"Biggest Problem in ACW Wargaming Today?" Topic

What is the greatest challenge facing ACW gamers today?

Staying interested in the period. Very happy with the rules we use, just tired of blue/grey games.

only few ACW gamers left in our area.

Everybody wants to refight Gettysburg, including me. The West, Trans-Mississippi,and Far West get overlooked. Also, too many folks know the popular myths and think that it's factual. Also, 21 is making an interesting point. While I may not be getting tired of B&G, others may be, which would account for all the alternative ACW history.

There's a problem?

Biggest problem I have is turning my opponents flank.

What makes you think that there is a problem? Seriously?

ACW gaming is flourishing – even in Helsinki! I never would have thought it when I moved here from the USA, but there's an honest interest, and it's one of the main periods that we play. In fact, I only started to collect the period after we moved here. We play all theatres and all levels – I started out GM'ing the small 1861-62 battles at the regimental level (primarily using RF&F), but am now planning a run through the great western theatre battles using the upcoming new edition of F&F brigade (in the final playtesting of it now, a great upgrade). There was so much interest that part of my group splintered off and played a Longstreet campaign last year – not my cup of tea, but it was lively.

On the larger level:

Rules? The period benefits from great, classic rules still in play with new editions, such as F&F (even its nominal precursor On to Richmond is back in print) or even V&B, while new rules and ways of playing are constantly coming out – again, while not my cup of tea, both Altar of Freedom and Longstreet are pretty different takes on gaming the period. Peter Pig's Lincoln's War has a great pre-game system (and check out Whipping Bobby Lee for its scenario system). There are also plenty of very good, free house rules out there, such as Raise the Rebel Yell and Fields of Blue and Grey. Heck, you can even play in generic popular sets like Black Powder if you really want to … ;)

Figures? There is almost an embarrassment of riches at all scales, but my personal favorite is Bill Moreno's Cracker Line miniatures in 10mm. The line arose from a hobbyist's interest in making sure the period was "done right" – and his extensive efforts have obviously paid off with one of the best lines for the period in any scale. I'm sure people in other scales can list their favorites too.

Terrain? see above.

Scenarios: print or pdf, you can get anything.

Media inspiration? A constant stream of excellent books, some very good movies, and of course great battlefield preservation at many sites for battlefield tours.

My other (and first) love in the H&M period is Napoleonics, and trust me, ACW is much easier to collect and find gamers for!

Cheers,

Christopher

Getting new, younger gamers to carry on the hobby.

Firstly, thanks for the kind words Christopher. To address the question, my biggest issue is finding time to game while trying to run Good Ground Miniatures.

Finding the time for all the games I'd like to play.

(I do OK – but even more would be even better …)

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

Don't see any real "problems".

A few things could be better. Gordon Rhea could write some more books that took his Overland Campaign series to the end of the war for one thing!

Authors could stop writing books on Gettysburg for another! :o)

Players and rules writers could accept that the tactical unit in Civil War battles was the brigade not the regiment and tailor rules accordingly.

Look guys, we all loved reading about the 20th Maine but they only got to be there because Vincent told them so and yes we all want to paint the 12th Whatever because of their exploits at Yellow Polecat Creek but there's more to it all than that.

Speaking of which, how about more acknowledgement of drill and the importance thereof.

Less of the 12th Whatever being rated "Veterans" because of a couple of crazy fights they were in and more because they knew how to look after themselves on campaign and could drill in their sleep!

Other than that I agree with Christoper (again) great lines of miniatures, great scenic items, more books than you can usefully read etc.

Big, big, hole has to be an up to date electronic version of the OR for home use, either as a complete download, or CD. Complete with the atlas and a search engine that wasn't compatible with Windows 3.1!

Years ago, a local ancients gamer said that the ACW lacks the variety of ancient troop types, including (arguably) cavalry. Another local gamer said that he was frustrated by the way ACW formations varied widely in strength, from regiment on up.

These are features of ACW gaming which some folks might not like, but which I can handle.

I didn't know there was a problem. There are plenty of rule sets, and numerous miniatures in all scales and sizes.

Lack of younger gamers but I must say the demise is greatly exaggerated

I'll take a stab at a couple of the comments above.

