"Pickett’s Charge - first impressions of Gameplay" Topic

OK so this is not an AAR with photos and tales of daring-do, it's my initial gameplay impressions from my first ever game of Picketts Charge, played last night.

The game itself was a Union Division of four Brigades, of three Regiments, versus a Confederate Division of three Brigades of four Regiments each. Both sides had two Batteries of Artillery, the Union a 12pdr and 3in Rifle, the Confederates, two Mixed Batteries.

First thing: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

It needs to be said that I read the new rules before the game better than I have done for a long time and that certainly helped. As a result we were working off the colourful (!) play sheets after about three turns and scarcely looked at the book all night. Considering my pal had never even looked at the rules before the game, I think that speaks highly of the quality of the writing.

I also printed onto card and laminated all the game counters beforehand. Bit of a pain cutting them all out but believe me, playing the game without them would have been even more so. Their function in keeping track of events is really important and contributed to the speed of play.

Talking of which, once you hit a rhythm the game flow is excellent and turns move through at good old clip. We were impressed with that, all the more so for the inevitable first game pauses.

Of great assistance here and a point of praise itself, is the turn sequence. This is only four main steps and is picked up very easily. The key Command and Initiative phase where ACDs are generated and allocated, the Brigades command states and which side has the first bat that turn is decided, feels repetitive but is conducted in no time and you are soon doing it on auto pilot.

Having mentioned the play sheets I can't speak highly enough of those. At first sight their loud visual appearance is a bit off putting (well it was to me) in use, they are very comprehensive and easy to read.

Within the turn we particularly liked fact after Command & Initiative, Charges (phasing player only) and their consequences are all dealt with, both sides move and finally they both shoot. This combo of having things done in pairs, as it were, means players on both sides are actively involved throughout the turn which is engaging and makes things flow really well.

Now a word on the Command and Staff Officers. Those who read my initial impressions post will recall you get a "Staff Officer" per Brigade, who has fixed tasks that can be brought out to assist the player in controlling the action. These are allocated each turn after you dice to see how many are available.

I wish it to be known the Union Army Staff was a disgrace last night and you would not believe how many times it's possible to roll a 1 or 2 on a D6 for their non appearance! I never saw all four and ended up with two a lot of the time. Furthermore, I even managed to have them screw their re roll function, when attached to the Brigade(s) I really needed to be active, by rolling a 1 or 2 again after the Brigade roll of 1 or 2 that had failed the activation in the first place, on more than one occasion.

As a result of this crazy run it's a bit harder than it might have been to give a balanced view of this feature. My opponent did well enough but still found an awkward decision of where to put his effort more than once during the night, as a result of only having a possible three to begin with and wishing to conduct more than one task that required him to pay two "Staff Officers". It's a neat way of making you think and forcing you to keep it simple. It needs to be stated that you don't need a "Staff Officer" to have a Brigade active. You just need to be more capable than I was on occasions of rolling three or more on a D6! I should also point out that we were both so preoccupied with getting things right on our first outing we probably missed quite a few occasions where the "Staff Officer" features could have been employed and didn't connect the opportunity.

The use of the Brigade brings me to a moan from my "initial impressions" posting, the author's choice of Command Radius to enforce the Regulating principal of action and manoeuvre (that's the official name for the game of Simon Says that kept Brigades etc together, if you have never heard of it).

OK command radius makes players go along with the actual historic practice, or a representation thereof but finding examples in various places within the body of the rules where a "Lead Unit" then has to do this, or players have to take "X" into account regarding the "Lead Unit" had me yelling "Bloody Hell, Dave! Why did you not at least mention the term Regulating somewhere!" on more than more than one occasion. That's what having a "Lead Unit" was all about!

Pedants may not rule but we sure get mad!

The other (newer) moan is, I'm not totally sure I go with the Artillery command placement in the rules, in that they give the impression that Brigades had Batteries attached to them when they were largely a Divisional asset or above. It's not a killer and yes Batteries did give support to Brigades and were often told to do just that. OK this varied in some aspects during the war but the relationship here feels a bit literal, although presumably a gameplay requirement.

