magical monstrous steve | 31 Jan 2019 4:00 a.m. PST |
On reading through the new rules set; "Rebels and Patriots," I found that, in their army lists, Confederate infantry was half as effective as Union infantry at shooting (hitting on 6 as opposed to 5 or 6) for the 1st half of the war. I thought this was a bit of an exaggeration and posted that on the facebook group for the rules. The responses were: - The army lists are just suggestions. (true) - I'm an evil troll who should just shut up (only partially true) - 1/6 isn't half the value of 2/6 because, if you turn them into percentages, it's 17% vs 33% (really?) Most of the responses, however, were in defense of the lists as they are. While the South wasn't as well armed as the North, saying that one side had half the effectiveness as the other in the dominant form of combat in the ACW just appeared to be a bit much. The lists are only suggestions. My contention was that a group who picked this up and used those suggestions might be put off by the results and not give the rules a second chance (IMHO, they're really good rules). What do folks here think? Is this a bit much? Am I an evil, nitpicking troll? Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive. |
FoxtrotPapaRomeo | 31 Jan 2019 4:09 a.m. PST |
OK, my initial thought is that the Confederates were man for man, better soldiers but the US had many more soldiers. Now I must see what facts say. Most of the military Academies were in the South. Initial Army sizes were about equal but gradually the US significantly outnumbered the South. US had a number of early losses so maybe initially the US wasn't superior. |
Cleburne1863 | 31 Jan 2019 4:41 a.m. PST |
Reading reviews I'm still not sure what the basic unit is. Brigade? Regiment? My guess is, at the most abstract level, they are trying to simulate the fact that the Confederacy had more units with smoothbore muskets until mid-war. |
magical monstrous steve | 31 Jan 2019 4:55 a.m. PST |
It's a skirmish-level game. Even though the South had fewer rifled muskets, they were able to inflict significant numbers of casualties with fire. Whether they were less effective than the North at fire is one thing, my question is whether modeling them as half as effective is an acceptable exaggeration. |
Trajanus | 31 Jan 2019 5:12 a.m. PST |
Brad, The units are Companies. The rules cover all the conflicts in America from 1754 – 1865 at that level and are supposed to be for between 40 – 60 figures per side. I'd be interested to see what they are like as I tried Sharp Practice 2 which are a similar idea (as far as I can tell) and couldn't get along with them at all. I wonder about difference at this scale as far as I'm concerned the Union were not out shot/out fought at this level early in the war, rather they were out thought and out manoeuvred at higher levels of command. Neither were the Confederates half as effective in firepower. Most actions of the type covered by the rules took place at ranges where the rifled/smoothbore differences were not so important anyway I've not seen the rules but I would like to know how they handle Militia in the French and Indian War in contrast to practiced Veterans of Civil War armies using Rifle Muskets when it comes to shooting. |
Grelber | 31 Jan 2019 5:58 a.m. PST |
Agree, it sounds rather dramatic. From a gaming point of view, this is the smallest advantage they could give the Union troops: it's either this, or equal effectiveness. Is this perhaps an offset to giving the Confederates an advantage in another area, like melee combat? I'm not familiar with the mechanics, but it would seem the way to resolve this is to chuck the D6 s and replace them with, perhaps, D10s. Then, the Confederates could hit on 9 or 10 and the Union could hit on 8, 9, or 10, which would not give the North quite the advantage in firing. Many years ago, one of the Dupuys produced a quantification formula which indicated that the North produced better soldiers than the South. Grelber |
Who asked this joker | 31 Jan 2019 6:21 a.m. PST |
1861 is a wash. Neither army was very well trained. 1862- Confederates had better esprite and a bit more experience. They were also better lead at the upper levels. I suspect on the lower levels, leadership as about equal. However, the Union did have better formal training/bootcamp and were quite well drilled. If you could make them stand in combat, I suspect they could hold their own and then some. With all that said, I think the disparity in shooting between the two sides is rather dubious unless some of the other factors involved make the Confederates act/shoot more frequently. |
