"Regimental Level Games VS Brigade Level Games" Topic

Good Afternoon!

After more then 20 years, I'd like to get back into ACW. I can't find my Johnny Reb I I I rules, and my original John Reb rules are in pieces. I doubt my 16 year old son would tolerate that rule set any way. He's a Bolt Action and Battleground fan.

I am thinking of the Regimental Fire and Fury rules, but am wondering what most folks thought was the biggest difference between regimental games and brigade level games? Does one level allow more maneuver? If I remember correctly, regimental rules (or to be more specific at least, John Reb) dealt with formations. I don't know if that would be tedious now or not. The boy is a fan of Napoleonics thanks to Mr. Cornwall's Sharpe's series, so I think he might dig formation stuff.

By and large what are the hallmarks of one set of rules over the othet? Thanks for the input!

I liked Fire and Fury even though I typically don't like brigades as units. It worked pretty well. For regimental games we've played a lot of C&G. It's nice, but there aren't command rules. Does regimental F&F have some command friction?

To me a regimental game allows a lot more options for the unit (detach companies, deploy skirmishers, etc) while a brigade level game offers the general many fewer such opportunities

I prefer brigade level "big picture" type games but that is just me – right now we mostly use Fire & Fury

Both versions of Fire and Fury have the command friction of rolling on the Maneuver table to move a unit. As the battle wears on you cannot be sure that a specific unit will move on a given turn.

Of course for Naploeonincs you can use Age of Eagles (based on Fire and Fury).

I like games where the brigade is the unit of maneuver( currently Altar of Freedom). The main reason is that they permit you to a) fight the major battles b) get a good lay of the land c) create good grand narratives. They do lose in that you lose the granularity of how regiments (battalions really) fought.

Brigade rules can be simpler to play since (depending on the rules) you could have less details to keep track of.

as the late, great mr. john hill has said, the civil war was a regimental fight.
i'm an old time johnny reb man, but as of late, i have embraced rf&f. i like the whole "look" of the game. mean to say, in jr, the regiments are 4 stands(jr3) and look kinda "thin", unless the regiment is 400 or more. in rf&f, even small regiments look like something. and big regiments look great.
i am running my first rf&f game on october 3rd. it will be the morning fight at gettysburg on july 1st.
i'm looking forword to it.

If you would like to try a regimental rules set that is FREE, try Call to the Colors, I wrote it because I did not like what was available.
link

Thanks
Fred

Thanks all! I like the theories of regimental rules, and will think I will stick with it! Looking over the first Gen johnny reb rules I noticed that the manpower of the regiment determined the number of figures on the stand. As I recall, that changed in johnny reb 3, though I could be wrong.

I will check out those rules Fred! Thanks!

Am I missing something on the linked page? Where do I find the rules?

Not withstanding Mr. Hill's observation about regiments, the military men of the ACW saw the brigade as 'the tactical unit', not the regiment. Regimental fights get a lot of attention, but they always fought as part of a brigade and the regimental colonel's main issues were remaining in the brigade formation and keeping contact with each flank. Only in extreme situations would you see a regiment break contact with their brigade to fight independently in a battle… such as the 1st Minnasota on the 2nd day of Gettysburg [they were ordered to by a divisional commander] or the 20th Maine who were out of ammo and the flank of the army. Even then they didn't go far from their brigade in the final charge.

A good primer is the recent publication of Tactics: training, combat and small-unit effectiveness by Earl J. Hess.

On the other hand, regiments are much more 'immediate' and colorful than the more generic-feeling ACW brigades. What many games do though is have regiments running around the battlefield independently, with little regard to brigade formation. [Which is much different than a command radius]

Mea Culpa:

The actual book title [I gave a chapter title I was reading]

Civil War Infantry Tactics: training, combat and small-unit effectiveness 2015 Louisiana State University Press

How did your first game of rff go John?

The ACW was a regimental war. When you asked your typical soldier what outfit you are with? They will more than likely say the 5th Virginia or the 114th Pennsylvania. Regiments especially in the North were moved around to various Brigades but they were rarely moved to a different regiment, to be combined or absorbed. The 2nd Maine was one of those units that was absorbed by another regiment.

Confederates hung on to their regimental name despite being combined with another regiment. That's how you get names like the 15th and 23rd Texas etc. Nothing worst than seeing an entire F&F Brigade of Zouaves!

The variety of the uniforms and flags looks best on the table top. It does not in anyway prevent one from doing large battles.

I have played, in 15mm, regimental scale, using "Rally Round Flag", "JR2", "JR3" and "Mr. Lincoln's War" the battles of Antietam, 1st Day of Gettysburg and the 2nd Day of Gettysburg. A month or so ago we did Chickamauga.

It's just a matter of time, space, # of figs, # of players. 15mm Regimental games done on a large scale and done well, are very impressive.

RF&F maybe difficult to do large battles with because it requires a lot of figures. Better off going with rules designed from the ground up for regiments.

McLaddie-While I don't dispute your assessment of brigades generally being the tactical unit in larger battles, and in battles later in the war when regiments had shrunk in size, I don't believe it is as correct when it comes to smaller actions.

I don't believe it is as correct when it comes to smaller actions.

Hi Bill:

Well, by definition, if the action is smaller than a brigade, then yeah, it wouldn't be correct. I was responding to john lacour's observation:

…as the late, great mr. john hill has said, the civil war was a regimental fight.

I was thinking of Civil War battles, not skirmishes. Considering the size of actions John portrayed with his rules, I'd have to disagree.

Hess makes the argument that because of the terrain and the relative inexperience of all ACW generals with large-scale movements, they weren't very good at it. That isn't the same thing as stating that the ACW was a regimental fight.

The ACW was a regimental war. When you asked your typical soldier what outfit you are with? They will more than likely say the 5th Virginia or the 114th Pennsylvania.

Rallynow:
And how is that different from WWII or even currently? "What outfit are you with?"
"First Cavalry"
"101st Airborne"
"1st Marines"

And during the ACW, what patches did they have on their caps? Not regimental. Certainly there were ACW soldiers when asked that question responded with

"Stonewall Brigade"
"Pennsylvania Bucktails"
"Philadelphia Brigade"

Etc. Even so, we are talking about tactical issues, how the ACW was fought on the battlefield and not necessarily which 'outfit' the soldier identified with.

I was actually referring to divisional or slightly larger sized engagements McLaddie.

The Civil War was recorded for posterity by its participants in the form of regimental and battery histories.

The command level (regiment, brigade, division, corps) at which any battle is best fought will differ according to the scope of the action, the number of players and the time available. I have played at all levels, but personally prefer a divisional command with regimental and battery maneuver elements as providing the best overall "flavor" of the period.

B