Moving on. As I suspected on read through, the bump in the road is indeed Charge Combat. It does nothing wrong but it is the most involved section in its (largely successful) attempts to get things right. This is fundamentally due to the manner in which it wraps up all attempts to close with the enemy, rather than just firefight, in one bundle and deals with all the permutations of events that fall short of "getting stabbie with it". It does take some care to get right first time of trying and I'm still not sure I get the possibilities around a single Regiment going for it, as opposed to the whole Brigade. This is probably due to the fact you will lose "Support" at some point if you don't go all in and the rules around "Support" in general.

However, we did get a working solution last night but its top of my homework list, before next week, to see what we may have fudged. Hey! It was the first game!

Shooting of all kinds was smooth and feels right in terms of effect. It does give rise to more moral tests than I expected, for although dealt with quickly and efficiently the "See the Elephant Test" pops up on around a third of the Casualty Table scores. It's no biggie and very soon "That's three hits and an elephant" had become the vernacular.

Movement and Terrain restrictions were clear and easy to follow. We thought the process of having units test to become unformed was a good alternative to incrementally deducting movement for poor ground and walls, fences etc.

Surprises of the night were: A Union Regiment, that on getting shot for the first time in the game, spectacularly failed its Elephant and "Routed" after barely a scratch along with a Confederate one that went swiftly backwards when "Whipped" by artillery fire early on. Players need to be aware that neither of these terms is the end of the world – "Dispersed" is – but rather a portrayal of units going "To Hell with this!" and disappearing in two slightly different ways, and also that they can get dragged back to the Brigade at a later point.

On that, we have already decided that we are going to deal in "Hits" rather than "Casualties" as it's a bit odd to use the latter where degrading of units is the design and not everything is down to dead or wounded. Semantic, perhaps but we call'em the way we see'em.

I could prattle on some more but bottom line is – best first outing for a rule set for a long time. I've probably missed out a load of pointers and truth to tell may have missed out a load of rules detail last night! If that's the case it's a tribute they played so well regardless! All I have to do now is get reading again and see if I can spot what we may have missed!

OK. I play original Fire & Fury. If you have played that set,
how does this new one compare? Is it so good that its worth giving up on F&F? If so, where is it better?

The game itself was a Union Division of four Brigades, of three Regiments, versus a Confederate Division of three Brigades of four Regiments each.

I really couldn't tell from your initial review. I assume these are a regimental set of rules like JR or RF&F and not a brigade set of rules like F&F.

they give the impression that Brigades had Batteries attached to them when they were largely a Divisional asset or above.

Taint necessarily so. Depends on time and place. At Chickamauga, for instance, batteries were still assigned to brigades in both armies. And often in other battles even when they were assigned at division level they were attached to brigades.

Rallynow,

Yes you are correct. Players move Brigades but fight with Regiments. So the lowest formation present is a Regiment.

Don,

Understood. Hence my comment in that paragraph on artillery "this varied in some aspects during the war".

I do appreciate the allocation to Brigades from Division, my beef was there is no explanation for the novice that it worked like that so it would be easy to assume they were always a Brigade asset.

Possibly slightly unfair in expecting a set of rules to double as a text book but it bugs me in any period where rules can give newbies a false trail.

Pan Marek,

First thing to note is that the two sets of rules are pitched at different levels of activity.

F&F (which I played for a number of years) is made to enable large battles to be fought (if you have a truck load of miniatures) where the smallest unit on the table is a Brigade. No real attempt is made to portray he individual actions of the Regiments in that Brigade. So if you have all 8, 10, 12 stands in that Brigade in a Line the whole Brigade is deemed to be in Line.

In PC the smallest unit on the table is a Regiment. So you could have all the Regiments in a Brigade in the same formation or a mixture. Now in the real world most of the time they would have all be in the same formation but here at least you get a better representation of the difference between all being in line or all being in column, for example.