Blutarski | 31 Jan 2019 7:04 a.m. PST |
MMSteve wrote – "my question is whether modeling them as half as effective is an acceptable exaggeration." IMO, no; it is not an acceptable exaggeration. At the beginning of the war, neither side was terribly well-equipped with modern (i.e. minie) rifles. A look at the casualty figures shows nothing remotely like a 2:1 ratio in favor of the Union. B |
coopman | 31 Jan 2019 7:11 a.m. PST |
Wow, I did not notice this in my casual glancing through the book. I would not support this disparity, not in any game that would be using these rules. I would have to be a Walkaway Joe if the musketry effectiveness was not made equal before the start of the game. It would be different if the casualty records supported it, but I don't think that this is the case. 33% is basically twice 17% unless some sort of common core fuzzy math is involved. Reminds me of the song by The Who: "We're Not Gonna Take It". |
advocate | 31 Jan 2019 7:24 a.m. PST |
I don't have the rules to hand, but are there other differences? Close combat for example? |
robert piepenbrink | 31 Jan 2019 7:27 a.m. PST |
The disparity seems excessive. That said, I think most of us will just ignore the suggestion. Easy enough to use these rules to build forces more in line with our own concepts of the period. I've been buying Mersey right along--and bought this one--but I don't think the rules engine is a great fit with Horse & Musket. It might actually work better for "moderns" or SF, if he get to those. |
marshalGreg | 31 Jan 2019 7:42 a.m. PST |
I stopped right there, concluded these rules are perhaps not well thought out and I should not invest time in them. |
magical monstrous steve | 31 Jan 2019 8:08 a.m. PST |
marshalGreg, That's exactly the response I was hoping to avoid by pointing this out. The rules are, in my opinion, a good set of tools to make and play games. I think the author's historical interpretations just need to be looked at critically to see if they meet one's own expectations before using them. |
Who asked this joker | 31 Jan 2019 8:13 a.m. PST |
I think the author's historical interpretations just need to be looked at critically to see if they meet one's own expectations before using them. Very sound advice! |
donlowry | 31 Jan 2019 9:21 a.m. PST |
They were also better lead at the upper levels. Your miniatures might be better lead, but the troops were better led. |
Trajanus | 31 Jan 2019 10:10 a.m. PST |
I don't think the rules engine is a great fit with Horse & Musket. It might actually work better for "moderns" or SF, if he get to those. Have to say that I'm inherently dubious about rules whose heritage is handed down from unrelated periods with different weapons grafted on. I believe these are the offspring of Colonial and English Civil War sets which seems a bit of a stretch even though we are talking about small unit actions rather than actual battles. |
AussieAndy | 31 Jan 2019 1:27 p.m. PST |
We had similar concerns with Might and Reason, as, in those rules, Prussians hit on 5 or 6 and others only on a 6. We thought that some advantage was justified, but that one was skewing the whole game. We resolved it by deciding that the Prussians must re-roll any 5s, with the re-rolls only constituting hits on rolls of 4, 5 or 6. I'm not convincing that any Union musketry advantage is warranted under your rules, but, if you decide that it is, you could fiddle around with our method. |
ScottWashburn | 31 Jan 2019 3:28 p.m. PST |
Considering the time period covered by the rules, the author may have wanted to give the American rifle-armed troops a significant advantage over those armed with soothbores during the AWI. This is not unreasonable for a skirmish game where you would be dealing with individual aimed fire rather than massed volleys. If the rating is simply rifles-vs-smoothbores, then it's not too bad. Except early in the Civil War war most troops on both sides had smoothbores. As late as Gettysburg, 1/3 of the armies, North and South, still had smoothbores. The debate over which troops were better has been raging for a long time. Personally, I think they were nearly even, although Southern commanders tended to be more aggressive. Just as a note, the South did NOT have more military schools. The South had two or three famous ones, while the North only had West Point which was really well known. But there were literally hundreds of other military schools all over the place. |