About getting younger gamers to participate in the hobby, obviously this isn't really a specifically ACW issue, but I've found that my group of young gamers really enjoys the ACW. Okay, so the core of my younger guys is my son … which in some ways gives me an advantage, BUT I'm sure all the fathers out there will tell you that your son enjoying your hobby is hardly a given. ;) My son's favorite period is actually ancients, but he and his friends really enjoy the spectacle of an ACW game, and the various choices it gives them. I started out with V&B, but we've been playing F&F and they actually prefer it, even though young gamers aren't supposed to like more detail. For reference, that group includes: my son (Finnish-American), his cousin and gaming buddy (Finnish-Canadian), a family friend of the same age, 20-ish (Finnish-American), and a friend of his working at GW (!) (Finnish), and a bit older friend/student of mine (Finnish). I think that if we – the veteran gamers – are just flexible and welcoming and put on games that look good and play well, they will be happy to participate. Will they all paint? Nope – but not everyone does. And if they do, then the ACW is easy to paint.

The Blue & Grey hordes … okay, this is a little but of a real thing, but to me it is an advantage, and I think the uniforms are very impressive looking en masse. Also, let's not kid ourselves: for Napoleonics, 90% of my time was painting Blue French and White Austrians, for colonials Red British and … well, Black Zulus. And the contrast makes for a nice looking table in my opinion.

Lack of Diversity. I have to admit that this was also my impression before getting involved in the period. What gaming the ACW *should* involve is some system to properly account for the sometimes vast differences in experience (and training, per Trajanus above), morale, motivation, leadership, and sometimes weaponry between the troops. If your rules can do all of those things, then juggling those factors amidst some probably very bad terrain is a good gaming challenge. Of course it can be made boring and cookie-cutter – but any period can be.

By the way … I just got back into ACW gaming after a very light last year with almost no gaming, so these things are on my mind. I have to say that the ACW gaming community is also very welcoming. ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

The extreme focus on the Eastern Theater. As previously mentioned, the Western Theater is widely overlooked, from the battles themselves to the troop types available. Practically every company that provides ACW miniatures offers Iron Brigade, zouaves of every stripe, and Berdan's sharpshooters. Where is Wilder's Lightning Brigade? Where are the poorly equipped and uniformed Confederate troop types (even compared to their ANV brethren)?

You can only refight Gettysburg so many times. The best ACW game I've played in was a refight of Stones River.

None, other than having the time to get together to do some gaming. The ACW remains a high interest for most of the group I game with, including naval.

Our gang was quite looking forword to the late john hills Across this deadly field(we being long time johnny reb fans) and we were very let down by it. Mean to say, the game just does'nt seem thought through. Very sad that that was johns last design…

It kind of took the wind out of our sails. We had planned to get back into the period in a big way, having not played ACW in many years. We were talking about going to 10mm, or back to 15mm…just did'nt happen.

I am now looking at RF&F as a "shot in the arm", but TBH, our club is more interested in the upcoming re re release of GW's Blood Bowl.

Extrabio1947, I wonder in which scale you game? I make the Lightning Brigade in 10mm, and in fact started my company with Western ACW figures (Cracker Line) rather than do the East again. I know my friend Chris Hughes makes the Wilder's boys in 28mm.

Extrabio1947, Sash and Saber make Wilder's lightning brigade !
As for ACW, The group I game with just recently started gaming ACW and I personally love the period, everything about it. There is a multitude of reference materials, tons of figures in every scale, and plenty of interest up here in the NorthEast. The greatest challenge for us is getting everybody together at the same time.

Everyone who keeps saying 'none' are in denial. The biggest threat to historical miniature gaming is age. I'm reletively young (26), and it's so hard to get anyone else my age to play. I'm usually playing against 50+ year old men, which there is nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to have a healthy group to still be playing with in 20 years!

The biggest reason I hear younger people not getting into ancients is due to the lack of pre-packaged games and ease of information. younger guys want everything in one spot, rules, miniatures, bases, tokens, etc. why do you think Star Wars X-Wing, Warmachine, etc do so well? Because it's all right there. It's easy to find, it's flashy, it's simple. There is promise with Warlord games. They realize this is how you get people into the game and you can see it with their Ancients and WWII lines. My only beef is is loathe ancient gaming in 28mm. I can handle the WWII platoon based games, but the ancients just feel too ahistorical at 28mm.

Needs a 5Core supplement.

