Au pas de Charge | 26 Jul 2022 2:02 p.m. PST |
The actual gaming, not walking the battlefields or reading the histories or even tracing your forebears but specifically, when on the tabletop what makes ACW wargaming more fun (or at least different) than other horse and musket periods such as Napoleonic, SYW or even FPW? |
smithsco | 26 Jul 2022 2:15 p.m. PST |
As an American I enjoy it because it's my country's history. On the prep side of it uniforms etc are very easy. Terrain is very generic in many battles…hills and woods with a few exceptions. Tons of easily accessible info in English for scenarios etc. In terms of game play it's the absence of various unit types. Infantry, artillery, cavalry of varying quality. No need to worry a out deployment and use of line, grenadiers, the guard, voltigeurs, etc. Makes games fast and fairly simple. |
Dye4minis | 26 Jul 2022 2:31 p.m. PST |
For me, there is so much written about the ACW than SYW, Naps, AWI, Ancients, etc. in English and, in general, figures can be used for both sides during the painting process. I guess it also needs to be said that I have played more (and enjoyed playing) the ACW than most other periods. |
Ferd45231 | 26 Jul 2022 3:28 p.m. PST |
As in all of the above. Plus the relative ease of seeing battlefields; walking the grounds and then applying that experience to a wargame is lots of fun. Finally my wife and I each had a great grandfather in the war plus Great Uncles and that brings it home. All wore the blue. H |
Rich Bliss | 26 Jul 2022 3:29 p.m. PST |
Interesting decision making. And relatively equal troop capabilities. |
14Bore | 26 Jul 2022 3:31 p.m. PST |
Actually often wondered why I didn't go for ACW armies instead if Napoleonic other that a quirk of fate. Certainly been to many ACW historical sites and never to a Napoleonic site, read lots about as it's a fantastic history. |
JimDuncanUK | 26 Jul 2022 3:34 p.m. PST |
I don't see ACW warming as any different from any other period. It's just another period that happens to be well documented and supported in the hobby but not the only one. |
KimRYoung | 26 Jul 2022 4:03 p.m. PST |
For me it's because I know way more about the period then any other. Only need two armies rather then four or five to play all the battles. Tactics and organization the same for both sides. Plenty of battles to chose from to recreate from small actions to major engagements. Most of the uniforms are pretty generic for any battle you want to re-create. Great variety of terrain that the armies fought over with iconic landmarks. Lastly, most of the battles provide opportunity for both sides to be successful in some form to make for interesting games. Kim |
Lascaris | 26 Jul 2022 4:11 p.m. PST |
For me, beyond all the non-game reasons, it's that the armies are evenly matched. It's not ahistorical to have both sides with a fighting chance. Compare that to FPW where you have to adjust the horrific French command to give them a chance, or much of Napoleonics where the best case (except for English) is bloodying the French a bit while they use you as a punching bag. SYW can have even fights although you typically need to give whoever's facing the Prussian's a significant edge in bodies. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 26 Jul 2022 4:56 p.m. PST |
I agree the ACW is popular but depends on the home location of TMP members. Membership and living outside the USA may have different outlook. So far from responses….One lives outside USA, 2 unknown locations, and six in USA. |
doc mcb | 26 Jul 2022 4:58 p.m. PST |
I can root for both sides, passionately. |
14Bore | 26 Jul 2022 4:59 p.m. PST |
I shouldn't, but use to be surprised when a British or Australian was deeply into ACW. |
robert piepenbrink | 26 Jul 2022 5:07 p.m. PST |
