"Shenandoah Campaign - Bloody Baker, disaster for Jackson" Topic
12 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.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Battle Reports Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleThe goal is to build a series of gameboards covering Longstreet's Assault on the 2nd day of Gettysburg.
Featured Profile ArticleA Civil War boardgame is adapted to miniature wargaming.
Featured Book Review
|
Ponder | 04 Feb 2015 3:27 p.m. PST |
Howdy, Turn 5 battles continue with more bad news for the Confederates. Jackson attempted to cut Fremont's supply by moving on Moorefield. He met two of Blenker's brigades (Stahel & Bohlen), supported by one of Shields (Sullivan). Disaster for Jackson. The Stonewall brigade was basically destroyed with Talliferro and Burk both one hit away from exhaustion upon retreat. Yanks only took medium casualties. Stonewall moved strongly against the Yanks and initially drove them back. Heavy Yank firepower however diminished Jackson quickly. Trying to get Talliferro for support, Jackson paused and allowed the Yanks to regroup. Suffering further casualties Jackson fell back to lure the Yanks forward. They took the bait and Jasckon launched his counterattack. It meet with mixed results and the Stonewall brigade broke and collapsed. Burk had a tough fight vs Sullivan trying to hold the LOC. Sullivan was able to get close as it was easier for him to enter… Burk was behind Tallifero. They Yanks had a good firing position and line close to the LOC. Burk drove them back but suffered heavy casualties in doing so. Rebs took 21 hits with all but one unit of the Stonewall Brigade being destroyed (and it had only 1 hit left). Talliferro was bloodied but ok. Burk was down to 1 point before break when the retreat was called. Stonewall Brigade lost their artillery in the rout. Once again the superior Yankee firepower and numbers were victorious. The miniature battle are being fought using Volley & Bayonet at Battalion scale (regiments on the table). Pictures will follow. Ponder on, JAS
|
vtsaogames | 04 Feb 2015 4:00 p.m. PST |
Tell your Confederate players to sacrifice small animals to the dice gods. Or maybe large ones. |
GoodOldRebel | 04 Feb 2015 5:03 p.m. PST |
something has to be wrong with the command factors if the likes of Banks and his cronies are so consistently out-performing Jackson and his lieutenants |
vtsaogames | 04 Feb 2015 7:43 p.m. PST |
V&B has no command factors. Troops are within command radius and can move freely, period. It is one of my few gripes with the rules. If you don't like C&C rules, you'll love V&B. There are grades of troops but none of leaders. |
CATenWolde | 05 Feb 2015 3:01 a.m. PST |
Although, frankly, Jackson was often a terrible battlefield commander. He was audacious on the strategic level, and against timid and confused opponents that worked wonders, but he had the tactical finesse of a bull ape. An easy way to introduce a bit of command confusion into V&B is to 1) wither write simple orders or draw objectives and march paths on a sketch map, and then 2) introduce a time lag to changing those orders. A simple way to do that is: An average commander, with average staff/support/intelligence, can change 1 order per turn (i.e. send a courier). Modify this by: Good Commander +1. Good Staff +1. Bad Commander -1. Bad Staff -1. So, a good commander with good support can issue 3 orders per turn – very flexible. If you are reduced to 0, you can issue 1 order every-other turn. If you are reduced to -1 (bad commander with bad support), you can only issue 1 order every *third* turn. Shake and mix as desired. Cheers, Christopher |
Ponder | 05 Feb 2015 8:21 a.m. PST |
Howdy, We are reassessing the campaign. I've proposed two fixes should we restart or continue playing. (1) Eliminate the range advantage for rifle muskets. Historically, I only see mention of this at McDowell, not in other battles. (2) Currently, troops out of supply do not recover stragglers. Thinking to also add troops out of supply round permanent losses up for post-battle regrouping. A third party, privy to campaign info, has suggesting increasing the differential in troop quality. I have always found the difference between M4 and M5 troops to be significant. Ponder on, JAS