magical monstrous steve | 31 Jan 2019 4:16 p.m. PST |
I'm referring specifically to the lists in the book for the first half of the ACW. |
Blutarski | 31 Jan 2019 6:57 p.m. PST |
ScottWashburn wrote – "As late as Gettysburg, 1/3 of the armies, North and South, still had smoothbores." Where did you read the above claim? The book "Regimental Strengths at Gettysburg" by Busey and Martin details the arms carried by Union infantry at Gettyburg down to regimental level. Out of approximately 204 regiments present at the battle, only eight are listed as armed exclusively with smoothbores with approximately another dozen or so having a minority of their men armed with smoothbores. Five regiments were armed with Sharps B/L rifles. The other ninety percent of the infantry were armed with Springfield and Enfield minie rifles or other rifled muskets or various mixes thereof. Notes – The three NY regiments of the Irish Brigade IIUC actually voted to keep their smoothbores (perhaps due to an affection for the close-range advantages conferred by buck-&-ball ammunition). The large majority of Union cavalry at Gettysburg was armed with Sharps B/L carbines, with the balance armed with other B/L or repeating carbines (Burnside, Merrill, Colt, some Spencers). All cavalry additionally carried Colt or S&W revolvers. Not trying to start a fuss, but ….. B |
KimRYoung | 31 Jan 2019 8:11 p.m. PST |
Compare this data with your rules link Kim |
Blutarski | 31 Jan 2019 8:52 p.m. PST |
Claud Fuller's book, "The Rifled Musket", should be on the bookshelf of any serious ACW enthusiast. Word of caution when examining the shooting results: the targets were 10 x 10 ft in size. B |
Who asked this joker | 01 Feb 2019 5:59 a.m. PST |
Your miniatures might be better lead, but the troops were better led. Oopsie! **snicker** |
HANS GRUBER | 01 Feb 2019 7:12 a.m. PST |
In Lion Rampant the army lists were just a suggestion, and players could use them as they choose. If I was playing ACW using Rebels and Patriots, I would allow both sides the same options. |
Asteroid X | 01 Feb 2019 12:10 p.m. PST |
The rule's designers may not have had weapons capabilities, training or leadership in mind when they formulated this. It could have to do with morality and conscience: YouTube link link Archaeological finds on civil war battlefields have shown many firearms recovered have shown a very high percentage with repeated balls loaded in the firearms (they kept reloading and never did fire). link Real-life is not a game. |
ScottWashburn | 01 Feb 2019 12:26 p.m. PST |
It's far more likely the multiple loads were the result of misfires than conscience. |
magical monstrous steve | 01 Feb 2019 2:46 p.m. PST |
When I did reenacting we had a parade where we fired blanks during the march. I didn't know my springfield wasn't going off until it did with 5 loads at once. Needless to say, that happened with no one shooting back. |
Asteroid X | 01 Feb 2019 2:55 p.m. PST |
ScottWashburn, can you please cite some sources as to that claim? |
ScottWashburn | 02 Feb 2019 4:48 a.m. PST |
wmeyers, I can't cite any source, nor can anyone else for either point of view. You'd have to actually ask the person whose musket it was and see what answer they gave you. Far too late for that now. I base my opinion (and that's all it is) on my years of reenacting experience and using muzzle loading firearms. Misfires are VERY common and I've seen men in the heat of even simulated combat become sufficiently rattled to forget the most basic safety rules. Plus, if a man was thinking clearly enough to consciously decide not to shoot at another human being, he could find a better way to do it than ram multiple loads into his gun (like firing very high or into the ground, in a battle no one would ever notice what he was doing). |
EJNashIII | 02 Feb 2019 9:07 a.m. PST |
I 2nd Scott. As a reenacting NCO tasked with enforcing safety, I have seen lots of crazy things from experienced black powder shooters in the heat of the moment. I can imagine how bad it was when a guy saw his pard get hit or could heat the enemy bullets whizzing by. |
Blutarski | 02 Feb 2019 9:35 a.m. PST |
