"ACW : what makes it feel unique?" Topic

What do you look for in a set of rules that makes you feel they give a game a specific ACW feel?

The tactics, the evolving tactics. To a great extent the tactics of the ACW evolved from the men themselves and their junior officers, choosing how they would fight against new and more lethal weapons. Unfamiliar anyway with the rule books (which were written for weapons from an earlier time) the tactics changed over the war from something Napoleonic to a precursor of the trenches of WW1. Whether they were wrong to ignore conventional wisdom of the armies of Europe (cavalry as mounted infantry, the fire fight as opposed to going in with the bayonet) is still a matter of debate.

The personalities, from Sam Watkins and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain all the way up to Patrick Cleburne and John Gibbon. The war had everthing from brilliance to buffoonery; and always courage from the private soldier.

B

It's our home. It shaped who we are.

A game that is dominated by Infantry as opposed to combined arms tactics of the Napoleonic era. Flexibility, which allows units to form line, extended line and skirmish line during the battle, a game dominated by musketry and the use of cover as opposed to concentrating your units to deliver a decisive charge. Charging anyone through the front should be very difficult.

I agree with Bill all the way, it's the personalities. The legends, the curses, all the poor judgments and brilliant plans that actually worked. The rifled musket took away the combined arms brilliance that was used in the Napoleonic era so the ACW was a "line 'em and shoot, try to turn their flank" slugfest. It was the leadership (or lack thereof) from Lincoln/Davis all the way down. IMHO.

It's a civil war they are ALL unique to their country.

Personalities, infantry dominating, longer ranged rifle-muskets, big impact of terrain

I don't really know if the ACW was unique. It was, along with the wars with the Plains Indians, uniquely ours though. Residents of this country fighting other residents of this country in a stand alone conflict which had long term impacts on the politics, economy, society and culture of the nation. In the South it also directly involved and directly affected more people than any war the U.S. has fought in since.

The fact you have interesting personalities doesn't hurt though.

It took place at a point of huge and dynamic changes in technology (mass use of rifles, ironclads, railroads, etc). The tactics had to evolve at lightning speed and pretty much everything taken as a given in 1861 was out the window by 1864.

But the Napoleonic Wars were much prettier.

If you want to find out what makes the Civil War Unique, then take yourself out to the "Rememberance Day" celebrations in November each year in Gettysburg.

Here you will see thousands of re-enactors in uniforms from both sides, some still heated partizans of both sides, and all of them crowding the diners, restaurants, bars, pizza parlors, souvenier stores, suttlers, and local attractions cheek by jowl, packed in like the poor four to a bed, with Union next to Confederate, all of them getting well plied with liquor and they all have lots of nasty edged weapons, rifled muskets and live ammo in their rooms. What is unique about that is that America is the only country to have such a Civil War where a mere 150 years later the descendents of both sides can do that and not begin slaughtering each other 8 am first day.

That's what makes the Civil War Unique and if you want to really study it then that's the place to begin, not in the small scale folderol of tactics and organizations. There was something about the war from the start that was going to make it a long bloody conflict where over half a million died, but where somehow the country would come together and now …

Well, I never heard huge knots of Confederate re-enactors cheer so lustily for a regiment of African American re-enactors march by, be cheered in return.

Compare that to other places who have had civil wars and it is something unique.

Technology, tactics, industrialization, and the like be damned, the real secret of the Civil War is in the people.

Otto

Lunatic ironclads

I think this is probably what I was looking for :

A game that is dominated by Infantry as opposed to combined arms tactics of the Napoleonic era. Flexibility, which allows units to form line, extended line and skirmish line during the battle, a game dominated by musketry and the use of cover as opposed to concentrating your units to deliver a decisive charge. Charging anyone through the front should be very difficult.

The question was what gives RULES a distinct ACW flavour

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Given that the vast majority of soldiers and even a large portion of the officers were not professionals, at least at first, I'd like to see a rules set try to incorporate that. So a big variety in quality for units and officers would be appropriate.

Also, given the nature of combat mentioned by Bernhard above, I'd like to see things like charge rules where veteran attacking units are more likely to go to ground in the face of enemy fire but be more resolute thereafter or when defending and green units that are more likely to initiate the charge in the first place but more brittle thereafter and when defending.

Finally, for me anyway, an ACW game really should be at a level where individual regiments and artillery batteries are represented in order to capture the flavor of the ACW. The interaction of these lower level units is a key part of ACW combat and gaming that is much diminished when only brigades and generic stands of artillery are used. Even a little thing like having the appropriate names of these units labeling the miniatures adds a lot to the percpetion of "flavor" of the period. For example, having the 3rd Wisconsin charging the 5th Texas is much more evocative of ACW combat than a having generic Union regiment/brigade assaulting it's Confederate counterpart. The names help tie the game to the history, in my opinion.

Well said, Forager!

I like what you're saying; is there a specific rules-set you'd recommend, Forager?

Forager

Spot on. That exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I'm not sure what your rules of choice are at the moment – but could you give examples of specific rules that you think help you get that "feel".

My variation of "Rally 'round the Flag" is the best representation and all other rules should just hit the trashcan. (or maybe not). I think that the method of fighting changed from rehashes of elbow to elbow napoleonic close formations, naturally into extend open formations and heavy "skirmish" lines is a somewhat under appreicated and somewhat hidden feature of the ACW. And regardless, everybody acted one way but swore they were still following Casey's manual at the same time.

I'm a little late, but I'm a huge fan of Regimental Fire and Fury. It gives you the level of detail that lets you imagine the conflict, with the maneuver rolls providing the element of uncertainty that makes things fun.