"Biggest Problem in ACW Wargaming Today?" Topic

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.

That has been my experience. That is the way I am designing my Napoleonic Rules.

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.

Ryan:
No problem. I do think you are making this far too complicated. First of all, any units that break off from the battleline because of fire or obstacles would be out of command, but not the rest of the brigade UNLESS it is the regulating unit that hesitates or retreats… then the entire brigade/division would halt or retreat too.

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.

I am not sure what you mean. There is a rule for changing formation costing half a move with no penalties… so, does that fall on deaf ears? It is just a rule that regiments/brigades followed: First effort should be to attempt to regain the battleline. The penalty is that until they do, the isolated regiment or battalion fights alone and the parent brigade or division is that much weaker in battle until the wayward units return. Obviously, the division command can take a hand in fixing the problem. FOr brigade commanders, keeping up with the battle line was a primary responsibility.

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.</q.

I the penalty for the separated units is fine but the larger formation won't devolve because of some of the units become separated… The SOP for keeping in line and moving in concert with the regulating unit and the battle line was responsibility ONE for those units. Even if the Regulating unit became separated like the 21st Virginia of Barksdale's brigade on the 2nd day of Gettysburg, you don't see the brigade devolving…Barksdale just changed who was the regulating regiment. [The center in this case where he'd positioned himself.]

its hilarious how the over arching problem goes in one ear and out the other. You all would rather sit here and argue about how well drilled a regiment is because you're so micro focused on you and your old timer buddy who want to spend 12 hours playing a civil war game that you can't take the time to step back and examine the hobby as a whole and how, reletive to other hobbies, it's performing poorly.

I've seen this argument time and again when it comes to ACW, ancients, Napoleonics, etc. why can't we just get FoW quality with other systems?

its hilarious how the over arching problem goes in one ear and out the other. You all would rather sit here and argue about how well drilled a regiment is because you're so micro focused on you and your old timer buddy who want to spend 12 hours playing a civil war game that you can't take the time to step back and examine the hobby as a whole and how, reletive to other hobbies, it's performing poorly.

Yup.

Hello Bill,

I probably am guilty of making my mods sound overly complicated. Please let me try again.

As long as a brigade's constituent units continue to guide on the regulating battalion only one brigade dice roll is needed for the entire brigade to move according to the F&F maneuver table. However, should one of the units in the "chain" lose its positon due to terrain or the result of casualties/disorder each of the units or group of units will have to now roll separately on the maneuver table. If they roll well the formation can be quickly re-established and the brigade again will subsequently only need one roll of the dice on the maneuver table.

However, if on its individual roll the separated unit or units are unable to regain their place in the brigade formation the brigade will continue on in a fragmented condition. Subsequent turns may very well allow the brigade formation to be re-established, but in the meantime it remains at a disadvantage. Thus the SOP of regaining the proper positon in the line ASAP is enforced by the problem of a brigade going forward in an un-coordinated fashion.

If it is, for example, a left flank regiment that gets separated, then the brigade will be able to retain its integrity apart from the one regiment (here I am assuming the regulating battalion is on the right flank). But if the break comes in the centre of the line the brigade will now be separated into two components: the regiments that still are guiding to the left on the regulating battalion and the regiments to the right of the break in the line that continue to guide to their left on a regiment that has been separated from the original regulating battalion. Hence the brigade has spit into two components and will need two individual rolls on the maneuver table. If and when the two can be reunited the brigade will revert back to only on roll on the maneuver table.

I believe we are saying the same thing – I am just trying to format my ideas into the structure of the F&F rules.

I think you may have read more into my remark that just telling gamers that they must strive to keep up the formation also needs a threat to reinforce this dictum perhaps was confused. I agree that the penalties are inherent in not re-establishing the formation – primarily a fragmenting of the brigade. But I have played with a number of gamers in the past that took any mention of doctrine or SOP only as mere suggestions. They also have to have it pointed out to them that there are historical reasons for complying and if they do not there are penalties to be paid.

My apologies if I have been part of a hijacking of this thread. Perhaps what ACW gaming needs is a FOW set of rules to get more new gamers into the hobby. However, for myself I find the research and then tinkering with rules, or writing my own, far more interesting then a pre-packaged set of rules. But then, I am quite happy to be considered a rivet or stitch counter…

maverick2909 – because many of us WANT a representation on the tabletop of what we read about in the history books. Why would we change our hobby into something we don't want, just so more "gamers" will be interested in playing?

A new game that brings in new people will not keep you from playing what you want to play. Not one bit.

A new game might get me to blow the dust off of my figures, and who knows, if I get into the era more maybe one day I'll take up a system you're already playing. It might even get more people interested in the era who will subsequently play the games you like.

As it is now, my stuff is languishing for the reasons I mentioned above; and everyone seems far more interested in talking about the finer points of close order drill than they are on bringing in new people. There also seems to be a sense that people just aren't interested in bringing in anyone new; in fact, it seems like they're actively excluding them. And I doubt that I'm alone in seeing this.

The idea that a new game getting more people interested in an era is somehow a negative – or somehow going to affect your game – is baffling. I can't think of a single game or era I play in where I'd turn people away because somehow they might affect what I play on my table. ("Unless you're playing 15mm Vietnam the way I say you should you're ruining my hobby!")

So yes, I think there's a problem.

Look, if you're happy with your game, that's great. Enjoy it. Have fun. But please don't try to keep other people from getting what they want because somehow that might affect you. It won't; there's no zero-sum situation here.

So Maverick2909, what is the over-arching problem? Your only other post on this thread seems to say the problem is you can't find gamers your own age (26) to game with in the Civil War. The old farts seem to have gamers their own age to play with. People play what they want to play.