Our group still plays ACW using V&B rules.

lack of time to play. True for all my gaming though.

Many of our former ACW don't like the rules available now. I see the burgeoning PC activity as being the most inimical to continuing interest in the ACW.

With us it has always been finding a set of rules we all like. Right now we are using MLW and we had to re-work the rules to use them.

A very good framework was there but it needed some help. Now we like them. But it should have been a lot easier to find a set we like. If you don't like F&F and JR there isn't much left to choose from. Especially if you want to do regimental ACW.

By the way the West and Trans-Mississippi is all we've been doing lately. There are some great scenarios available.

Flags and other Confederate issues hasn't been much of a problem for us. We focus on the military history and steer clear of politics.

Finding time to get a group together to play.

We have used on to Richmond, Johnny Reb, Fire and Fury and homegrown rules and we are looking at Blackpowder just to stay current. As far as growing the hobby if you take an interest in the kids and are willing to ref and help the kids get started in the hobby and not come across as the "ADULT" they will show an interest in our hobby.

No rules for regimental ACW? Uh, They Couldn't Hit An Elephant is specifically for this.

…how about more acknowledgement of drill and the importance thereof.

This seems to be an area of big yawns for wargamers. And most think in terms of the individual soldier or company level drills. There are crucial elements that seldom get mentioned in reports (mostly becuase they were so common place once a unit was well trained) that did influence how regiments and brigades deployed. One of these is the "left in front" versus "right in front" column of fours. Line was formed differently depending upon which company was in the lead, the left end company (or regiment) or the right end company (or regiment). If left in front, then deploying into line on the left was very quick and simple. But if in left in front and having to deploy to the right, this called for a completely different means of going into line and had to be accounted for. One way was a bit quicker than the other which could make a difference if an enemy unit stumbled into you in close terrain while you were deploying. The only rules I know of that attempt to acknowledge this is RF&F and they make somewhat of a mess of it.

I doubt one in a hundred gamers recognize the meanings of the terms "left in front" versus "right in front." For nearly every gamer, this is a so what and I understand that. But if you really want to game with what regimental or brigade leaders had to decide, having rules that reflected drills in a simple manner would be nice.

Extrabio, like Cracker Line, my company started with the Western Theater (in fact, it all we have) in 28mm.

Company D is doing some nice Missouri theater figures in 28mm as well.

gamertom,

That's the kind of things I'm talking about. Those items that live in the Drill Books along with the hyper detail of the indvidual "manual of arms" and they were required to move and fight regiments and brigades in the field.

It doesn't matter a hoot that most players and rules writers don't know the correct way to shoulder arms, present arms etc. But they should be aware of Left/Right in front, Marching by the Flank and Regulating Units etc.

Confusion around regulating (forming and moving in line with other units) caused chaos during the Confederate attack on III Corps at Gettysburg for example – it's not some dark hidden secret – the whole thing is described in detail in Kershaw's report of the battle!

Procedure was needed to get blocks of four or five hundred men from A to B at the same time, we just pick them up a move them and loose the understanding of what went on and the problems involved. It's like playing a sailing navy game and pretending the wind didn't matter!

On anther point, people have mentioned "Regmental Rules" meaning I assume ones where the smallest single unit on the table is a Regiment.

I should have been clearer when I mentioned tactics in my original post that taking account of the brigade being the tactical unit in the Civil War didn't mean games where the brigade was the smallest single unit on table, although it applies there too.

What I meant was, where indvidual Regiments are represented, that they should move by brigade and fight by brigade not be allowed to wander off from the line of battle, either on attack or defence.

The narrative histories of Civil War battles tend to get into high detail about the actions of indvidual regiments that hide the fact that they went into action as a unified force, until the moment of contact with the enemy.

Loss of control at that point due to the enemy response and actions of regimental colonels on both sides is where battles were won and lost.

In most rules you might as well just pick up the two sides, arrange them at musket range and roll dice. Any true sense of manouver and attempts to keep control effecting the outcome are totally absent.

Re: the tactics discussion, this is something I dived into with Napoleonics and never came up with a completely satisfactory answer (admittedly, the subject is much more complex in Napoleonics). For most minutiae, you so have to ask yourself whether it matters in the context of a 15-20 minute game turn, and if so whether it boils down to an appreciable movement restriction.

