"What makes for good ACW skirmish rules?" Topic

I am interested in doing some small skirmish games with the new Perry plastics too, and the one published rule set that exists is Bro Against Bro. Any yet people always seem to describe these rules as "beer and pretzel" and lacking the flavor and/or realism inherent to The Civil War. This is sort of ironic considering that they are the only rule set expressly meant for ACW.

Being a newcomer to the period, can anyone explain to me what are the qualities of Civil War skirmish battles that are missing from BAB or that make Civil War skirmish combat unique? What would you look for in an ACW skirmish system that would be more authentic/satisfying? Presume 28mm figs and that skirmish means anywhere from between 30-100 or so figures per side.

Thanks

AX

BaB lacks the flavor of the ACW when used to represent larger engagements. If you are talking company sized actions or less you should be fine.

Strangely, it's not so much what's missing as what's there. There is a very high casualty rate in BaB, as usually 1/5 or so of rolled dice hit. If you account for attrition other than kills you can get by. If I was going to ask for anything, it would be a pyschology system. In Bab this doesn't exist outside of the random drawn cards, which, though random are still quite fun.

Don't pass it up based upon a Beer and Pretzel label. It's an incredibly fun game that lends itself to many black powder periods. It just happens to not be terribly complex.

Hope that helps
Cheers
R.O.

There are a lot of "old west" rules out there. These typically are aimed at small groups of folks -- often 1 to 10.

If you are looking for something more "military", you may want to look at some of the WWI rules like Trench Wars, or Over There.

link

Reviewed at:

link

Over There is free for the asking. But is aimed at WWI forward. It has rules for machine guns. That said, it would probably work pretty well for what you are contemplating. Just eliminate the rules dealing with blasts and automatic weapons. You would probably want to do something to reduce the rate of fire as well -- initial volley would be same as a later rifle but you will need a rule dealing with the time needed to reload.

mjc

With an eye towards doing the same thing axabrax (ACW skirmish with Perry figures) I did some reading and some research, and decided to give Bro v Bro a try. In fact, not 5 minutes ago I returned from my mail box, and there they were.

From my reading before I ordered them, what I gathered is that they are a fun game to play. Where they get flak is that in the ACW there were no small unit organizations. In BAB you have squads of 10 guys led by an NCO, and you then group 3-6 squads together and call them a company led by an officer.

I beleive the company was the smallest unit in the ACW. And what we think of as Sergeants (think WWII) as being the backbone of experience, looking out for their soldiers, knowing more about fighting than the wet-behind-the-ears officer, really is not the case in the ACW. Officers led companies of varying strengths (on paper, call it 100 men). NCOs had virtually no leadership respinsibilities.

Again, I've never played the game, and only just got the rules myself. But like I said, the zing they get is because the game is based on the movement of squads led by NCOs and there was no such organization in the ACW.

Still, one has to wonder, if an officer were leading a company of 100 men to say, take a crossroad, and the enemy had skirmishers there, it makes sense that he might order a group of soldiers to take the farmhouse, another group to take the barn, and a thidr to charge the thicket where the enemy fire was coming from and flush them out.

I can't imagine that a company officer could only issue orders to all 100 men at one time, without breaking them down into detachments. Maybe they were not called squads, and maybe they were not led by an NCO.

So .. my reading tells me it's a fun game, not historically accurate when it comes to how troops are organized and led. I also ran across comments that they are too bloody, and other comments that said a few minor rules tweaks fixes most of these issues (tweaks found on the Yahoo Group).

In the end, I thought it was worth a buy and a tryout. They are reasonably priced, and I thought it would help there being an active support group, where others might have house rules to fix any so-called problem areas, etc.

Steve

TFL is just about to release a skirmish set called Sharp Practice. While nominally Napoleonic skirmish rules, they cover up to Enfield rifled muskets – but no breach loaders or repeaters.

I've play tested with French & Indian War and the Vendee and had fun games without ghastly losses being the norm. OK, my first game I did lose a lot of Brits…

I'm sure it works for ACW muzzle-loaders, though you might have to figure out your own national bonus cards for Yanks and Rebs. Hmm… Rebel Yell, scares the Yanks when charging… Yankee guns, artillery fire bonus or movement bonus

I asked Rich at TFL if Sharp Practice was "it" for the ACW, or if other rules were in development.

There will be an article for Sharp coming out in either the Summer or Winter Special that adds the rest of the ACW weaponry to those rules. Rich said that Sharp can sort of handle 1861, but that's about it. The article is aimed at allowing Sharp to support the entire war.

However, he also said that hey have a set of rules aimed squarely at the American Civil War, tentatively slated for a summer release. Those were meant for larger scaled actions, however, and not skirmish.

So I am considering Sharp for ACW skirmish, but will wait until the article in their special is out.

Actually the company was not the smallest CW unit. Each company was further subdivided into two platoons, each commanded by a lieutenant. Regiments could march in column of platoons. According to Hardee's Tactics, when a company deployed as skirmishers, one platoon formed the skirmish line while the second platoon remained in line of battle to its rear and formed a reserve on which the skirmish line could fall back if threatened by cavalry.

The platoons could be further subdivided by the company or platoon commander by simply detailing any available leader-a corporal, sergeant or lieutenant-to take charge of a certain number of files and protect a flank or scout a woods. It was always an even number of files, for the basic skirmish unit was a group of "comrades in arms" formed the four men in two adjoining files. On the skirmish line the comrades in arms would alternate their fire to avoid emptying all muskets at once. If threatened by cavalry they could defend themselves by forming back-to-back, facing in all four directions.

As to the leadership ability of junior officers or non-coms to command skirmishers, I'm sure it varied. But it was common practice for certain companies of a regiment, usually the flanking companies, to regularly serve as skirmisers, so I presume they became proficient with experience.

To slightly supplement Jeffersonian's accurate description, regiments were usually about 300-400 effectives, so companies were 30-40 men and platoons 15-20. Sgts and corporals were positioned at specific places in the line of battle (ends, ect.) and also had file closer responsibilities. I agree that the junior officers and non-coms became very proficient as the war went on. There are lists of THOUSANDS of recorded skirmishes in the war that involved less than 500 men per side. I've only played BvB once formally, but I think you could layer on a more accurate small unit structure if you thought it made sense. It is one of the things I may do (but in 54mm.)

Bill

Actually, I've been working on repeater rules for ACW Shape Practice, they work in petty easy. SP is a big skirmish game, where you would want 50 or so guys per side.