They also get to shoot and fight individually but as overall part of a Brigades objective.

The other thing to point out is that the original Fire and Fury was published 26 years ago. There has been a lot of Civil War scholarship and ideas on rules writing in that time and to be honest it shows in PC.

However, while PC is most definitely a better set of rules, it depends on the game you want. If you are looking for the mega game of Gettysburg and happen to have 10 Corps Leaders, 29 Divisional Leaders, 69 Artillery Batteries, 14 stands of Cavalry, 11 stands of Dismounted Cavalry and 582 stands of Infantry, I guess it's still Fire and Fury.

If you plan on maxing out at around a Corps per side most of the time, it's PC.

Personally, if I wanted the big game I'd go for maybe Volley and Bayonet, or look out "Chamberlain" which is a very nice conversion of Sam Mustafa's "Blucher" Napoleonic set of rules.

Alternatively I believe that there's a new version of the original Fire and Fury coming next year (?). Though to tell the honest truth after all this time I'd want a darn good read of that before parting with my cash. Not damming without a sight of them its just there's a lot of ground to make up, in my view.

As a playtester of Brigade F&F v2, and someone considers himself passably well acquainted with both ACW history and wargame theory, I can attest that – while there is no real need to "make up ground" – that the updated rules are both enjoyable and accurate to the period. ;)

However, the real comparison would be to Regimental F&F, which I have played extensively … but as my experience with PC is non-existent I can't make any comparison. I suspect (from what I know of RF&F and what I have read of PC so far) that both sets hew close to history from different design perspectives, and that matters of personal gaming tastes will be the deciding factor.

Cheers,

Christopher

Yes the eternal wargames problem. You have to spend money to find out if you like rules or you don't and then it's too late!

Trajanus- thanks.

They sound interesting. What are the base sizes, length by width? How many figures per base? Typically how many bases per regiment?

There are some suggestions regarding frontage size in the rules, which are really for Newbies. For what its worth these are 10-15mm per figure at 15mm and 20 – 30mm at 28mm.

Per section, an Artillery base comes out at 30mm – 45mm in 15mm or 50mm – 60mm in 28mm

Stands are representing 75-80 men, so Infantry pans out at 3/5/7/9 stand Regiments (or even numbers if that's what you like). Four figures per base.

Calvary can have three or four figures to a base at the same scale, or if they are mounted in pairs treat them as being 35 – 40 men instead.

Artillery batteries can be mounted either, as per reality, in two or three sections – one model per section, or in one model per battery entire frontage format.

Other than that you can use anything you already have providing both sides are the same

Trajanus: thanks very much for the detailed information!

No problem!

As for the battery/brigade thing, it just sounded to me like the usual ignoring of all armies outside of Virginia, which bugs me. Not trying to be pedantic (if I can help it).

Don,

Don't fight it, join us pedants on the Dark Side! :o)

Good point on the ANV – AOP though. I have to confess my own personal view doesn't stretch too far west of the Appalachians/Alleghenies.

Need to be reminded of that from time to time.

Big T:

Thanks for the first impressions. Do you have anything else that struck you about the command and close combat processes?

Hi Trajanus

Still some time off playing but there is one thing I can't quite get my head around. Once a regiment has been degraded as Dispersed, is it removed from play ?

Actually I think you have answered my above question in your first post. I think the word dispersed is probably making it slightly misleading in my eyes as for me it conjours up the image of a unit fleeing in all directions but it doesn't appear to be the case in this game as you still have a chance of getting it back together again

Treatment of artillery ,I think like in David's walk through game may be best kept in separate brigades .If organised as part of a mixed brigade then it could find itself out of command radius or may hold the infantry element back a tab

mysteron,

Dispersed units are removed, as I think you've spotted.

Confusion here seems to be around that a lot of rules, in this and other periods, use Rout as their term for when an individual unit hits "Game Over".

The author has gone for Whipped and Routed to show the "habit" of troops on both sides of moving to the rear and then deciding to have another go.