|
Ponder | 05 Feb 2015 8:28 a.m. PST |
Howdy, In terms of command confusion, we have plenty. We have the campaign players who are directing the movement of troops and where battles take place. Campaign commanders have limited intelligence, and know only what their scouts report. They also get the "newspaper" accounts of the battle results. Communication between players on the same side, seems limited. However, when battles are fought, the table-top commanders are not the campaign players. Table-top commanders are given direction resulting from the campaign play, but are independent. We have two distinct, geographically scattered groups fighting battles. Ponder on, JAS
|
Ponder | 05 Feb 2015 11:27 a.m. PST |
Howdy, Additional overall background: The total Union OB has 54 regiments. Of these, just less than half (23) are C-class, remainder are B-class. For the Confederates, 30 regiments, with about one third as A-class, the remainder B-class. Before a battle roll a d6 based on class to determine the unit's morale and training A-Class 1-3 ---> M5 4-5 ---> M6 6 ---> M6, shock B-Class 1-2 ---> M4 3-5 ---> M5 6 ---> M6 C-Class 1 ---> M4 Militia 2 ---> M4 PT 3-4 ---> M4 5-6 --- > M5 So overall, about half of the regiments of the Union army will be M4, ~10 percent M6, and the rest (~40 percent) M5. While for the Confederates, about a quarter will be M6, with about 2 regiments rated as shock, with a quarter rated M4, and the other half M5. This seem a fairly reasonable distribution to me. Ponder on, JAS
|
Ponder | 05 Feb 2015 11:28 a.m. PST |
Howdy, There have been five campaign battles so far: Bentonville (Ewell vs. Banks), Luray (Ewell vs. Banks), Churchville (Fremont vs. Johnson), Staunton (Fremont vs. Johnson), and Baker (Jackson vs. Blenker/Shields). All Union victories. Ewell, after two battles has two brigades at half strength, while Banks has one brigade at half strength. Fremont's casualties not too bad, Johnson has one brigade near half strength. I don't have casualty report for Baker, but in summary severe Confederate losses. Brigades reduced to half-strength or less generate a campaign victory point for the opposing side. There are also terrain VPs. All of the battle have been roughly 3 brigades per side. While brigade size varies (2-5 regiments per brigade), Union brigades typically have an extra regiment (4 vs.3 on average). Union regiments have 4SP base, while Confederates have 3 SP base. In the first three battles, the Union range advantage R-M over Muskets was noted as significant in the AARs. The bigger US brigades likely has more effect than troop quality in my opinion. Ponder on, JAS
|
vtsaogames | 05 Feb 2015 12:26 p.m. PST |
Just wondering if the campaign Jackson has an advantage. That would be where the real difference was. Jackson's foot cavalry marched faster, they had Hotchkiss' (sp?) maps and didn't have telegrams from Washington to confuse them. Are there three Union campaign players and are they allowed to confer with each other? If they can that's an advantage the Union didn't have in reality. |
Ponder | 05 Feb 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
Howdy, In the campaign, the Confederates have stragglers on a forced march one-third of the time (1-2 on d6). The Union will have stragglers half the time (1-3 on d6). You roll for each regiment. Stragglers equate to a temporary 1SP loss, until you take a turn to rest. You cannot recover stragglers if out of supply. There has not been significant coordination by either side. Ponder on, JAS
|
jaxenro | 16 Feb 2015 2:30 p.m. PST |
Jackson was lucky and his opponents were second rate in the Valley. Don't discount luck all good commanders back then were lucky. What if Fremont had pressed a crossing at Port Republic? Carrollton had burned the bridge as soon as he hit it trapping Jackson? Shields, Banks, and Fremont had worked together? On paper Jackson should have lost some of those battles and would have against different commanders but then again against different commanders he probably would have acted differently. I don't think he would have attacked Shirlds at Port if Grant was across the river instead of Fremont. He risked that Fremont wouldn't press the issue. |
|