"ACW Regimental Rules" Topic

Despite having been a reenactor for many years I do not really own any ACW. I do play other horse and musket period such as AWI and SYW however. I am interested in starting ACW but at a regimental level I think although I have played Fire and Fury BDE level many times.

My question to all of you is are the regimental level rules really any different or do they just call 3 stands a regiment instead of a brigade? If different, how so?

What rules would you recommend for regimental 28mm rules?

Thanks in advance.

There is now a Fire and Fury Regimental. Same mechanisms as brigade level but more details.

F & F R is a good transition, as noted, with interesting complexities but similar mechanisms.

My preference is Johnny Reb III for Divisional sized games and Across a Deadly Field for Corps sized. ADF uses regimental units, but the focus is on the Brigade.

I prefer JR3 as well, it is the most detailed set out there. The rules are out of print so you have to find someone who will share them. I believe Battlefield Terrain Concepts still has a few copies left. There is also the Johnny Reb Gaming Society which publishes articles about it and ACW gaming in general.

JR3 uses 4 stands per regiment, different sized regiments have different numbers of figures per stand. Orders are issued via order counters which define what a unit can and can not do. One figure equals 30 men. It does encourage historical tactics and has lots of period flavor. Many of the mechanics are rather intuitive and there is very little abstraction. However, as I mentioned before, it is not a simple beer and pretzel game.

Agree with PJ and Bernhard. Except there is always beer and pretzels at any JR game I play. In fairness, I have played them for over 30 years.

Check out Johnny Reb III (JR3).

JR3 is considerably more complicated than F&FR. And, let's be honest, the rule book is something of a mess in its organization. That doesn't detract from the rules, but it dos make it a lot harder to figure out.

Rally around the Flag is a good beer and pretzels set. I have a version with a number of updated house rules (faster strategic movement, slightly restrained artillery power and cavalry v cavalry melee rules) that is a bit of fun. IF you have RarF, you can send me a PM for the house rules update.

There is also A Glint of Bayonets which is Larry Brom's ACW rule set. sergeants3.com/19.html# The maneuver units are infantry and cavalry regiments and artillery batteries that are grouped into brigades and divisions. Designed for 25/28mm figures but includes conversions for smaller figures. Very easy to learn and fun to play.

Movement is driven by cards, followed by firing then melee. Morale takes place as required, mainly after firing and before and after melee.

Here are recent and older game reports from our group using these rules:
link
link
link

Jim

@1968billsfan

Do you mean Rally 'Round the Flag or Rally Round the Flag? Because there's two different sets of rules with effectively the same name.

Either way-the only one on this thread who can PM you is ColCampbell.

Regimental Fire and Fury is not bad but nowhere near as good as I hoped it would be.

Its mechanics are better than the original game but there's really not enough detail to make it feel like a representation of something different.

I get the feeling that folks may think JR III might go to far the other way.

@1968billsfan
Will pm you as soon as my membership upgrade goes through. Speaking of house rules, I have played RRTF with Napoleonic's via some interesting rule and chart changes. Just to confirm I went back and looked and it is "Rally 'Round The Flag" third printing 1982. Seem to be missing the casualty tables though?

Sorry Odin's Warrior, didn't mean to highjack your thread. Reg F&F is a pretty easy game to pick up. I have played it several times at conventions. I really like the morale test mechanic of RRTF. Realistically hard to close against point blank fire but if you do the defender will be hard pressed to stand. Never tried Johnny Reb. I play Carnage & Glory, a computer moderated system, at home these days with units based at a regimental level.

Odins Warrior, I've been in the same boat with you for a long time. When I became a reenactor 30 years ago I suddenly became very aware of just how lacking all the ACW rules out there really were. "But they don't move like that!" became my eternal lament. :)

But in recent years I've just resigned myself to accepting it and just play for fun instead of accuracy. Lately I've used some modified Black Powder rules to satisfactory results.

Another vote for Regimental Fire and Fury!!!!

However, if you like the Peter Pig wargames "system" you may also like "Civil War Battles."

Ray

When I became a reenactor 30 years ago I suddenly became very aware of just how lacking all the ACW rules out there really were.

Can you elaborate?