As mentioned, there are the non-tabletop aspects, and those are most pertinent in the United States. Purely on the tabletop, it scales better than the Napoleonic Wars. By changing rules I can use the same armies to fight brigade actions up to corps--even army level if I had more players. And a full set doesn't require the Napoleonic variety of nations and troop types. If I could only keep one set of armies--or even only one horse and musket set--it would be Napoleonic. But it makes for a nice change. |
Speculus | 26 Jul 2022 5:20 p.m. PST |
I don't think ACW remotely compares to Napoleonics. Battlefield cavalry really has very little role, unlike Napoleonics. Therefore the intricate combined arms of infantry, cavalry and artillery doesn't exist. I'm not saying that I haven't played and enjoyed ACW, but to me it can't compare to Napoleonics. By the way I am American and had my 5x grandfather and uncles in the 1st NC Cavalry, company G "Buncombe Rangers" (5x Grandpa was the 1st sgt of company G). |
OSCS74 | 26 Jul 2022 5:40 p.m. PST |
|
Korvessa | 26 Jul 2022 6:04 p.m. PST |
I have never gamed it. Not through lack of interest necessarily, as I have ancients through WWII. My 4 x great grandfather was with AoP (2nd US Artillery) from Bull Run to Appomattox |
donlowry | 26 Jul 2022 6:12 p.m. PST |
I don't know that it is MORE enjoyable, but it is in the top 5 or so. It is the period of history (military or otherwise) that I know the most about. And it is that and the off-the-table aspects that draw me to gaming it. |
torokchar | 26 Jul 2022 6:50 p.m. PST |
…..watching my Yankees sweep the field of the rebels…… |
Tortorella | 26 Jul 2022 6:57 p.m. PST |
It is just simpler to put on a game. All the things mentioned above. I rarely use my cavalry. Just get a couple of divisions on the table and go. I first gamed it with Airfix and Featherstone in the 60s, so it has a special place. It has a certain character which I think I picked up growing up during the Centennial. IMO Napoleonics has a lot more going on, nations, campaigns, eras, uniforms, sheer scope and scale. And combined arms is more interesting. I think the figures look like soldiers more than ACW, kind of retro. Very colorful. It is my go to, but no Waterloo. Enough is enough. |
BillyNM | 26 Jul 2022 9:46 p.m. PST |
Not an ACW gamer but tempted by the limited variety and fairly standard uniforms which make generic armies more satisfying. The tactics are also fairly standardised which makes for simpler rules that don't have to cater for so many different tactical encounters. Also, there's a lot of historical actions with both sides getting a decent share of victories – I don't like one-sided periods. Finally, for me, it's a great period for campaigning where it's all about getting there firstest with the mostest, even if NBF didn't say it. |
Erzherzog Johann | 26 Jul 2022 9:55 p.m. PST |
I find the topic question slightly odd. It starts with the premise that "ACW wargaming [is] more enjoyable", then asks why that is. I would have thought a better question might be, "Is ACW wargaming more enjoyable … and if so, why?" I've toyed with the idea of getting into ACW but never got further than that. Where I play, 40k and other similar games are (unfortunately) more popular than all the rest put together. After that, Ancients (currently mostly ADLG) comes a very clear second (and consequently tops the historical game stakes). I know one person who plays ACW, and he obviously has an opponent on those days that he plays, I just don't know who that is / they are. On a typical club night, there will be a dozen or more games of various science fiction / fantasy games (which I unfairly lump together as "probably 40K or something", and two or three Ancients games. Sometimes there's something else . . .
