"post about ACW gaming with regiments versus brigades" Topic

Being somewhat new to ACW gaming myself, I wrote a post discussing the difference between gaming with regiments versus brigades as the maneuver elements.

nothing earth shattering, just something for newer ACW players to read or anyone who likes discussing wargaming and scale.

link

-Stew

Stew,

That is a great write-up. I played the original Johnny Reb and loved it so I grabbed F&F a few years before the RFF came out and it did not feel the same. I believe RFF is what I need.

Paul

Still play JR2, very much prefer the Regimental to the Brigade size rules, I just got a bigger table and more figures and play the Fire and Fury games with regiments !

Regards Ken
yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

thanks for reading and comments!
I've never played JR in any version so I can't comment. I remember being told that you had to swap out the stands with other stands with less figures on it to show casualties, which seemed like a lot of work to model…

and of course, if you have enough players and bases and a big enough table you can totally do huge regimental scenarios. : )

-Stew

Regiment regiment regiment

Sometimes Stu it's just a case of improvising, we stick a small plastic counter behind the unit for each casualty and then take a base of when you reach the right no.

Regards Ken
yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

In playing JR, we had one stand per regiment with figures on individual magnets. We'd remove a figure at a time for casualties. Then, when a stand was eliminated, we'd put the stand with magnet figures back on the table for the next set of casualties.

Stew,
Very much enjoyed reading your post; thanks for sharing your thoughts. In our group, we could never quite decide which we liked more, the regimental or brigade scale. Our solution was to do both. For my collection, I use 5 bases per "unit" (20 figs)as standard, and we employ rosters. I understand that many are averse to that but it does have a lot of advantages. We like the idea of not knowing exactly how strong a force opposite your own is, and it allows us to track the strength, morale status and any other information we choose to keep abreast of.
-George

Thank you George, I'm pleased you enjoyed it. : )

For all my talk I still haven't played a game at the brigade scale, but I'm working on an Antietam scenario for Fire and Fury. In the meantime, more Regimental Fire and Fury games are on the calendar.

How much autonomy was given to regimental commanders, though? Really? It looks good, lots of figures on the table and "options" for players, but is that how they really were utilized?

Serious question, as while individual regiments stand out at various points on various battlefields, were LTCs and MAJs given "free reign" to do what they wanted?

Something to think about anyway.

Here's one way to keep regiments from having way more autonomy than they did in the actual ACW: If you use rules that have command radius and command and control, regiments can't wander too far afield from their brigade or they'll be effectively out of the game.

There is no difference between a brigade and a regiment. If it is a unit, it is a unit.

If "unit" means it represents a brigade, then your firing range is like one hex distant because the scale that is the time/space distortion means the space occupied by the unit is about 600 yards. That's beyond effective range of rifled muskets, so pretty much if you have one unit representing a brigade, firing ranges for infantry dont exist.

If your "unit" represents an entire regiment, totally different story. If you play Napoloenics where a regiment can be up to 2 or 3 battalions, the situation changes again. But essentially, if one hex = space for one unit, there you are. If a cannon model fits into the hex, its a battery and the cavalry is an entire regiment of mounted troops (this would be a RARE occurrance in ACW)