Well, it mostly has to do with the fiddly details that gamers and game designers don't want to be bothered with. Things like changing formation or changing direction can vary enormously in the amount of time it takes to do them depending on what you want to do. Changing from a march column into a line a battle could take a number of minutes (the "half-move" you so often see in rules) if done one way, but take literally three seconds when done another way.

One thing that drives me crazy is the number of rules that include an "Extended Line" formation. It's there for one reason and one reason only: everyone has read "The Killer Angels" or seen "Gettysburg" and by golly Joshua Chamberlain did it with his troops on Little Round Top and I'm gonna do it with my figures now! But what Chamberlain did was exceptional, not routine. There may have been times when troops defending entrenchments or breastworks might have thinned down to a single rank. But out in the open field? Never. Ever. (Okay, hardly ever-I'm sure someone here will dig up an example of it happening, but for every one of those I can show you 10,000 examples of the men being in the standard 2-rank formation). No commander would want to put his men in such a formation because there's just no reason to do so and lots of reasons not to. It doesn't reduce your vulnerability to enemy fire at all, it reduced your own firepower per yard of front by 50% and once you are in a single rank you can't do ANY of those maneuvers that you drilled on so long and hard back in camp.

And other things that you pick up after reenacting for a while (and commanding battalion-sized formations as I have). Like that fancy maneuvers that you can do perfectly on a parade ground just become impossible when under heavy fire. There's too much noise, too much confusion, too many officers down to even risk trying anything clever. Once you are close to the enemy, you can go forward, you can stay in place or you can retreat and that's all.

As I said, after learning these lessons, I became disenchanted with the rules sets out there. Then I went crazy for several more years trying to make a realistic rules set that you could actually PLAY. I finally conceded that it was impossible and now I just don't worry about it :)

Interesting. Thanks for explaining.

I, for one, rarely use extended line into games if R F&F. But isn't it supposed to represent a regiment in a skirmish line in those rules?

As for the movement, do you think it's possible to have a realistic result without having to reproduce the various machinations on the table?

Finally, what maneuvers were they able to pull off under fire?

Thanks.

Yes, the extended line formation in RF&F represents a skirmish line. The RF&F scenario book includes a more detailed optional rule for skirmishers, in which a regiment can deploy skirmisher stands while the parent regiment remains in line or field column. The book recommends using this optional rule only for smaller battles as it adds complexity to the game.

Actually I think that ACW troops were very flexible and often fought in denser or tighter formations that the 2 deep line. There are definately records (sunken road, Fredricksburg stone wall) of troops in depth reloading and handing muskets forward to the front shooting ranks. Also, if there was a length of stonewall or fence longer than the 2 deep line, men would spread out to cover it, get elbow room and take the best positions. In my rules an extended line (between 1/2 and 1" between stands) fires and receives fire at -1 fire table. Skirmish is > 1" between stands.

The RF&F scenario book includes a more detailed optional rule for skirmishers, in which a regiment can deploy skirmisher stands while the parent regiment remains in line or field column. The book recommends using this optional rule only for smaller battles as it adds complexity to the game.

Or looked at another way, its an add on for something to represent an element of period tactics that was in widespread use.

I'd also love to know what the optional rule for skirmishers are but given it wasn't in the main rules (why?) I've no intention of buying a scenario book just to find out!

Trajanus,

The optional skirmish rules were developed after the rules were published, due to popular demand. They were not part of the original rules as written.

The only time I can think of where the formations loosened and "troops in depth reloading and handing muskets forward to the front shooting ranks" was in prepared defensive positions. I can't think of a time when this happened in an open field fight. I'd have to agree with Scott. There should only be rules for line and skirmish. Most set have rules for allowing a regiment to cover a larger frontage when behind works. At least I know JR2 and JR3 do.

The optional skirmish rules were developed after the rules were published, due to popular demand. They were not part of the original rules as written.

I understand that, I own and have played the rules. My point was the skirmish rules or something similar really needed to be in the original rules to give more 'Regimental' credentials to them. I wouldn't have expected "popular demand" to prompt the author into action on something that was a regular occurrence. The "Extended Line" formation in the rules just wasn't what was needed.

