AAR - ACW Valley Campaign Held 21st Feb 2009 UK - Woodford

[MJ1]

So here we have a brief AAR of the game and some nice images of the map used...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16572454@N06/sets/72157614910336757/show/

Experimenting with using Power point and saving the output as Jpegs.

Seems to work OK. You need to maximize the image for the list of forces and even then not too clear but you can just about make out the brigades involved...

MJ

[Martin]

Looks like a good game, Mark. Wish I could have been there.

Powerpoint makes it all look very professional, but as you say the clarity could be a bit better. Do you think that will come with practice, or is it a limitation of Powerpoint?

What an excellent map.

Martin

[MJ1]

Just me trying to fit the forces into one page and I guess I could mod it to put forces used on their own page....

I presume you are talking about the list of forces not being too clear?

[Martin]

Mainly that yes. I did think the other text could have been a bit crisper. I was nevertheless able to read it ok.

Where did those maps come from?

Martin

[MJ1]

I need to post a link to maps.

Library of Congress I have been reading (last year) up on the campaign and knew Hotchkiss was part of the campaign so did a search for his maps.

The 1 Mile Sq's are a good send and allow you to estimate march speed very quickly...

Funny I bet he never thought we would still be talking about him now....

[Martin]

Well good on him. Did he map other areas of Virginia, or just the Valley?

Martin

[MJ1]

He mapped loads of places...

When I get home tonight I will post a link...

I don't think all the maps have the 1 mile grid...

[hammurabi70]

He mapped loads of places...

When I get home tonight I will post a link...

I don't think all the maps have the 1 mile grid...

That would be great.

[MJ1]

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/maps/hotchkiss/index.html

You will need MrSid to read maps which is a bit of software...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/help/download_sid.html

This is the map I have used...

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3882s.cwh00089

Ohh and you might need an ERViewer as well..

http://www.erdas.com/Products/ERDASProductInformation/tabid/84/currentid/2585/default.aspx

Allows you to view very large maps easily...

[henridecat]

You can convert these jp2 files to jpg and thence convert to an A4 paged pdf file as follows:

1) Download the map in jpg200 format from link on the above page
2) Download an install irfan viewer ( http://www.irfanview.com/)
3) Download and install irfan viewer plug ins (also http://www.irfanview.com/)
4) Open the downloaded jp2 file in irfan viewer.
5) Save it using Save As... in gif or jpg format.
7) Download & install pdf creator http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/
6) Download & install poster printery, http://www.cadkas.de/eposter!.EXE
8] Open gif/jpg in poster printery, and print it out in A4 sheets using pdf creator as your printer.
9) Open pdf & print pages on a normal printer.
10) Stick pages together. A voila.

Best way to find out how it works is to try it!

[nichtstadt]

As others have said, the map display is very good. I have just read 'A blow to the kidneys' on the website. Again useful maps, briefings and reports from the commanders. I found it interesting to read Martin's thoughts as he receives his reports and correctly takes the view that their accuracy is to be doubted and the enemies intentions are difficult to divine. Part of the problem is that facing any gamer - what are the 'rules'? By 1864 a commander would have a much clearer idea of the 'rules' than he would have had in 1861. Perhaps this could be reflected in the umpire reports in terms of the accuracy of the information. For example a veteran cavalry unit might be graded A whilst a newspaper reporter might be graded E. The commander could be told by the umpire how his reports would be graded.

Andy (Nichtstadt)

[MJ1]

Part of the problem is that facing any gamer - what are the 'rules'? By 1864 a commander would have a much clearer idea of the 'rules' than he would have had in 1861. Perhaps this could be reflected in the umpire reports in terms of the accuracy of the information. For example a veteran cavalry unit might be graded A whilst a newspaper reporter might be graded E. The commander could be told by the umpire how his reports would be graded.

Andy (Nichtstadt)

Perhaps it is late but I am trying to get my head around what is being said here?

Could you explain a bit further as I think I am missing the point?

Are you saying that when giving some information to a player you would tell the player the grade of the information?

[Martin]

That was how I took what Andy was saying.

I think it's a good idea, provided it's not set in stone, and the player is not given the grading scheme in detail.

