"Some rules for the ACW could be also..." Topic

Hi there,

Do you think that some ACW rules could perfectly be used for a conflict in Europe or elsewhere that would have taken place in the 18th century or in the first half of the 19th century, because some weapons used during ACW were already used during these periods (1700 to 1860).

Thanks

TMP link

And history repeats itself.

And from the same source.

Guys, you're not being fair. This time Paskal's going for earlier European wars rather than later.

And the answer is yes, sometimes, depending on the level. As noted before, a "big battle" set like BBB or V&B usually covers 1700-1900. You could probably adapt a tactical set by tossing out all the non-smoothbore weapons except for muzzle-loading rifles, limiting them to skirmishers and cutting the rate of fire or fire effect, and tweaking a bit for differences in training and morale. You'd also have to introduce squares--rarely allowed for in ACW rules--and different grades of cavalry.

But wouldn't it be easier to start with rules written for Europe in those years? One thing miniatures players do not suffer from is a rules shortage, and compared with troops and terrain, they take up very little space.

Paskal, everyone's trying to be helpful. Perhaps if you'd explain just what problem you're trying to solve, we could propose workable solutions.

No, ACW rules are not appropriate for any conflict in the 18th Cent. I play regimental AWI and regimental ACW, they are very different. You are talking about vast technological differences. The mini-ball made the use of rifling more prevalent than in the 18th Cent. The percussion cap replaced the flintlock. The ACW made extensive use of rifled artillery which didn't exist in the previous century. In the ACW you have the revolver, breechloading rifles and late in the war repeaters.

The ACW was much more lethal than conflicts in the 18th century. The use of cavalry was different. Mass cavalry charges were rare in the ACW due to weapons technology. But as you have probably made up your mind, before you asked, I don't know why I am answering your question.

Also the effective musket range in the ACW is much further than in the 18th Century. The same goes for rifled cannons.

The rules designed to be used for extended periods (like Volley and Bayonet or Horse, Foot and Guns) will work fine as that is what they are for. Other ones probably won't.

@JimDuncanUK:
You're not being fair.

This time, I opt for the first European wars rather than the last.

@Mserafin:
You are not fair either. Because this time,

I opt for the first European wars rather than for the last.

@robert piepenbrink:
Thanks for telling JimDuncanUK and Mserafin that they aren't fair because indeed they weren't.

And I too am trying to be helpful.

I'm just wondering if the specific rules are necessarily the best.

@Old Contemptible:
The SBMLM, MLC and MLSB are used long before ACW and even after…

I don't have to make a decision, I just ask the question and you answer it because I ask it.

@Martin Rapier :
Cheer !

Paskal, "helpful" is precisely what you are not being. In American colloquial English, the term is "cussed" (two syllables, emphasis on the first) or perhaps "pig-headed." You appear to have made up you mind what answer was acceptable before you started either thread.

But one more time for luck.
1) At the very highest level--BBB or V&B where the player is an army commander giving orders to corps and divisions--most rules are written to cover 1700 to 1900 and say as much.
2) In a skirmish game--a dozen or so individually-mounted figures on a table and no such thing as tactical drill--you can cover a very wide variety of weapons. In fact, you may need to in order to have an interesting game. But
3) In the tactical realm, where the wargamer acts as brigade or division commander, weapons affect tactics and training, and rules written for the ACW, with rifled artillery, infantry weapons deadly at perhaps 300 years and few trained battle cavalry are not going to serve you well fighting battles where the infantry range is a third to a quarter of that and good heavy cavalry abounds. (Such rules are also a bad fit for the FPW, where the infantry longarms are again vastly improved.) You might be able to use the same rules "engine" as the term is these days, but not the same rules. Not well. You'd have to write rules of such complexity that they'd effectively be three or four different rules sets in one pair of covers.

Why would you expect it to be otherwise?

@robert piepenbrink:

Neither "pig-headed" not "cussed" or anything like that I still hope someone has a better idea than the one I have in mind.

If certain types of weaponry were used during the ACW and also in the 18th century or early 19th century , your ACW rule is usable for this period. It's a thing to do if the game system of your ACW rule is particularly nice. Do you understand?

Paskal, what you are overlooking is that the weapons are not so important as the tactical concepts, the command/control systems, and the training of the troops. It is a common fault among wargamers to get so involved with the hardware that the sociological factors get lost, despite the fact that the latter are far more important. As Napoleon said, the moral is to the physical as three is to one.

All wargame rules are a very rough approximation of reality. Good ones are closest to the reality of the period norm at a certain level of command. You keep circling back to "smoothbore muskets and cannon were still used in the ACW, so a set of ACW rules should be good rules for the Seven Years War" and "some ACW weapons were used in the FPW, so ACW rules should be good for the FPW."

Some WWI tanks were still in use in WWII, but that does not mean WWII rules are a good fit for WWI. In 1942, the Red Army was issuing weapons the Tsars had purchased for the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78--and did not, to my knowledge, revise their tactical doctrine. This does not mean rules written for the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 are a good choice for fighting WWII battles.

If you've got an ACW set you really like, you may be able to adapt the rules engine to earlier or later battles fought at the same level, but you'll have to stick to that level, and do a fair bit of work. It's no good thinking you can just use them as is. Everything rmaker wrote is true, and you can add in the experience and expectations of the combatants. Rules written for Gettysburg are not likely to work well for Cowpens.

@rmaker:
You are right, but you forgot that I am not Napoleon, but Paskal, a poor wargamer…

@robert piepenbrink:
You have even finally understood where I was coming from, but you are exaggerating a little all the same, very difficult to reflect a real battle with wargames rules, so using a rule for another period, it may be simply to discover a more playful game system, because when it comes to using a "realistic" rule, in relation to such and such a war or period, it's not serious, everyone knows that it doesn't. 'does not exist…

Yet I continued to believe that rules about battles rather than wars or periods would be more effective in terms of "realism"….