On artillery. Being out of command radius probably doesn't matter that much as long as the guns are pretty much where you need them and you don't want to bring them closer to the enemy. They can still shoot and run away.

Also, the Brigade commander can shift across to move them by bringing them into radius again, although this could stop some or all of the infantry moving. A classic reason why Command Radius sucks. In the real world, even if he did go himself the Brigade would keep moving unless he told it not too.

We are thinking of dealing with this by making rounding up strays a single "Staff Officer" task. Which feels more in keeping with the spirit of things.

Might I recommend "The Artillery of Gettysburg" by Bradley M. Gottfried on how artillery was handled in battle. Very readable and although only dealing with the events of this one battle it give a nice feel for how things actually were conducted on both sides.

Thanks for the first impressions. Do you have anything else that struck you about the command and close combat processes?

Bill,

Yeah some thoughts but as I said in the OP I would like to play a game where the laws of probability were not quite as off beam. It would be too easy after this one game to jump to a conclusion that attaching a "Staff Officer" to get a better chance of activation is not value for money. After all the Brigade is rolling on a 4:2 chance of success as it stands all the "Staff Officer" gets you is a second 4:2 chance if you fail, it doesn't alter the odds in you favour.

Looking at the "Task" list there are limitations too.

"Scouts" only matters if you are using hidden units via the "Fog of War" rule. Not the authors fault if you don't want to play that way of course but I wonder how often I'd spend and SO when we start using it.

"Pinkerton" which forces an enemy Brigade to re-roll a activation, I find a bit of a gimmick, which may sound rich coming from a "Longstreet" player but at least I know one when I see it! I'm assuming its Dave's homage to Sam Mustafa. You know like movie Directors do in referencing each others work. :o)

"Rally" Getting back Casualties for the Regiments in a Brigade. I need to see how effective it is but it looks useful and historic in terms of bring units back into the fight. PLAYER NOTE: The shorthand line on the Playsheet under Staff Officers is wrong. Look at page 29 of the rules instead.

Other than that I have no real observations other than to add what I said to mysteron about using a single "Staff Officer" to round up stray units who fall out of command radius rather than mess around moving Brigade Commanders and checking measurements again. In fact there may well be more possibility for House Rules in this area. The concept is a useful tool.

I haven't had chance to go over Close Combat again yet so I'll post again when I have had chance.

Thanks Big T .
That makes more sense now .Also thanks for the book recommendation especially as Christmas is around the corner.

Christmas, yeah nice one! :o)

If you are looking to play the whole battle of Gettysburg in an evening on a 6 X 4 table with fewer than 70 stands of infantry per side, try Bloody Big Battles. I haven't played that one yet but their Shiloh scenario has been played 5 times over the past two years and I made a dedicated battle mat for the game.

That said, Pickett's Charge sounds like what I want for division on division action. I'll have to get a copy, along with the 2nd edition of Sharp Practice. So many rules, such little time…

Bill,

It occurred to me that I didn't point out that there are other "Tasks" for SOs in the rules I chose not to mention. That's because I was taking those as read and part of the game that "just work".

Down side of rules writing is people never highlight things they accept without question! :o)

OK back to Charge Combat.

As I have said in other posts I always find that this area in ACW or Napoleonic rules is the one most likely to cause me to sit and wonder. It may be me, or may be that it's one of the hardest areas to get right, please everybody, or however you wish to put it.

That said "Picketts Charge" tries to carry forward the game and the spirit of the period in an admirable fashion. The essentials we read about in history and journals are there and the rules are geared to giving those often reported occurrences of enthusiastic (and not so much) charges running into a wall of fire and either petering out, stopping to exchange volleys rather than pressing on, or just plain going back where they came from.

What they expect far less of is the grand old, bayonet stabbing, point blank shooting, rifle butt in the chops, Melee!

In this they succeed, as defenders while having the ability to halt the charge by fire and exchange volleys as needed, also have an ability to be somewhere else if things go against them in the resolution of all this. No time is wasted working out a Melee stacked in favour of the pressed home attack in order to get defenders to leave – they can chose to go of their own accord. Only a drawn result from the "Charge" process sees the quick and simple Melee chart referred to.

