Reaction Movement??

[Capt Cliff]

Just when does reaction movement take place? I have never seen it! Rules say when opposing partys are in the same area, you hit ctrl-d, but how can that happen?? [&:]

It would be nice if you could react into an area if an enemy force enters that are, but I don't see that in the rules. Just see one of your leaders with initative to reaction and they do! Might want to point out which are they should react into.

[Joel Billings]

If the Union player ends his turn with units in a Confederate controlled area, then at the start of the Confederate turn, the Confederate player will be in the reaction phase (not movement phase). When they end the reaction phase, next will be the combat phase, followed by the normal Confederate movement phase.

If the Confederate player ends his turn with units in a Union controlled area, then at the start of the Union turn, the Union player will be in the reaction phase (not movement phase). When they end the reaction phase, next will be the combat phase, followed by the normal Union movement phase.

If you aren't seeing the reaction phase, then you're opponent is not attacking you (other than with overrun, naval, or naval bombardment combat, that all happen during the other player's movement phase.

[Joel Billings]

Ctrl-d simply shows you the areas where there is going to be combat (if you press it when you are in the reaction phase).

[Capt Cliff]

AH!!! So that's how it works!!! Thanks Joe! It's there to counter offensive operations!

[Berkut]

This is actually a rather interesting mechanic, which I think contributes greatly to the WW1ish feel.

Normally, the conflict between the offense and defense is this:

1. The defense gets to pick the terrain, and meet that attacker. This is a large advantage, all other things being equal. Canonically, the rule of thumb is that the attacker needs 3-1 to overcome this advantage.

2. However, the attacker gets to pick the time and place to attack, and hence can concentrate on that point of attack to achieve local superiority. It was not uncommon during WW2, for example, for the Soviets to achieve 10-1 or greater odds against the Germans at the point of attack for the late war offenses, while at no time never having a more than 2-1 overall advantage in numbers.

WBTS turns this on its head - now the defender gets to "reaction move" everything into the point of attack, effectively meaning that the attacker has lost the ability to only attack a portion of the defenders forces.

During WW1, the problem with offenses was not their inability to break through the trench lines - this was done time and time again with massed attacks and artillery. The problem was that by the time the attacker could exploit that breakthrough, the defender could react reserves to the point and stifle the breakthrough. This is why the defense was so ascendant over the offense during that war.

WBTS feels WW1-like for a different reason - the defenders ability to funnel his troops to the point of attack before the battle is even fought - indeed, he has great discretion over shaping the coming battle, much more so than the attacker.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

WBTS turns this on its head - now the defender gets to "reaction move" everything into the point of attack, effectively meaning that the attacker has lost the ability to only attack a portion of the defenders forces.

Well, sort of.... The number of movement points expended diminishes the effectiveness of reaction forces arriving at the battle. So it doesn't represent an absolute accrual of strength. Also, 'battles' in WBTS are meant to consume more than a day or two, given the monthly turns. The Gettysburg campaign lasted three weeks, IIRC.

[Treefrog]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

This is actually a rather interesting mechanic, which I think contributes greatly to the WW1ish feel.

Normally, the conflict between the offense and defense is this:

1. The defense gets to pick the terrain, and meet that attacker. . . .

2. However, the attacker gets to pick the time and place to attack, and hence can concentrate on that point of attack to achieve local superiority. . . .

WBTS turns this on its head - now the defender gets to "reaction move" everything into the point of attack, effectively meaning that the attacker has lost the ability to only attack a portion of the defenders forces.

. . . .

WBTS feels WW1-like for a different reason - the defenders ability to funnel his troops to the point of attack before the battle is even fought - indeed, he has great discretion over shaping the coming battle, much more so than the attacker.

Berkut's discussion is thought provoking. Certainly in GGWBTS the Eastern Theatre campaigns between the ANV and AOP are apt to accurately reflect the actual campaigns while looking like the Western Front of WWI. Both campaigns featured high concentrations of troops in a relatively confined space resulting in no maneuver room. If it is true that the ACW was the "first modern war", it is also true that the next modern was was WWI, so this is not surprising. Art imitates life here.

I have not played enough to accept Berkut's conclusion that the "reaction move" means the attacker has lost the ability to attack a portion of the defender's forces. Preliminarily, I think that the portion of defender's forces one attacks includes the reserves placed in their support. Second, all commanders are expected to march to the sound of guns aren't they? The only troops that get there in time to participate in the battle are the ones that were relatively close (having unused movement points helps in "commitment"). I find this acceptable for a couple of reasons. First, troops that close to the point of contact are really the troops the attacker must anticipate encountering in the attack; it is not like they are arriving from a separate continent. Second, ACW battles were often meeting engagements with both sides reinforcing/reacting: Shiloh, Second Manassas, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and the Wilderness come quickly to mind. Providing for an historically correct process is arguably a good thing.