MMSteve wrote – "When I did reenacting we had a parade where we fired blanks during the march. I didn't know my springfield wasn't going off until it did with 5 loads at once. Needless to say, that happened with no one shooting back." Never fired a big bore black powder rifle myself and was wondering about how the recoil of a proper discharge could be missed in a less stressed re-enactment situation. Would I be correct in guessing that no ball meant a much reduced recoil? Or maybe the blank cartridges held less powder? No criticism implied. Just asking. B |
Asteroid X | 02 Feb 2019 12:42 p.m. PST |
Blutarski, you are absolutely correct in that blank rounds have next to no recoil. You feel it when you fire a live round/cartridge. Factor in the fact during the mid 1800's firearms were a tool used for quality of life – especially in the agrarian South, one would have grown up carrying a firearm and using it on a daily basis – especially for hunting. You would know how to use it and be very familiar with its operation, feel, etc. As for the sources I cited, they are not my opinion. They are the work of others who have studied this phenomenon. Some being professional soldiers serving in multiple conflicts. Others psychologists. Others archeologists. Others anthropologists. I hope those will differing opinions from these professionals have at least read their theories and sourced their materials of reference. |
ScottWashburn | 03 Feb 2019 6:35 a.m. PST |
Even a blank cartridge will have a bit of a recoil, enough to thump your shoulder a bit. And combat (again, even simulated combat) can do strange things to your perceptions. In a reenactment battle I would find my senses narrowing down to sight and sound. I wouldn't smell the powder smoke or taste the bitter gunpowder when I bit open a cartridge. After an action I'd find myself with cuts and scrapes and have no clue of when or how I got them. It would be entirely possible for a man not to notice the lack of a recoil from a misfire. I am familiar with S.L.A. Marshall's work and I don't doubt that many men did deliberately avoid shooting at the enemy. But I also know that many other reputable historians and military men have called Marshall's work into question and doubt whether the numbers he claim are valid. And weren't we talking about a set of game rules here? :) |
magical monstrous steve | 04 Feb 2019 6:04 a.m. PST |
Back to rules and what they are modeling: According to Earl Hess in; "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth," Paddy Griffith in; "Battle tactics of the Civil War," and Brent Nosworthy in; "The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War," the ranges at which ACW combat generally took place within the range at which smoothbores were effective. While a rifle musket was capable of greater range, the high parabolic curve of the projectile meant that using that greater range required much greater training and practice (which generally wasn't made available). The rifled musket, in practice, didn't make linear tactics obsolete and the idea that one side in a game should have twice the firepower of the other because they had a greater proportion of them is not (in my opinion) supportable. |
Trajanus | 04 Feb 2019 7:57 a.m. PST |
idea that one side in a game should have twice the firepower of the other because they had a greater proportion of them is not (in my opinion) supportable. No its not and in any event it idea that a set of rules that does't include Breachloading Rifles/Carbines or Henry's/Spencer's needs to worry about the mass use of Rifle Muskets v Smoothbore Muskets is a bit silly. Particularly given the scale of the actions portrayed. I'm ignoring the Poor Shooters part and making all units "Light Infantry" leaving any differences to be made up with the other modifiers available. |
ScottWashburn | 04 Feb 2019 1:12 p.m. PST |
As I noted earlier, weapon accuracy is going to count a lot more in a skirmish game where you one man deliberately aiming at another man, than in a game of mass vollies. |
Trajanus | 04 Feb 2019 5:15 p.m. PST |
Could be argued that the shooting ability of individuals would matter a lot more too. You could be Annie Oakley in a massed volley and no one would know. Well the skirt might be a give away. Oh and the hat and that mirror when you did the rearward facing over the shoulder thing but what the hell, you know what I mean! |
Blutarski | 04 Feb 2019 7:53 p.m. PST |
This whole Paddy Griffith thing has been hammered to death. Suffice it to say that (IMO, of course) his arguments stretch rather further than is warranted by the proof he has presented. B |
Trajanus | 05 Feb 2019 3:21 a.m. PST |