For the different methods of ploying into line, this is something that I actually made work, after a fashion. With my regular group of players, who I knew appreciated that sort of thing, I would explain that the French could ploy to the right, left, or off the center, depending on how their columns were formed: this was easy, as you could model them with different stands in front, i.e. the grenadiers (ploy to left), the voltiguers (ploy to right), or the non-elite center companies (ploy off the center). I would then look at the expectant Austrian players and tell them "Oh, you guys always ploy left". ;)

With the right players *and* the right, detailed composition of the individual units, it did add something to the tactical decision making. However! Players ended up declaring "my columns with always ploy left/center" etc. by general order, to avoid confusion (thus negating the whole thing), and when I tried it at a convention it was a non-starter.

Regarding regulating battalions, I experimented with them, but was never able to come up with a system that a) required alignment as I understood it, but b) allowed local commanders to deviate from that given the right circumstances, and c) where "b" wouldn't be abused by players to just do what they wanted anyway. ;)

I think the same practical problems exist for the ACW, with the added difficulty that you actually have to label your left/right flank stands in some way, as visually they are identical.

I'm not saying that it didn't matter on the field – just that I haven't seen a way to make it practical on the gaming table.

@Trajanus – your last points about brigade cohesion and management are one of the reasons I really like RF&F.

Cheers,

Christopher

Lacking a flagship that is visible in stores?

People rag on Bolt Action and Flames of War, but that stuff recruits people which in turn drives demand for miniatures.

Obviously, simpler, less historically demanding rules are where new gamers should start and conventions are where folks are introduced quickly<\i> to new rules, so I don't see any reason to necessarily push the mechanics of how brigades moved.

Having said that, I do believe there are simple ways of representing regulating units, left and right, if only because

1. It was meant to be simple. Complicated only got folks in trouble on the battlefield. Kershaw's brigade is a good example… [His problem was an order he couldn't keep because of the right movement of the entire battleline--I believe because Hood didn't follow orders.]

2. Most wargames treat unit movement like a half-time marching band that has no 'routine' and can change directions at the slightest whim, instead of a large group of men who have practiced repeatedly moving as a unit in particular ways so they can do it easily in the heat of battle. 'Doing something different' at a moment's notice' is not good battlefield practice during the Napoleonic and ACW. Going off script confuses everyone. Hood and Barksdale's actions at Gettysburg are great examples.

Regarding the use of the manuals having an affect on the miniature game: what scale are we talking about here? If it's a skirmish level game where it's a 1:1 ratio, absolutely. That level of game requires that attention to detail. If it's BOF&F? No way. That level of fidelity isn't required at that level because the corps/army commander is only concerned with how much time it requires a brigade to get into position, not whether or not they are moving left in front or right in front. This is adequately reflected in the rules as they are written (at least for BOFF).

It's not even complexity I think(I'd argue that 40K is a pretty complex game in practice), it's having a package aimed at explaining the game and the period/setting.

I can pick up a Flames of War book and it'll give me a basic breakdown of armies, their respective styles, how to build them and what basic principles mean.

Grab an ACW or Napoleonic game off the shelf and good luck if you don't already know what a Grenzer is.

Good point Weasel, I don't think either period helps itself in that regard.

I agree Napoleonics, in terms of the things you mention, are inherently a pain. Due in no small part to each nation having its own way of doing things and the French probably having at least three options for every thing you look at! :o)

However, that doesn't apply to the Civil War where both sides did pretty much the same thing, regardless whose name was on the cover of the Drill Book they were using.

Also, I'm not overly fussed about the poly/depoly – left/right in front stuff in the Civil War context. It could be important but generalising like mad, I've developed the impression that, when operating at the ranges/distance most Regimental rules are representing, the decision to move in column or line was already made by the Brigade commander and unlikely to change in what we see as the time period of the game.

As McLaddie suggests, changes were not some thing you wanted to see. Check the terrain and possible enemy disposition, chose your formation in terms of your units positions and hope for the best!

With that in mind, I'm far more concerned about how you keep the Brigade in one piece as long as possible before all hell breaks loose.

RF&F annoys the heck out of me because it only shows the problem not the resolution. The Manoeuvre Table introduces friction, along with command radius both of which can be overcome by regulation so why not have it in the rules. It was period practice after all.