However, the case is certainly different on the other two fronts. (1) Atlantic Coast. Amphibious operations have always been met with troops available at the point of contact, and that largely happens in GGWBTS too. (2) Western Theatre. If the Eastern Theatre is constricted, the Western Theatre provides a vast operational scale. If the Eastern Theatre resembles WWI, the Western Theatre resembles the maneuver opportunities that make WWII operational wargames so exciting. After mastering command, supply and initiative and learning to sustain campaigns through rivers, swamps, mountains, and inclement weather (the Union generals didn't learn to do this until 1863), the Western Theatre offers plenty of opportunity to maneuver and "hit'em where they ain't". I don't claim to be able to play the game at this level of execution, but inevitably others will rise to that level. In the face of such facility with game mechanics by an attacker, reaction forces may be confronted with responding to attacks across a wide front, with consequent reduction of their effectivenss and ability to stymie the attacker.

In short, I think that when the quality of attacker play improves the significance of the reaction move will wane. For my part, I confess that my armies move with the alacrity of the Austrians during the Napoleonic War, but I hope to improve.

[Berkut]

The examples you cite of meeting engagements....none of them involved reinforcemetns arriving from outside the armies of the initially engaged forces. Maybe Buell at Shiloh, but when the abttle opened, he was a day march away, not in what WBTS would consider a seperate area entirely.

Same with Gettysburg - it was a meeting engagement only the first day really, as the armies closed up and concentrated. Neither side trucked in reinforcements from different parts of the state the way WBTS allows the defender to do, much less entirely different forces and command structures.

I think the issue might be the desire to reflect what was really a operational detail at the strategic level. I think the same mistake is made when it comes to cavalry raiding and spotting.

[Berkut]

Treefrog, have you played against human competition in the West and seen this kind of "free wheeling" maneuver? If so, tell me what you are doing as the Union, because I cannot match it. I place my ACs as best I can, wait for them to activate then move....1 space and attack the Southern troops. Sometimes I get to move 2 spaces.

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Treefrog, have you played against human competition in the West and seen this kind of "free wheeling" maneuver? If so, tell me what you are doing as the Union, because I cannot match it. I place my ACs as best I can, wait for them to activate then move....1 space and attack the Southern troops. Sometimes I get to move 2 spaces.

One thing I've seen suggested is using large cavalry formations like Sheridan (cmmand 7) to capture poorly defended regions with overrun attacks and then back filling with inf and arty and forts. Cav doesn't need initiative to enter enemy territory.

Haven't tried it myself yet, I usually keep my cav with my AC's so they can screen and benefit from AC's initiative.

If it works, its almost like having extra mini-AC's and it would force the CSA to at least 'thicken' its frontlines to guard against overruns.

[madgamer2]

I gather that if the union gets WV on the first turn and the computer Reb AI leaves the unit that is in the WV area that now belongs to the Union as a state that it does not trigger a reaction phase because it still belongs to the south by its occupation of it even though WV is a union state.

Madgamer

[Treefrog]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Treefrog, have you played against human competition in the West and seen this kind of "free wheeling" maneuver? . . . Sometimes I get to move 2 spaces.

Berkut, mein lieben buddy, I didn't say or even mean to suggestion "free wheeling" maneuver, only maneuver opportunities. In the age of blackpowder and horses**t, 2 regions per month in the face of an active foe is not unhistorical.

And no, I haven't played a person yet. I'm still struggling to learn the rules and develop some mechanics. I too have been stuck at Paducah, etc. and have sometimes been unable to match your blistering pace of 1 or 2 regions. I attribute my failings to my lack of technique.

My point is that in the West the players have multiple lines of attack available and thus reaction forces are not as likely to bottle up every attack.

[Berkut]

OK, my point is that the issue is not how many avenues the players have, it is that none of those avenues will result in any kind of maneuvering. You can go to any number of spaces, each of which will have (if your opponent knows what they are doing) enough forces and a fort to keep you from over-running, backed by his army which can react into whichever space you choose to attack.

You can counter this with more troops and attacking multiple spaces - but they can counter that by divying up their reaction force accordingly. The point is that even in the west, you end with the West Front, circa 1917/1918 - progress can be made, but it is slow, plodding, and very deliberate.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Treefrog, have you played against human competition in the West and seen this kind of "free wheeling" maneuver? If so, tell me what you are doing as the Union, because I cannot match it. I place my ACs as best I can, wait for them to activate then move....1 space and attack the Southern troops. Sometimes I get to move 2 spaces.

One thing I've seen suggested is using large cavalry formations like Sheridan (cmmand 7) to capture poorly defended regions with overrun attacks and then back filling with inf and arty and forts. Cav doesn't need initiative to enter enemy territory.

Haven't tried it myself yet, I usually keep my cav with my AC's so they can screen and benefit from AC's initiative.

If it works, its almost like having extra mini-AC's and it would force the CSA to at least 'thicken' its frontlines to guard against overruns.

But it doesn't work, sadly. All doesn't take much to over-run proof the frontline, and with the reaction system, there is no reason for the defender NOT to "thicken" his front line enough to do so. He can generally just react into any fight he needs to anyway.