Plenty of people still support his view. Earl J. Hess in his book mentioned above (The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth) says that like a lot of people he doubted Griffith, until he was researching for his own book, then he gradually came to the conclusion that he was right. |
magical monstrous steve | 05 Feb 2019 4:26 a.m. PST |
link Above is a link to an Earl Hess lecture on the topic. I've recently read his work as well as Brent Nosworthy's book on the issue. Giving someone a piece of technology capable of greatly increased function does not, by itself, mean that they will get the benefit of it. My experience in Healtcare IT is that it takes a LOT of work to make that happen. Of course an analogy between the two experiences can only go so far, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be learned. For example, I see the clinical areas that are under the most stress are also the most difficult to teach. Maybe Paddy Griffith did stretch his arguments to far (haven't read him). I can say that both Nosworthy and Hess make reasoned arguments with plenty of evidence. |
Trajanus | 05 Feb 2019 7:19 a.m. PST |
Griffith's book is still available on Amazon for $14.80 USD. In my view he suffered from two problems. Firstly, his book came out in 1987 and his ideas went against a long established post WW2 view of the Civil War. Secondly he had the temerity to be British! Therefore how could he possibly know anything about guns and even more so, the American Civil War – I mean the clue is in the name, right? Thanks for the link to the Hess talk. |
Blutarski | 05 Feb 2019 7:24 a.m. PST |
Hi MMSteve, This dissertation can be D/L'ed from the web. I found it a competent and pretty objective presentation - COMBAT RECONSIDERED: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SMALL-UNIT ACTIONS DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR Mark C. Barloon, B. A., M. A. Sorry I did not keep the web address, but it should come up on a search. The salient issues, in my mind, are that any reasonable discussion of average small arms engagement ranges in the ACW must take into account: (a) smoothbore muskets – and other inferior transitional 'converted' muskets represented a very large proportion of the infantry arms in the field in the first year of the war (b) the high incidence of fighting in forested and overgrown terrain with greatly limited visibility played a considerable role in limiting engagement ranges; (c) the fact that the true modern minie rifle did not become the predominant infantry arm until sometime in late 1862; (d) that by 1864 erection of hasty field protection at every halt had been religiously and ubiquitously adopted by the infantry of both sides – why? The 460-odd infantry engagements examined in the above dissertation yielded a median open fire range of 152 yards. The laser-ranging project undertaken by the National Park Service on the Gettysburg battlefield for the 150th anniversary established an average engagement range of 200 yards. This is a complicated topic. The dynamics of infantry combat did not (IMO) remain static between 1861 and 1865. My opinion, FWIW. |
magical monstrous steve | 05 Feb 2019 8:13 a.m. PST |
Blutarski, It is a very complicated topic and the dynamics did evolve. The evidence you provide does offer a significant counterpoint to the conclusions of the sources that I cited. My position isn't; "Earl Hess says X, therefore the army lists in this book are wrong." Rather, it's that there are a sufficient number of sources in both the academic literature and in the popular press to question whether rifled muskets had such a dramatic effect that the assertion in those army lists that one side should have a 2-to-1 firepower advantage because of a greater proportion of rifled muskets is not supportable. (I apologize for such a long sentence) |
Trajanus | 05 Feb 2019 9:03 a.m. PST |
Barloon is a good thesis. link If I might just interject further on the matter. Both Hess and Griffith, I suspect, would have an appreciation of such work but the original ethos they both kick against is not the 0 – 200 yard band they looked to (as does Barloon) but the old school 300 – 450 yards as a measure offered for the radical change in tactics. Many authors did and some still do, use that kind of range as the norm that shifted tactics. Hess, Griffith and indeed Barloon simply point out that you could shoot that far but you didn't. Griffith's figure for 1864-65 is 147 yards v Barloon's 152 yards! And yes tactics did most certainly change. If you have read Rhea's work on the Overland Campaign, for example, you are left in no doubt why. People just got sick of dying! They were not getting routinely mowed like grass at 450 yards, a lot of he time they would have paid money to even see that far! Digging in at every opportunity was to maximise defence not for purely self preservation. It was to ensure that the other guy paid the higher price on attack against a steady gun platform. |