Nominate either the left or right most Regiment in your Brigade as the Regulating Unit. Or if you prefer the centre most one, as that was done too.

Place your Brigade Commander figure in contact with that unit as a reminder, then play normally. The precondition is that no Regiment may pass a line represented by the Regulating Unit as the Brigade advances. Any unit being slowed or stalled by the Manoeuvre Table results or terrain penalties must catch up asap.

By the same token the Regulating Unit must be slowed to compensate where required and all other Regiments must slow to avoid getting in front if it in turn gets a bad result or hits terrain problems.

Reading suggests to me that this process and altering direction either by wheel (generally avoided) inclined marching (also difficult for green troops) and Marching by the Flank where what every one practised till their boots wore out.

Yes, many units were more than capable of fancy foot work but simple column to line/ line to column and opening and closing column distance was really all that were needed.

Most of the time, as I said, the matter of Regulation was more important and simple(ish) changes of direction to conform to it was the key element.

As to command radius (don't get me started on that topic) if you keep units close together or in two lines while Regulating, that problem goes away too.

You don't just need friction to make games more realistic you need the solutions employed at the time to overcome things

Regarding the use of the manuals having an affect on the miniature game: what scale are we talking about here? If it's a skirmish level game where it's a 1:1 ratio, absolutely

Why do you think that's the case? The fraction of the manuals devoted to skirmishers and skirmishing is the least likely to appear in any of the rules at a 1:1 level I've seen.

I'd agree that at an army level game you don't need to take account of what regiments are doing but no rules I know of account for individuals following the Drill Book method of reloading, for example!

What is the greatest challenge facing ACW gamers today?

Discussions of drill.

Or alternatively that no one worries about Drill! :o)

Truth to tell Regulating Units and their use is more of a tactical process than Drill and goes back to Greek and Roman warfare. In fact anywhere you needed to keep close order troop units in a formed battle line and move together.

I'm familiar with drill; I was a Marine myself.

I really like the idea of ACW wargaming. I love the era; I was a History major, and enjoyed studying it. I've ready any number of books on the campaigns, personalities, etc.

This interest lead me to go out and bought a few hundred figures, an even mix of Union and Confederate. But I find myself losing interest, and given the fact that I only have a finite amount of time my ACW stuff is languishing on my shelves, gathering dust.

If I had to come up with specific reasons why this is a perceived lack of variety. We're presented with:

- Only two combatants. Blue and Grey. If I'm doing other popular eras, like WWII or Napoleonics, I have a wide variety of potential adversaries, each with their own distinct ways of fighting that add variety to games.

- Lack of different types of units on a tactical level. You've got infantry, cannon, and maybe some cavalry if you're lucky. If you're feeling wild you might get some Zouaves. In contrast other eras have lots of different weapons systems, from many different types of infantry and cavalry to tanks and aircraft. This gives me more options, both in gameplay and in things to paint.

- The battles themselves seem to be relatively static and straightforward. Line up, shoot, move reserves, try to turn a flank. Yes, I know there's more to it, but from the viewpoint of a new-guy, it seems like it would get repetitive rather quickly.

I understand that I am an ACW dilettante here and that if I really looked into things I'd probably find that all of my points are wrong. There certainly are exceptions to each of these. But as the question is "What is the greatest challenge facing ACW gamers today," I will answer that from this outsider's perspective it seems like there isn't enough payoff in the game relative to the time I put into it. Say I paint a few hundred blue/grey infantry and a few cannon; I play a game wherein they line up and shoot at each other. Say I paint a few hundred more; then I play a bigger game wherein they line up and shoot at each other. Then a few hundred more, etc. It does not look like I'm really getting anything new for the added effort.

I understand that folks love this era. I really don't want to be the guy saying "your favorite thing is bad." In fact, believe it or not, I WANT to like it more. But right now it doesn't seem to be setting its hook in me.

Command systems are only one of the historical aspects of the ACW that are either ignored or highly abstracted in most rules. Some time after the big "Regulating Battalions" thread here on TMP I did a reworking of F&F to use it for a regimental level game. This was some time before RF&F was published.

My modification for the command rules were as follows below. RF&F more or less has the same end result by its use of Command Radius but I wanted to specifically have players think on terms of units regulating their movement on their adjacent units up along the line to the regulating battalion.