So for an 1864 ACW game you could tell the player that patrol reports from veteran units are more likely to be reliable than those from less experienced ones. And that reports from civilians are likely to be less accurate still. Back in 1861, your typical unit may not be much, if any, more accurate than civilians of course.

All that said, even a veteran unit may get things wrong on occasion, for all sorts of reasons. One quick method that Richard Madder & I have used is to roll a dice to see how accurate the report is:

1 Gross underestimate
2 Underestimate
3 Broadly accurate
4 ditto
5 Overestimate
6 Gross overestimate

If the reporting unit keeps the enemy in sight, you can move the die roll towards the median by 1 the next time it reports. So the quality of reporting will probably improve over time.

You could also vary the table depending on the source of the report. Assuming it's not an email game, it needs to be quick though, or you'll slow the game down.

Martin

[nichtstadt]

That was how I took what Andy was saying.

I think it's a good idea, provided it's not set in stone, and the player is not given the grading scheme in detail.

So for an 1864 ACW game you could tell the player that patrol reports from veteran units are more likely to be reliable than those from less experienced ones. And that reports from civilians are likely to be less accurate still. Back in 1861, your typical unit may not be much, if any, more accurate than civilians of course.

All that said, even a veteran unit may get things wrong on occasion, for all sorts of reasons. One quick method that Richard Madder & I have used is to roll a dice to see how accurate the report is:

1 Gross underestimate
2 Underestimate
3 Broadly accurate
4 ditto
5 Overestimate
6 Gross overestimate

If the reporting unit keeps the enemy in sight, you can move the die roll towards the median by 1 the next time it reports. So the quality of reporting will probably improve over time.

You could also vary the table depending on the source of the report. Assuming it's not an email game, it needs to be quick though, or you'll slow the game down.

Martin

From Nichtstadt:
Firstly a procedural thing: In order to send this should I have clicked on the reply button (as I have done) or the Post Reply button - and what is the difference? Thanks

I would take Martin's comments a little further in that whilst I would perhaps adjust his dice scoring regime to be able offer a better level of consistency and accuracy from a skilled spy or cavalry unit I really meant that the longer a commander has been working with his units then the better able he is to assess the quality of the information. So whilst the umpire would not say 'You have received a Grade A report from Agent Witherspoon at Tunstall's Landing' he might say - 'Your longstanding agent at Tunstall's landing has reported that two Confederate brigades marched through yesterday. He distinctly saw Generals James and Martin. Grainger's 2nd Va Cavalry has since confirmed marching columns that seem to bear out the presence of a formation of this size. We (ie as your staff) have had good reports from Witherspoon in the past.' On the other hand an inexperienced staff or army might say 'Col Martin's cavalry have entered the town of Hempstead. Interviews with the inhabitants reveal that the Confederates left here in panic yesterday and f you follow them up you will destroy them utterly. But frankly, General, Col Martin's cavalry were only raised two months ago and we really don't know how accurate this is likely to be.'
This may all sound rather complicated but it is really just an attempt to reflect that information gathering is a very variable science and is one of the areas that give veteran commanders a real edge - which might otherwise be difficult to reflect with the 21st century accountants or teachers who are playing them.

Nichtstadt

[Martin]

Not sure about the buttons myself. Maybe the 'post' button includes the previous email in the body of your post? I'm using the 'post reply' on this, so we'll see.

Your approach on intel sounds good. Flavour and useful context.

Having the excellent Colonel Grainger corroborate the experienced agent Witherspoon increases the reliability of the intelligence significantly. Though I would still roll a dice to see exactly how accurate & complete the result is. It may be broadly correct, but missing some key details for example.

Working intelligence into games in a sophisticated way is a particular interest of mine. You've touched on one of the issues that arises re approach. Do we provide the players with the raw intelligence, or do we give them the sifted and nuanced result?

In the example given, you could provide 2 separate reports from Grainger & Witherspoon, among the others they receive, and let them work out that one seems to corrobarate the other, or you can give the players the composite view from their staff.

I think you can make a case for either approach on historical grounds, depending on period. But there is also the question of what makes for a better game........

Martin