magical monstrous steve | 05 Feb 2019 9:37 a.m. PST |
I'd thought that the primary reason more entrenchments were used in the ACW as opposed to prior conflicts was that armies were able to be supplied better via rail and so could afford to remain in static positions longer. That might be a gross simplification of another complicated topic, but it's surely a major contributing factor. |
donlowry | 05 Feb 2019 9:55 a.m. PST |
With a Brown Bess or a Garand or an M16, the average soldier couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside. |
grahambeyrout | 05 Feb 2019 10:28 a.m. PST |
At the end of the day, the quality of the weaponry is secondary to the quality of the firer. In a battle situation under fire with smoke, noise, confusion added, its the calm firer who fires truest, whether this be with a smoothbore musket or a more accurate rifle. My impression in the early days of the war was that there was no great difference between equally trained and experienced Union and Confederate infantry under fire. Certainly there is little to suggest the Unionists were twice as good as the Rebs, which is what these rules seem to be claiming. Personally I think these rules are very suspect. |
Trajanus | 05 Feb 2019 12:37 p.m. PST |
I'd thought that the primary reason more entrenchments were used in the ACW as opposed to prior conflicts was that armies were able to be supplied better via rail and so could afford to remain in static positions longer. I think we might be in danger of getting the tactical mixed with strategic here. The large entrenchments around places like Atlanta, Vicksburg, Petersburg or Richmond were linked to railroads initially but ultimately they proved their undoing, when the opposition were able to cut those same railroads! It may be the railroads were a factor in the choice of location but in the case of those mentioned there were larger strategic reasons for the choice. If we are still at a tactical level, entrenchments on the battlefield primarily sprang up to make key points easier to defend and then later became custom to provide a secure position at anytime. Quite often being turned against their owners to ward off counter attacks. In the Overland Campaign Lee used them to make up for his lack of numbers against Grant's army and to force Grant to attack him. Grant countered by continual bye passing these positions, although often not before hurling troops at them in the hope something would give. |
Trajanus | 05 Feb 2019 12:44 p.m. PST |
Certainly there is little to suggest the Unionists were twice as good as the Rebs, which is what these rules seem to be claiming. Personally I think these rules are very suspect. I think there's general agreement on the "twice as good" bit being a bad idea. However, that's only one stat line in the whole of rules and can be easily ignored. Within the rules there are a number of variables that reflect upon the firers quality and there are alternate stat lines that can be used as well. Having had chance to read them a few times now, writing them off as suspect on the basis of one line would be equally as wrong. |
ScottWashburn | 05 Feb 2019 1:00 p.m. PST |
The entrenchment question is a complicated one. I agree with MM Steve that it was the railroads (or sometimes riverboats) which made it possible to entrench for extended periods (entrenching was certainly known in the Napoleonic Wars and earlier, but it was rarely done because the armies had to stay on the move to feed themselves). But we don't see entrenchments very much in the early years of the Civil War because both sides were hoping for that decisive battle in the field. They wanted an Austerlitz or a Cannae, but once you start entrenching, there's little chance of that happening. Later in the war they realized that they weren't going to get that war-ending battle and the South realized it had to go on the defensive. After that entrenchments became common. Changes in the weapons carried had little to do with why they started entrenching. |