Maneuver and Command Radius

At the start of each Movement Phase each Division or Brigade Officer may be attached to any unit. All units that are Disordered then must roll on the Disordered column of the Maneuver Table to see if they can be rallied. They must include all Disordered Modifiers in the die roll. If they must retreat they do so immediately

After the results for the disordered units have been acted upon each Brigade must roll for its own maneuver results. This role will apply to all units within a brigade that are within regulating distance of another unit of the brigade. Regulating distance is 100 yards when in line, 200 yards when in column or in skirmish order. Artillery regulating distance is always 200 yards. If a unit is outside of this distance it will roll separately. An unattached brigade commander must also be within 200 yards of one of the units within the "chain" of units to provide his bonus. Note that adverse terrain will halve these distances.

Artillery usually is attached to a brigade and maneuvers according to its parent unit. A separate Artillery Battalion or Artillery Brigade must roll for itself on the Maneuver Table.

Thus a "chain" of units that fall within these distances after the effects of the Disorder Rolls will move according to these Good Order results. If the "chain" of units is broken, the separate "chains" of the brigade will follow the dictates of their separate rolls.

All Civil War era units were very wary of being outflanked. Because of this the Maneuver Table has the additional modifier of "Enfiladed". A unit that can be said to be potentially enfiladed by an enemy unit at the point at which the maneuver die is rolled must apply this modifier.

Command radius still applies to the distance between the divisional commanders and their brigade commanders. A Brigade commander outside of the command radius of his Divisional commander (600 yards) will suffer a penalty when the brigade rolls for its maneuver results.

ScottS,

To tell the God's Truth that's a pretty accurate summary from a wargames perspective. It's really going deeper into the Armies, individuals and all the nuts and bolts of weapons and tactics, along with the battles themselves that have kept my interest levels up.

One of the things that makes the period a tad bland on the table top is the absence of cavalry as you mention but I suppose the same thing can be said for the War of Independence, only there's a bit more going on on the uniform front!

With that in mind, I'm far more concerned about how you keep the Brigade in one piece as long as possible before all hell breaks loose.

Trajanus:
The question is then of dynamics: What could commanders do to keep brigades together and what were the things that made the reach where hell breaks loose?

For instance, Kershaw's brigade got into trouble because:

1. He was ordered to anchor his left on Emmittsburg Road and as SOP, his right on the brigade next to him. His brigade was stretched beyond it's front because Hood moved his Division to the right further than ordered to. He divided his brigade into wings [an SOP] and
2. Then he later called out orders to the left wing were heard and mistakenly followed by the the right wing.

Robert's brigade ran into the same 'stretching' issue and it to broke apart.

RF&F annoys the heck out of me because it only shows the problem not the resolution. The Manoeuvre Table introduces friction, along with command radius both of which can be overcome by regulation so why not have it in the rules. It was period practice after all.

Yes, every regiment moves individually without reference to the other regiments…unless the player feels like doing so. In reality, the regiments all moved together in a battle line [The new rules by Dave Brown try to model that to some extent with his 'Battleline' mechanics]. Moving individually was an error on the part of the regiments. In RF&F, what would be seen as an error or break in the SOP is presented as the norm.

Barksdale is an example of this. His brigade had the 21st Virg as the regulating unit for his brigade. Barksdale gave his orders and had them move straight ahead…until Barksdale saw an opportunity to hit Humphrey's division in the flank off to the left and left the battle line, broke contact with not only Kershaw, but Anderson's Division AND the 21st Virginia, who continued on straight ahead as Barksdale made the center regiment the regulating brigade and moved off without telling the 21st VA. The colonel writes how he ends up facing a battery of Union artillery and troops while he watches his brigade move off, isolating him. In the end Longstreet has to commit his only reserve, Wofford's brigade to plug the gap between Kershaw and Barksdale and Kershaw has to call on Semmes brigade to shore up the gap between Kershaw and Benning.

The issue of 'all hell breaking loose' for Kershaw and Hood and McLaw's divisions were created in large part from CSA commanders changing the game plan from the orders given [and in Hood's case, getting wounded]

Thus a "chain" of units that fall within these distances after the effects of the Disorder Rolls will move according to these Good Order results. If the "chain" of units is broken, the separate "chains" of the brigade will follow the dictates of their separate rolls.