FOW? Nazi's go Warhammer? Hardly the solution.

People don't like being dictated to in their hobby as to what they can and cannot have on the table top and how they want to play their game. That's what turns people off on Warhammer or FOW.

As for the hobby performing poorly, bunch of hyperventilating delusion. Back in the 60's we had two wargame fanzines (Scruby's War Games Digest) and Featherstone's Wargames Newsletter.) Simple mimeographed or copied rules, no color, lots of typos. They were full of articles like "How to convert American Civil War Cavalry to the armies of Europe in the 19th century." There were other smaller ones, but they were even worse on production values. Now you have three big major glossies. We are awash in more figures and lines than we ever had, and we were converting whatever we could to get what we wanted. Now you have only to reach out your hand for them to fall into it. Back then we had one or two new rule books come out in a decade, now any old clown with a desk top printer can crank them out. Back then we had MAYBE one big convention a year, now the field is littered with them like mushrooms in August. As for younger gamers, go to any of those conventions and you'll see dozens of them.

There's no problem with this hobby.

ScottS,

Have you tried "Longstreet"?

It's probably the least "button counting" set of ACW rules out there, can be fun to play and still looks like it has something to do with the period.

Good for a quick 2 – 3 hour game.

I'll track down a copy, thanks for the recommendation!

Scott:

My boys grew up on "On to Richmond" and "Airfix ACW" rules. Pretty simple, but there are a number of simple ACW rules out there. [Borg's "Battle Cry" anyone?]

The problem is that there is no clear entry point for new gamers game-wise. Someone has to pick a particular game and 'initiate' the gamers. Looking at the hobby, they have no idea where to start. All wargames appear to offer the same thing: "Playability and Historical Accuracy"--to quote popular one game designer.

Obviously new gamers will want to start with simpler games and if and when they 'get into it more', they can move on to more complicated systems with more history. It is very hard for both newbie and the veteran to 'get them into' a complicated game, particularly if the veteran wants to enjoy the game. It has been done and can be done, but it is asking the new gamer to go from Zero to Sixty in a very short time… too much work.

Most all hobbies have an entry-point experience, an obvious categorical organization of the hobby so anyone looking at it knows where to start. I've given the example of RC airplanes, but it is a common practice. We are the hobby that seems to actively avoid such things.

I believe we are saying the same thing – I am just trying to format my ideas into the structure of the F&F rules.

Ryan:

Maybe so. I think one issue maybe your attempt to inject your ideas into an existing set of rules. F&F is tight, in that the assumptions are built into the system and well-playtested, so attaching new rules onto the existing game creates internal consistency problems. Brigades were never meant to 'break apart' in F&F, so the system isn't designed to accommodate that without a lot more exceptions and rules.

I think you may have read more into my remark that just telling gamers that they must strive to keep up the formation also needs a threat to reinforce this dictum perhaps was confused. I agree that the penalties are inherent in not re-establishing the formation – primarily a fragmenting of the brigade. But I have played with a number of gamers in the past that took any mention of doctrine or SOP only as mere suggestions. They also have to have it pointed out to them that there are historical reasons for complying and if they do not there are penalties to be paid.

I was saying that at the brigade-level, SOPs were dictums that brigade leaders…and regimental leaders followed--period. They had very specific responsibilities, fairly narrow ones. So, whatever I suggested wasn't meant to be presented to the players as doctrine or what the player had a choice in doing, but as game rules to be followed like movement allowances and formations. At the brigade and regimental level, they were requirements of the leaders of those formations, so it isn't some decision that players at divisional or corps level get to make.

The problem is that there is no clear entry point for new gamers game-wise.

I think that's an excellent point.

The fact is that I've been wargaming for a long time – I started as a wee lad when SPI was still in business. I've played my fair share of games like Terrible Swift Sword.

But I've never been bitten by the ACW bug as far as miniatures goes. Perhaps part of this is because there is no clear choice as far as systems go. In hex and counter games, once I played TSS, I could jump over to, say, Bloody April or the later Gleam of Bayonets with no problem. (And, obviously, there were no base-size problems.)

But with ACW wargaming, it seems like there some sharp divides in preference, and arguments between partisans for particular systems seem to get rather arcane.

I'd like to get a good game going with the stuff I have – and I'd also like to get other players in my group on board. I feel like I'm facing a bit of an uphill battle for any number of reasons, but I think it could be worth it.

Maybe Longstreet will be a good entry point. I ordered a copy, we'll see…

Bill, again I have to say that I am in complete agreement about the use of Regulating Battalions as the only correct and historical method used to move units on the battlefield. My original posting was simply an account of one attempt to use these methods in a game using a set of rules that was familiar to the my gaming group. It was a one time experiment.

I think there are rules that might better incorporate these principles – the concurrent discussion on Regulating Battalions has me very interested in the GBCoC rules as something that might also be adapted to the ACW.

I would think a variation of their regulating could fit into a number of rules just on its own. I can already see a straight fit for them in Longstreet.

Come to think of it I must have a read of them for their original purpose!

So have you guys settled which ACW games are good?

I think the biggest challenge for ACW is not unique to ACW, but common to a lot of miniature games of a certain type; it's an army game, as in not a skirmish game.

this means it just has higher investment to get going and playing good looking ACW; an investment in time and money.

if playing in 28mm, you'll need about 100 guys to play (say 20 ish for a unit). if in 15/18mm, as for the rules I like, requires around 75 to 100 stands or around 300 ish figures. + Cannons. then times 2 for both sides, plus ACW specific terrain such as fences… it takes a lot to put on the table.