Help support TMP


"type of engagement" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the ACW Battle Reports Message Board

Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board

Back to the ACW Scenarios Message Board


Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset

Fire & Fury


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


1,079 hits since 10 Aug 2010
©1994-2026 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
freddy32610 Aug 2010 8:25 a.m. PST

Hi,

I'm trying to set up an ACW campaign and need some help with the type of engagements.

I can generate the forces involved and the terrain, but am stuck on whether the battles should be Attack/defend, meeting engagement or flank attack etc.

any help gratefully appreciated

MajorB10 Aug 2010 8:33 a.m. PST

I would suggest that if one force has been in the battle location for a day or more then it would be defending in an attack/defend scenario. If neither side can claim this then it would be a meeting engagement. I assume by "flank attack" you mean a strategic flanking movement? This would be determined by the intelligence of the whereabouts of the opposing force. If one side expects the enemy to come from one direction and instead they are attacked in the flank then you have a strategic flank attack.

Hope that helps.

vtsaogames10 Aug 2010 8:48 a.m. PST

There werer certainly delaying/rearguard actions. You could also have actions where a larger force attempts to storm a defile/river crossing/etc, before reinforcements arrive.

There were several battles where one side was encamped and surprised by the other. Wilson's Creek, Shiloh, and Cedar Creek spring to mind.

In large and small battles of the ACW you can find almost any kind of engagement, attacks on supply convoys, coup de main storms of fortified places, etc.

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP10 Aug 2010 8:57 a.m. PST

I think it depends – as this is a campaign, I would suggest that the battles reflect the situation in the campaign. We have run a couple of ACW campaigns and, while the meeting engagement is one near and dear to the hearts of gamers everywhere, relatively few of our battles have been meeting engagements – mostly, they have had one side defending, the other side attacking with as noted the occasional meeting engagement when one side blundered into the other and the even rarer flank attack when one side managed (usually by shear dumb luck or incredible persistence) to attack an enemy force in the flank

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP10 Aug 2010 9:33 a.m. PST

I'll ditto Frederick. We've tried table to table campaigns and map campaigns. Often meeting engagements turn into defend or rearguard when you find your division has encountered an entire enemy corps. Be sure and build cav recon into your campaign. Some of our greatest fun was in hoodwinking the enemy or uncovering his nefarious maneuvers.

Tom Reed10 Aug 2010 9:46 a.m. PST

I've played in a couple of ACW campaigns. One was box to box movement, one was on a huge hex map, and we ran one in a series of rooms at the local college, where each room was one location of the campaign.

Your battle will depend on timing, who gets where the fastest.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.