I should also point out that as well as support fire there are clear definitions for "Supporting Units" on both sides and I particularly like the fact there is none of that ‘Attacker counts all the stands from the charging unit, plus half the stands of the supporting unit' twaddle, that drives me up the wall.

Supporting unit's effect is not in terms of numbers but rather that it allows the players one or more re rolls in the charge resolution test, thereby deciding the outcome in what feels like more of a Moral based way.

So far so excellent.

I have two elements that require further investigation. Firstly I'm still not clear why the author has the "Lead Unit" idea, for both attackers and defenders. It certainly narrows the focus of activity and could cut out a lot of unnecessary calculation but I'm not sure what it represents. If it's just a matter of them being the most handily place unit in the Brigade so well and good. Some Regiment was almost bound to be the focus so maybe I'm just over thinking it. I had thought of it as representing the Regulating unit but I've now decided that's me, not the rules, as there's no reason to assume that Regiment would automatically be first to fight so its probably me.

Anyway I'm going to turn the investigation over to more games providing, more examples and see what transpires. Or maybe just have a lay down somewhere.

Second and Final thought, which may require contact with the author in some fashion, is that I'm almost certain there has been a proof reading failure on Page 38.

Under "Conducting the Charge" there are 13 numbered points.

Point 6 "Charge Move" has a sentence that ends in a colon – normally a sign of sub points to follow but things run on straight to Points 7 and 8, which contradict each other and have a confusing relationship to Point 6!

I'm sure you all wanted to know that! Sorry, twenty odd years of my one time employment gets me into this stuff! ;0)

Let me state that this doesn't ruin the entire set of rules and that you can make things work by mentally editing these sentences. It's just a point to be aware of!

Trajanus:

Thank you for the further depth. I always hesitate to analyze a rules set until I actually play it [or attempt to as the case may be.] It also helps to have other eyes on it when you start to study it… so 'It's just me' conclusions have some support.

You wrote: "Some Regiment was almost bound to be the focus so maybe I'm just over thinking it."

Why do you see that as a probability in a brigade action?
…Assuming that close combat is by brigade and not individual regiments.

Bill,

Maybe not as easy to explain as it should be but it's around that transition from advance to contact (via Regulating) to the point where the enemy, or interaction with it, stops the positional requirement of Regulating having the constraints that were applicable prior to the contact taking place.

So you may have all Regiments coming into contact at the same time or one (by accident of geography or enemy positions) contacting ahead of the rest.

What I'm unsure of is if rules assume that, by whatever reaction, one Regiment will be that fraction ahead in time so that the Brigade commander or their Colonel makes the first move, rather than setting the whole Brigade in motion. Or are they just saying it's OK to chuck in a Regiment and support it with the rest of the Brigade. There is a difference.

Of course in the real world both happened, as did pausing to throw in the whole Brigade in which case where does the "Lead Unit" fit in?

My touchstone in these affairs is generally Longstreet's attack on July 2nd where pretty much every permutation of Divisional, Brigade and Regimental interaction took place along with multiple uses of artillery batteries.

While I have the initial feeling that Pickett's Charge is up for this, it's finding the edges that will remain to be seen.

I also found the charge rules to be confusing, especially around supports and supporting fire… (not to mention that on p 39 it says something about 'these modifiers are for the lead unit only' and then on 40 talks about how 'every 2 casualties suffered including supports' is a negative modifier).

for instance; if my union regiments (of 5 bases) are arranged:

AAAAA BBBBBB CCCCC

and all charge a bunch of smelly confederates arranged like this:

XXXXX YYYYYY ZZZZZ

is that 3 separate charges or can it be one charge, say B versus Y, with 2 supports each? under prohibited supports on page 28 it says a unit cannot offer support if an enemy unit not involved in the charge is opposed and within 15cm.

but what does 'involved' mean? are units X and Z involved because they are supporting Y? in which case it seems that this can be one charge if the attacker wants (if there is some advantage of doing it that way). OR are they not involved bc they're not the target of the charge?

what if it was like this:
DDDDD
AAAAA BBBBB CCCCC

WWWWW XXXXX YYYYY
ZZZZZ

then it's definitely to the attackers benefit to declare that B is charging X with A, D, and C in support.

so as Trajanus says, do is it all regiments attacking at once (so 3 separate charges) OR one ahead of the rest (one charge with supports).