So as Wargamerabbit noted, it's probably an assumption that is (perhaps) true only within the US, where it does involve one of the nation shaping events of that country. To me, perhaps a more interesting question is, "Why, in the US, is AWI wargaming not more popular?" Perhaps there aren't enough players who want to collect the Brits :~} Cheers, John |
Striker | 26 Jul 2022 10:20 p.m. PST |
I've only played on ACW game but many more 7YW. I feel like I should play some ACW and have minis for it since I live in the US but as a skirmish gamer (mostly) and 28mm at that it feels like buying minis just to buy minis. I suppose I could use some for Dracula's America and I do own Brother Against Brother. |
Martin Rapier | 26 Jul 2022 11:37 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't say it is necessarily more enjoyable, but makes for an interesting change of pace and style from all my other nineteenth century armies. It is, as noted above, absolutely nothing like Napoleonics as the balance of arms is so different, it is also not much like the contemporary European wars either as it doesn't have the asymmetries of doctrine, tactics and weaponry. The uniforms are certainly easy to paint, and it is all very heroic though! |
David Manley | 27 Jul 2022 4:04 a.m. PST |
Weird and wonderful ironclads and gunboats, often with improbable names :) |
mildbill | 27 Jul 2022 5:12 a.m. PST |
The eastern theatre is bigger army against better generals and troops and the western theatre the reverse is true. When one army is better and smaller against a slower and bigger army this always makes for good gaming. Also, the tactics are simple, making for little thinking required. As one long time gamer said, " I just want to put pretty figures on nice terrain and role some dice." |
WarpSpeed | 27 Jul 2022 5:21 a.m. PST |
As a Canadian living along the border there is interest in that tragic era-which can and did did affect the emerging Canada.The armies are of similar composition …the terrain can vary nicely.From massed battle,small encounters,forlorn hope to dashing recce patrols in a hostile zone-it is a challenging era to game. |
robert piepenbrink | 27 Jul 2022 6:58 a.m. PST |
In answer to questions raised, Great-grandfather Piepenbrink was with the 71st (or 73rd?) Indiana volunteers. Probably several more on my mother's side, but good luck tracking Dietrichs and Hertzogs in Pennsylvania. Which may be a partial answer to Erzherzog Johann's question. A lot more of us can track an ACW ancestor or live in proximity to an ACW battlefield than is true of the AWI. Also the variety of units and uniforms make the AWI absolutely terrible to scale. An army suitable for Brandywine has virtually nothing useful for King's Mountain. Nice looking war, though, and interesting tactically at some levels. Oh, and John, the question was phrased that way for a reason you can see in the responses. Look how many of them talk about the appeal of other periods even when the question was phrased specifically to prevent that by asking "what is the appeal of ACW?" If he'd asked whether it had any, he'd have gotten about nine responses running down the ACW or boosting some other period for every one which said something about the appeal of ACW gaming. If you want to find out what's good about a period, that's what you ask for. |
Volleyfire | 27 Jul 2022 7:10 a.m. PST |
I don't think it is more enjoyable, apart from the night I traversed my entire Reb cavalry force, which was quite considerable, across the frontage of several Union batteries and with 22 points firing (F&F) they rolled a 1. Oh how I laughed. I think it is popular because the two sides are very simple and quick to paint, uniforms being mostly grey/butternut brown or dark/light blue. The question is asked above why isn't AWI more popular, I think that is because the uniforms for that period require a lot more research and careful painting. Hell, if you aren't a purist you can just spray your figures either grey or blue for ACW and you've got yourself an army! |
Glenn Pearce | 27 Jul 2022 7:31 a.m. PST |
Hello Au pas de Charge! I can't say it's more fun, but it is different. Due to the terrain in North America the American army developed differently from most European armies. By the time of the ACW the infantry was on the path to becoming the universal soldier. The infantry was expected to perform all tasks and fight in any formation equally well. The number of specialized units were limited. There was only one type of cavalry that often fought dismounted and was sometimes used as a rapid deployment force. On the flanks or as an advance or rear guard often without infantry support. They had no specialized shock troops which made it difficult to deliver the knockout blow. So, although their training was an extension of the Napoleonic wars their ability to fight, maneuver and supply was different in part due to difficult terrain and an evolving road network and the use of railroads. When you put all of these factors into your games you get a completely different game from other periods. Were able to use the same rules (Ruse de Guerre) as we do for most of our horse and musket games. It's the different challenges that give you a different and very enjoyable game. Best regards, Glenn |