Ryan T:

I thing that follows the dynamic of a battleline [or 'chain of units", however the SOP top priority for any brigade or regiment of a broken 'chain' was to get back into it… which might not be represented by separate rolls where a unit fails to move *after* they have found themselves outside the chain.

All Civil War era units were very wary of being outflanked. Because of this the Maneuver Table has the additional modifier of "Enfiladed". A unit that can be said to be potentially enfiladed by an enemy unit at the point at which the maneuver die is rolled must apply this modifier.

So they were. And because they were, there was a SOP for that threat: Refusing a flank--particularly on the defense. They might hesitate, but only to refuse that flank…or ignore it and follow orders if advancing, such as the left flank of Pickett's Charge.

It has to do with what regimental brigade commanders could and couldn't do within their responsibilities. So, in the regard to the threat of enfilade

Command radius still applies to the distance between the divisional commanders and their brigade commanders. A Brigade commander outside of the command radius of his Divisional commander (600 yards) will suffer a penalty when the brigade rolls for its maneuver results.

I think this is all wrong. First of all, in a 15 minute turn, a Divisional commander could cover that 600 yards in less 4 minutes at a trot. [12 mph]

Second, a brigade at the end of a divisional, three brigade line [1000 to 1600 yard front] could see @ half of his division out of command at any point.

Third, it didn't matter how far a divisional commander was from a brigade in line. All he had to do is order the regulating brigade and its regulating regiment with the movements or formation changes he wanted and the order would be communicated down the line, every officer calling out the orders, far faster than any horse to gallop. That was the primary method a divisional commander used to control his command on the battlefield.

Here is an example of a description of this methodology. One can find the same methods being described in manuals and treatises from 1791 though to Upton's 1875 Tactics and earlier and later for that matter.

British

~GENERAL ORDERS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE MOVEMENTS AND FIELD EXERCISE OF THE INFANTRY, 1804

15. If several regiments exercise or manoeuvre together, the Commanding Officer of the line or column gives, when necessary, his short orders of caution or execution to the Commander of the regulating battalion of the line, or of the head of the column, where he himself generally is, and sometimes to the Commander of the battalion, to which he is then nearest ; and each battalion Commander repeats them loud without delay. When any complicated or combined movement is to be made which requires previous explanation, it must be communicated clearly to the Commander of the corps by detached Officers, before its execution can be ordered to commence. The several Chiefs of Brigades, &c. watch over and direct the interior movements of the respective bodies; they repeat the general orders of execution given, if they see that it is necessary, and announce such preparatory ones as are verbally sent to them.

[I love this bit…]

27. Battalions are to a line what companies are to a battalion. Not only the whole divisions of a battalion, but the whole battalions of a line, should march off, and halt at the same instant. To insure this in the exercise of very considerable bodies, signals of a cannon are often given for such purpose. In most situations, the quick circulation of verbal commands must be sufficient. [my bold]

31. There are many situations in the movements of great bodies, where commands that are not immediately to influence the whole are not given loud, but low and quietly, to the directing body alone, to whose situation the rest by the eye conform: as when the head division of an open column is ordered to halt that the rest of the division may move on, and successively stop in close column; and on all occasions where parts only of a large body are to march or halt successively, Generals and Commanding Officers of regiments should have an attention to give their commands in such manner as not to produce an alteration in those points that are not meant to be influenced by them at that instant.

38. If any division of either [line or column] is to be placed, in order to effect a general or partial change of position, he [my note: the commanding general] himself places such division ; notifies his intention to those that are near him, and orders the corresponding movements to commence. He leads the column in such directions as he chooses, halts it, corrects pivots on such points as he determines, and wheels it into line, without the necessity of any general, loud, or previous cautions. He wheels a division of the line : half wheels the other divisions towards it : and at the word march, by the echelon march, a new situation of the line is taken. In the same manner he changes a division of the column, and the remainder immediately conform to it. He moves on quietly from a flank or center of the line by battalion or greater echelons, and again halts and forms when he pleases. The formations and deployments of the close columns are personally directed by him.

In this manner, by gradually leading the body through each of the stages of the operations, and being in a situation to correct great inaccuracies should they occur, the intended result is obtained by the quick conformity of all to what evidently appears to be the proposed end, and this without previous general explanation, or the necessity of detaching messengers, except in cases where particular intricacy arises. By the same means are brigades managed, and also battalions, the Commanders of which soon know or perceive the general intention, and conduct their bodies through the several stages that lead to its attainment.