-Stew

Well my understanding of the charges situation with reading the queries so far on the General De Brigade Forum and the answers David has given is as follows

I think its easier for me if I think in terms of the majority of the Brigade that is doing the charging and not just the nominated lead unit( regiment) as the supports will also move and keep the same parity with the lead unit and to do this they must move at the same distance. This question cropped on the forum . So that bit to me makes sense to me and answers my question on what role the supports do in all of this

I have still got most of this chapter to read yet but the questions asked do help with my understanding as I read along.

The more I read the more I want to try it .

Stew,

Without getting bogged in the detail of charts and so forth and with an immediate disclaimer as to this being how I'm doing it, which may or may not be as intended but appears to work…..

I've often found bits of rule where I've taken my own path on the assumption I was right, or it was close enough. Sometimes deliberately, others I've discovered to be right but wrong, years later. Its just the limits of the written word.

However, in your handy example there are two basic ways of doing it, as far as I'm concerned.

Firstly, you can elect to punch through the middle by nominating the BBBBB as the lead unit for the charge with AAAAA & CCCCC as supports. This is an attacker only option, you could decide to use only one or none. The defender has then YYYYY as lead defender and has to include XXXXX & ZZZZZ as supports like it or not.

You go through the processes and everything revolves around BBBBB against YYYYY although the outcome may effect their supports as well.

Secondly, you can chuck in the whole lot. What happens there is three separate actions. Each one is its own lead unit for attack and defence and there are no supports for anyone, as they are all involved in their own action.

These are then subject to the outcomes as individual units.

Doing things this way has swings and roundabouts tactically. Better chance of a small hole in the line but a potential big win the other way.

These options allow you to tailor you tactics to the situation and state of the enemy. Both meet my self imposed criteria "My touchstone in these affairs is generally Longstreet's attack on July 2nd where pretty much every permutation of Divisional, Brigade and Regimental interaction took place" mentioned above.

So if any of the written rules, and charts stray off this approach (not saying either way) my view – "on table" – is "Make it so!"

Hope this helps and the author isn't going mad in reading it but I think its in the general direction of the rules, if not point by point.

Hi Big T

I agree with your post with the onus being on the attacker and therefore has the options as you pointed out. Whilst BBBBB being the lead unit the other support units will move with it as well as the point in my own above post. They don't just sit there waiting of the potential outcome of a melee that might never happen.

Yes, I agree. I think that's the overall idea behind the rules, that wherever possible the elements of the Brigade attempt to back each other up.

It certainly supports the first hand reports where until and unless the whole thing degenerated into a bar fight you reinforced success where ever possible.

bummer, the format in my second example got messed up, and unit D, is supposed to be behind unit B, not A. so that B would have 3 supports versus unit X (2 sides and 1 behind), and X would have 2 on the sides.

thanks for the response. At least we are reading it the same way as I think as well it's the attackers option on how the charge goes in.

The discussion forum for these rules is now underway so anyone wanting answers from Dave Brown in person can avoid the guess work and go to:

link

A few questions around charges have popped up already.

I posted my charge questions to the TFL forum.

Well, I bought it – the PDF version – and I am extremely disappointed: First, unless I missed something, no officer casualties except by sniper. If that is so and I didn't miss anything, then this is ludicrous. Attach an officer to a charge and he may do so with impunity. Poppycock. Second, and I know I did not miss this – no QRS. No collected charts to print out and use, which I find is typical of Two Fart Lardies. Unacceptable. Third, unit frontages are way off. If 1 inch equals 25 yards (1mm=1yard), then a stand of 80 men in two ranks with the standard distance of 18 inches per training should have a scale unit frontage of about 60 yards or 2 inches.