Frederick | 27 Jul 2022 9:22 a.m. PST |
As noted – lots of references/rule sets/minis out there Pretty easy to get started with a few units of generic infantry and a few guns As well, the battles can be pretty evenly matched – as someone who usually plays Austrians in Napoleonic games (and is usually pretty happy with a draw) there is usually a fairly good chance for both sides I do live in Canada but my great-grandpa and his brother were both in the Union army (G Company, 4th Minnesota) |
Shagnasty | 27 Jul 2022 9:27 a.m. PST |
It was OUR big war and affected the entire population. Emotions still run high on both sides of the M-D line. As Mr. Manley said about the warships! |
ConnaughtRanger | 27 Jul 2022 2:34 p.m. PST |
Seems I've logged into the wrong set of boards by mistake. Had been hoping to discuss the Napoleonic period. |
robert piepenbrink | 27 Jul 2022 6:06 p.m. PST |
You're close, Connaught. Go back to Message Boards and look for "Napoleonic" rather than "ACW." |
Erzherzog Johann | 27 Jul 2022 6:08 p.m. PST |
You'd think, except this is on the Napoleonic Discussion board . . . Cheers, John |
Au pas de Charge | 27 Jul 2022 7:08 p.m. PST |
Seems I've logged into the wrong set of boards by mistake. Had been hoping to discuss the Napoleonic period. I wanted to get opinions from people who also play Napoleonics or even from those who only play Napoleonics. Ditto for other Horse and Musket periods. I find the topic question slightly odd. It starts with the premise that "ACW wargaming [is] more enjoyable", then asks why that is. I would have thought a better question might be, "Is ACW wargaming more enjoyable … and if so, why?" It's properly worded because the answer can either be categorical and can also be nul without suggesting the period is better or worse than any other. Actually, it's more likely it can be read to mean when contrasted to other horse and musket periods, what makes the ACW any fun at all to game. You're close, Connaught. Go back to Message Boards and look for "Napoleonic" rather than "ACW." He might be disappointed there wasnt an opportunity to slam Napoleon. |
John Tyson | 27 Jul 2022 8:13 p.m. PST |
I'm an American and unfortunately have never played ACW miniature games. Back in the early 80's I went to a historical miniature war gaming convention and saw many of the different periods of historical war gaming. I liked Napoleonic best. With your indulgence… Reasons I've chosen Napoleonic miniature war gaming since 1982 are: - The rainbow of colors in uniforms and flags. - The numerous different uniforms and flags. - The ability to have the combination of arms (rock, hammer, paper). - Different nationalities. Major powers being France, Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria. - Can have allies that are independent from one another on the table at the same time. - Not biased toward one nationality. However, I do have a little bias toward the British. With ACW there would be a bias. - Napoleon battlefields were somewhat small thus affording relative ease to do on a table. I do 15mm Napoleonics on an 8x6 foot table. Mostly corps size battles using a 1:20 ratio. I now have well over 6,000 15mm Napoleonic figures. - Tons of books on the Napoleonic period in English. - Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe" series of books. Started reading them in 1982 and followed them through the years. - I still enjoy my little Napoleonic battles! After all, I'm just a 10-year-old trapped in a 75-year-old body. |
Robert Johnson | 28 Jul 2022 2:05 a.m. PST |
You may as well ask why any war is "more enjoyable to game" than any other. It's personal preference. Napoleonics has a much broader scope than ACW,in every way. Hence for me it's more enjoyable than ACW. I suspect that is true for most Europeans. |
johannes55 | 28 Jul 2022 3:41 a.m. PST |
Imho it isnot enjoyable but if you like it better then other periods who cares. |
TankerTom | 28 Jul 2022 5:50 a.m. PST |
If ACW is your period of choice, great, enjoy. I find it to be one of the least enjoyable gunpowder periods to game. From 1700s through the Napoleonic period the interplay between infantry, cavalry and artillery (plus the colorful uniforms) make it interesting to game. From the ACW to WW1, firepower just dominated and cavalry had no role on the battlefield. Not until the 1930s/40s when mechanization reintroduced combined arms maneuver warfare does it get interesting again, at least for me. YMMV. |
Trockledockle | 28 Jul 2022 7:36 a.m. PST |