So units are 'out of command' when they are not part of the battleline that they were deployed in. It is the way to get units to move together under a single command. The issues in keeping units in command are described everywhere.

Hello Bill,

Thank you for your comments. You are quite correct that my use of divisional commanders is not done properly. In retrospect it would have been better to simply trace the "Command Radius" along the line of battle. As long as the line remains intact all the brigade officers also are in command. Should the line develop gaps the divisional commander will be forced to decide where his presence is most needed to reassert his control.

I understand the point you are making about the SOP of trying to maintain the brigade's and/or the division's formation. But I have found that simply telling players that they must make every attempt to "close up the line" will fall on deaf ears if there are no penalties involved. The way I wrote the rules was the penalty is that if the chain of command is broken each separated unit(s) will be forced to check its command status individually. If the line is not restored the larger formation will start to devolve into an uncontrolled group of separate units.

I think there should be some potential for delays and confusion in reestablishing the line. When the cohesion of the larger formation is broken the loss of overall command will result in the devolution of responsibility to the brigade or regimental commander. While each commander knows what he is supposed to do this may not be all that easily done. If the unit has lost its place in the formation due to being disordered it may have to first stop and reform. If the formation is disrupted by intervening terrain simply figuring out where to go to reestablish contact may again cause delay (think of the fighting in the Wilderness or at Chickamauga).

My use of an "Enfiladed" factor within the command/maneuver phase was an attempt to emphasize that being outflanked was not only a matter of risking higher casualties from fire combat but that it also had an important morale effect. The ORs have a number of reports of regiments hesitating or even stopping their advance when a flank was threatened.

Apart from my messing up the "Command Radius" issue (it shows how hard it is to get away from tried and true wargaming procedures) some of the problems you mentioned are linked with a desire to retain the basic structure of F&F. The revisions I did were an experiment that my gaming group was willing to entertain, but introducing all new rules is usually a difficult process. In this case it was better to build on an existing and accepted rule set.

The game was actually quite a success. I did it with a double-blind format with two identical tables side-by-side with a screen between them. Each player could always see his own forces, but the opposing side's troops were only placed on the table when they were visible. Both cavalry and infantry skirmishers came into play in their proper function, fighting in woods became a real tense affair, and normally aggressive players tended to hold back or get handled rather roughly if they did not put due diligence into their advance.

Each player could always see his own forces, but the opposing side's troops were only placed on the table when they were visible. Both cavalry and infantry skirmishers came into play in their proper function, fighting in woods became a real tense affair, and normally aggressive players tended to hold back or get handled rather roughly if they did not put due diligence into their advance.

Ryan, that's a great way to play if you have the resources.

I've done it myself in other periods – mainly WW2 – players get scared of their own shadow after a while because they are so used to seeing everything laid out before them.

I've done the May 5th/6th in the Wilderness as a map based Kriegsspiel, where the players were the Union High Command and the Umpire team ran the Confederates to an historic time table.

None of the players had a detailed knowledge of the real events so natural caution and the terrain made for a great game.

Zombies.

The "Greatest Challenge facing ACW Gamers today" is the greatest challenge facing XXXX (put in whatever period you want)today, and that challenge is zombies.

Interest in the Civil War or the XXXX war (whatever one you want) is driven not by rules, or minis, or drill, or age of the players, or anything. It is driven by how much you are interested in the period regardless of the game. If you are interested in the Civil War FIRST as a historical subject, you will be interested in it as a game. People NOT ONLY KIDS today have zip historical interest in anything and do not read in history.

That's where the zombies come in. They are the generic bad guys and you don't need to know uniforms or context to game against them. They have flesh dripping off them and have no motivation, minds, personalities, or humanity, or for that matter any redeeming social values. They are things just set up to be killed and one can do it with perfect moral impunity. It is the slovenly, lazy, stupid, unmotivated slacker gamers choice. Paradoxically, WHATEVER period you make it of XXXXX against the Zombies, the good guys are just as nameless, faceless, personalityless and human-less as the zombies. They exist only to kill.

This makes the game eminently easy, it's them and us, and absolutely NO intellectual involvement or effort is required.