This is just my initial assessment and it is not favorable. I guess another set of rules to consign to the unusable stack.

you are right, there are NO officer deaths unless by sniper. I found that weird too but able to roll with it.

I bought the PDF and softcover bundle, and the actual book DID come with really nice QRS. I think they'll eventually be made into a download.

I still have questions about the charging rules that are in the process of being sorted out. I think this game would benefit from some youtube videos, also very typical of TFL games.

Pdf of the sheets is available here:

link

Not the best peice of marketing I've seen but not the fault of the author or a reflection on they quality of the game itself.

"The game does not rely on a distinct figure scale" as it says in the book nor does it have a serious ground scale. Bit hard to have one without the other.

However, in this it's right up to date with the a lot of modern rules in my experience. Most buyers neither no nor care about scale frontage.

Reason? Years of bitching about having to rebase for every new rule set. Want to ensure no one ever plays your rules? Put "Requries total rebasing for accurate game play" on the cover!

Firing ranges are an acceptable representation, at the scale quoted, in terms of realistic engagement distance, when you allow for God putting things in the way. Movement distance is a la wargames – what else could be if there's no ground scale/time frame link.

Rules are like "historic" movies they are written for people who like Brad Pitt not those who can catalogue the nonsense within "Fury" – the Majority. If they satisfy most of those who know the detail as well, then that's great too.

All I can say is if you chuck these without playing them you may well miss something.

BTW: I'm not fussed about dead generals but yes its unusual, although the moral system within the rules has plenty of things to challenge players without that particular item.

That said, Sam Mustafa's recent ancient rules don't even have generals represented on the table and you know what it doesnt effect the game at all! – The Modern World eh?

Thank you for the QRS link. That helps immensely.

I don't disagree about rebasing – which is one reason I have a problem with the whole Johnny Reb system. And why I like Fire and Fury – both Brigade and Regimental (BTW, I've been playing RF&F at Brigade scale and it works well) as well as On To Richmond and the old Rally Round The Flag.

And, I am not one of those who encourage games to represent movies. Like Fury. But, I am one who advocates rules which represent what I read in the many Civil books I have. Which is why scale unit frontage and Generals being put in jeopardy are very important. A moral system not based on the Generals and Colonels misses the main morale emphasis of the Civil War. Even units like the Iron Brigade and the Stonewall Brigade depended on the status and courage (or lack thereof) of their commanders. Elite means nothing in the Civil War with an incompetent commander. Read the histories.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I just want a set of rules which best represent what I read. So far, RF&F comes closest. I'll give Picett a try, but you can be sure I am going to add something which to encompass the commanders being in harms way.

Happy to help.

I do take your point on Generals and even Colonels, to an extent, although where the later were concerned they were killed or disabled in battle so frequently it almost didn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

There again where Regimental officers were concerned the internal structure meant a replacement was always at hand. You may have ended the day with a Captain in charge but at least someone stepped up!

Generals of course were another matter. Plenty of examples of plans going wrong when some one got themselves shot and the losses in Brigade commanders over the course of the war were alarming.

I think the problem for rules writers is that people got themselves killed at different times at different points in a battle. Sometimes it was immediate importance, sometimes less so. To be honest, sometimes it was down right useful !

Then again some generals were a lot more valuable than others to their superiors or their subordinates.

Trying to take all these factors into account could add whole chunks of additional rules if done in real detail. As a result you get the same old +1 in a charge or miss a turn of movement stuff which to be honest seldom has much impact in a game.

Yes it's a cop out but most people roll with it rather than add a load of extra items. PC adds a charge bonus for Generals so dicing to have him killed on the way in and then removing that bonus would be a place to start.

I prefer to think that with age comes wisdom. There are plenty of rules out there I would have played in the past that I wouldn't consider in the present!