly from the military hierarchy. So I may revise my judgement and give him 1-1/1 rather than 1-1/0 (because 0 is really for incapable commanders, such as Polk in attack). Of course, one may have luck with dice-roll and be victorious with only poor leaders in command (Bragg, Polk and Pemberton altogether may achieve success against Grant, Thomas and Sherman, dependig on the dice score in battle). This is part of the game.