Perhaps ConnaughtRanger feels that Parrott gun was better than the 12pdr Napoleon but we should let him speak for himself. |
Dagwood | 28 Jul 2022 8:46 a.m. PST |
So, to sum up, 1 Simpler rules 2 Fewer figures (and types of figure) 3 Easier painting 4 It's American. Sounds like a good way to start wargaming (perhaps unless you are not American). No, wait, that's a different thread!! |
cavcrazy | 28 Jul 2022 12:21 p.m. PST |
I enjoy gaming ACW, but Napoleonics is where it's at. |
Old Contemptible | 28 Jul 2022 6:34 p.m. PST |
ACW rules tends to be less complicated. It is easier to paint for. There are so many scenario books, terrain, uniform guides and figures available. It is much easier to do research because everything is in English. Everyone who plays gets it. They already identify with the period. It is the best period to play on the regimental unit scale. All of this makes it more enjoyable to play. It's what I studied in college. The ACW was the big turning point in America's history. I grew up in the South and the ACW was everywhere. It was the first miniatures period I got into. Others came much later. Almost everyone had an ancestor who was in the war. I had an ancestor in the 5th Texas. He died in Devils Den. The ACW is local. I identify with the units involved. I know where New York and Alabama is. I recognize the soldier's names. Where as in European conflicts it is much harder to identify with Saxony, Austria and Brunswick, etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Napoleonics. But the names, places and the battles do not resonate like the ACW. |
Old Contemptible | 28 Jul 2022 7:22 p.m. PST |
"From the ACW to WW1, firepower just dominated and cavalry had no role on the battlefield. Not until the 1930s/40s when mechanization reintroduced combined arms maneuver warfare does it get interesting again, at least for me…" What I like about conflicts between 1860 and 1914 was how new technology in terms of fire power, transportation and communications affected strategy and tactics. When was the end of linear tactics? |
Robert Johnson | 29 Jul 2022 1:36 a.m. PST |
{when was the end of linear tactics?} The was no defining moment, it was a slow transition. Cavalry were charging machine guns at the beginning of the Great War, and the slaughter in the trenches suggests that there was still a way to go. |
ChrisBBB2 | 29 Jul 2022 5:08 a.m. PST |
The relative symmetry of the two armies and relatively few and simple troop types and uniforms are certainly distinctive features of the ACW. Whether these are a virtue (ease of play, flexibility of figures etc) or a vice (less complex and less interesting tactical challenges) is a matter of taste. As for linear tactics: personally, I think linear warfare ended in the 1790s for reasons of technology and geometry, as I argued here: link It is true that in the late C19 advances in weapons technology outpaced those in mobility technology. That, combined with growth in population enabling a line to extend from Switzerland to the sea, did militate against manoeuvre and does mean that wargaming WWI is less interesting (to me, anyway) than C19 or WWII. But cavalry still has a place post-ACW. There are significant cavalry charges in 1866 (Custozza, anyone?), in 1870, even in 1880 (Tacna); and plenty of cavalry operating as mobile mounted infantry in 1877, or in the Boer War, etc. |
robert piepenbrink | 29 Jul 2022 7:23 a.m. PST |
My apologies, Johann. Perfectly valid complaint. Au Pas, you get no points for nuance. Bonaparte may be the finest general in Western history, and as a general I'm usually all admiration. It's His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I--the man who looked at the wreckage which was the end of the 18th Century and said "what the world needs is another dynasty of hereditary absolute monarchs"--that I snipe at. I have a hard time understanding fan clubs for defeated strongmen. |
1968billsfan | 29 Jul 2022 8:00 a.m. PST |
The ACW has simpler rules and fewer complex interactions. It i not a interesting as the Napoleonic era, where there are many types of troop, national characterisitcs, tactics and political factors. .. ACW is good for a change of pace. My family came over from Europe around 1900 (I think most Americans also were post 1900 immigrants), so I don't have any Mayflower or Anglo/German GGG grandparents. I do have a grandfather who was a dragoon in the Czar's army but how he got here was never discussed. |
forrester | 29 Jul 2022 8:45 a.m. PST |
There's quite an interest in the UK too so far as I can gather from forum posts, and that's even without personal/family connections or the availability of historic sites. All the other reasons set out above apply to non-US too. |
doc mcb | 30 Jul 2022 6:49 a.m. PST |
OC, who was your ancestor in the 5th Texas? Our ggggranduncle JJ McBride commanded Company C. |