I have to disagree – I think the omission served a real and practical purpose. I have never been convinced that the mutual practice of skirmishing didn't wash out on the larger scale, and I don't think that the management of skirmishers should be the job of any player commanding more than a brigade on the table. Since the rules are pitched to allow a player to command multiple brigades, omitting the gamey tidbits of fiddling with skirmishers allows a much improved (and realistic) flow of game.

And I disagree with your disagreement! :o)

Well actually I agree with this bit:

. I have never been convinced that the mutual practice of skirmishing didn't wash out on the larger scale

That's why I never missed them in the Original Fire and Fury, for example. That that for me is "the larger scale".

"Regimental Fire & Fury is designed primarily to recreate historical battles" saith the author – well "historical" battles had skirmishers.

On that other point:

I don't think that the management of skirmishers should be the job of any player commanding more than a brigade on the table

Divisional Commanders clearly did not and should not "manage" skirmishers. Neither did they "manage" shooting by their Brigades, let alone Regiments but we do that, don't we?

Skirmishers don't need micro management, if the rules are written properly. If they are not on the table how do you screen a deployment, or probe into a wood, as per the period – both valid parts of a Brigade action. Two choices – you either delete such things from table top tactical requirements, or you send an entire Regiment.

Neither of these are a happy solution as far as I'm concerned.

I'm with CATenWolde on this one. I guess it all comes down to how much abstraction one is comfortable with. One nice thing about our hobby is that we have a wide selection of rule sets to choose from. To each his own. :)

Anyway, with regard to Regimental Fire & Fury, this topic announced that the 2nd scenario book will soon be available: TMP link

It will include several new optional rules:
"MANEUVERS
Full Move Disordered
Crack Troops Charging with Cold Steel
Prolonging Guns
Rallying Guns
Restrictions on Heavy Field Guns
WEAPONS
Rifle and Carbine (RC)
Repeater (RP)
Heavy Howitzer (HH)
Mountain Howitzer (MH)
MARKERS
Tethered Horses Marker"

Once again pretty much all of which could and should have been in the original and a good number of which were in test editions that were available on the Internet!

If you liked F&F then F&F Regimental would be your best bet. I think it needs a lot of figures per regiment.

I played JR2 and Some JR3 for years but switched to "Mr. Lincoln's War." We had to rework the Sequence of Play to suit our tastes. Not as intense as JR. Lots of fun.

Coming from Napoleonics, I'm painfully aware that the use of skirmishers is a) necessary and part of the fun for some, and b) often just not handled well by rules, and so slows things down. Let me stress that anyone in the "I think they are part of my fun" camp should find a way to use them! I'm not preaching any sort of line and verse here.

In my opinion, however, they should be represented in a combat role only when there was a decided superiority in some form. I think that was very rare in the ACW. However, as you mention, their potentially most useful purpose was in screening and scouting. To be honest, these things pertain to FOW and hidden movement, which are simply missing in most games. Further, the actual use of FOW can be abstracted without specific reference to any rules (hidden movement, spotting distance and capability, etc.).

Given the above practical concerns, my take is that locally superior skirmishing firepower can be perfectly well represented by an extra unit depicted in extended line for a specific scenario, and the use of FOW and hidden movement can be best managed outside the rules, so not including a complicated subsystem was a great design decision.

As for the "missing" elements above, I think writing a good, solid set of rules covering 90+% of situations is better than bending over backward to include various bits, but they are always welcome.

However, as you mention, their potentially most useful purpose was in screening and scouting. To be honest, these things pertain to FOW and hidden movement, which are simply missing in most games.

I agree but the sad thing is it really isn't that hard to do.

Simple numbered balsa blocks and a bit of co-operation between players is all that's needed. We use them for most games across all the periods we play. Of course you can ignore them but its no use bitching if you get flanked and it turns out the appropriate numbered block is on the "real unit" list.

That's true – a little trust between players goes a long way! I think FOW is particularly important to the ACW (relative to Napoleonics for instance), because of the terrible terrain and its effect on command decisions. How can you recreate the common occurrence of blundering into enemy formations in the woods? As you say, blocks and dummy units help on one level, but I'm going to try true hidden movement – the trick is managing it without the need for a referee … so I can play! ;)

I think FOW is particularly important to the ACW (relative to Napoleonics for instance), because of the terrible terrain and its effect on command decisions

Absolutely, its hard to envisage The Wilderness as a Napoleonic Battle! ;o)