"How to make a good game out of Cold Harbor?" Topic

Does anyone ever wargame Cold Harbor? I searched TMP and could hardly find anyone gaming it. Is it because it's too much like a Union version of Pickett's Charge?

We had fun with it by expanding it to cover not only the climactic assaults but also the several days of smaller actions and maneuver leading up to it. Full report here:
link

Cold Harbor is a case where despite the efforts to turn a confederate flank, but could not. Also, the upward flow of communications in Command and Control did not happen. It was only when Grant visited the front lines did he discover the futility of what went on. Perhaps the suggestion that it was a union's Pickets charge is appropriate.

With BBB in mind, it's like hoping to play the Port Arthur siege in one sitting. The entire battle is beyond the scope of one session and best broken up into a series of smaller actions. If Lee could not defeat or make Grant to back down, the Union army would have been able to walk into Richmond unapposed. All available forces were drawn into the Cold Harbor area. (Cold Harbor was actually only a layover rest stop for travelers! Wasn't even close to any large body of water.) Just my opinion after studying the campaign from various sources. Horrendous Union losses for no strategic gain. Your mileage may vary.

Just charging works can get boring. I included scenarios for the May 31st Old Cold Harbor battle and Smith's 18th Corps assault on June 3rd in my Overland Campaign scenario book. Since the games are regimental level, I thought the attacks on June 1st and the 2nd and 5th Corps attacks on June 3rd were too big.

I would suggest breaking them down into smaller actions, if possible.

Yet, all previous Union commanders would have fled back to Washington.
Grant did not. He shrugged his shoulders and moved on.

So, the real wargaming question would be how the campaign would evolve after a disaster.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies, guys.

@Dye4minis (Tom, right?): "The entire battle is beyond the scope of one session" Well, clearly it's not – it took us about 4 hours. And I think a single-session game for all of Port Arthur is feasible in principle too.

@Cleburne1863: "Just charging works can get boring" – indeed, hence the essay I referred to in the blog post:
link

@ both Tom and Cleburne: "best broken up into a series of smaller actions" / "I would suggest breaking them down into smaller actions" – Best by what measure? If the smaller actions offer players only limited tactical choices and limited (or no) options for maneuver, whereas the really interesting decisions happen at the higher operational level over multiple days, I suggest zooming out to larger ground- and time-scales produces a more interesting game.

Hence …

@John the OFM, "the real wargaming question" – we can ask different questions at different levels. How the campaign would evolve after a disaster seems to me to be a strategic one – could be interesting but that's a different game, more political and personal and logistical than anything to do with troops directly. How to bash your head in a frontal assault against entrenchments – that's a tactical question that may not have enough possible answers to be any fun. How to get from the Pamunkey to the Chickahominy in five days? Now that's an operational question that has proved interesting and fun to explore.

Well, it really depends on what scale you are playing. If its regimental, like Johnny Reb or Regimental F&F, you might want to keep it small. If its Brigade F&F, or even moreso with Volley & Bayonet, you can zoom out for much larger battles.

Have done this battle in years past. After we did Spotsylvania and the Union did fairly well, we did this and again the Union did better then they did historically. Not a victory, but did manage a couple breakthroughs.

ACW games are not always balanced, but I have always enjoyed playing even the most improbable battles even though the outcome is likely a forlorn hope.

Kim

Sometimes a miniature game can run amuck and better played as a boardgame. The scope of this one (assuming the gamers want to recreate it in miniature) would have to see Brigades the size of miniature ACW regiments and rules scaled up to accommodate that. Enter the cardboard wargame.

I like to collect my wargame armies based upon a certain level of attack. I build regiments for the ACW (Battalions in the RJW as an example) and would lose that identity if required to merge dissimilar units together to make up different unit scale. Mind you many may not care but I do not find it appealing playing such a huge battle, in miniature, in it's entirety, in one gaining session. Broken down into smaller segments would be more attractive to me.

(You are right, Chris- It is Tom). To compare to another huge battle (that took months- over a year to arrive at a conclusion)= Port Arthur in the RJW, some units were involved in multiple segments at different times. By nature that existed still today, one cannot be in two places at the same time; with the same strengths, experiences, leaders and therefore is my example as to why it's better to break such a large and long running battle down into more digestible chunks. Hey, it's just my feelings on the matter.

Taking on this ACW campaign the way you have described may just be beyond the scope of BBB. I'd stick with what seems to work best for you. We sometimes have to think out of the box (or try concepts outside of the original scope) so kudos for attempting. If it worked for you and your group who are we to tell you it's wrong? Wish you luck in the endeavor.

For our Cold Harbor BBB game, units were divisions, mostly of 3 or 4 bases, with each 1"x1" base representing 2,000 men. Yes, you lose regimental identity, but you gain division and corps identity. The game was 10 tactical turns, but with two 'Night Intervals' that allowed major strategic redeployment to reset and change the shape of the battle – just as the armies historically shifted entire corps from one sector to another. Very much within the scope of BBB (as other scenarios for similarly large and protracted battles have already demonstrated).

Please to read the blog post (if you haven't already) to get a better idea of how it worked.

Have we forgotten Gaines Mill? Have we forgotten the Mule Shoe at Spottsylvania? Missionary Ridge? Frontal attacks against determined opponents in well prepared positions could work. Even at Cold Harbor U.S. forces managed to penetrate the Confederate lines at one point. Success or failure of a frontal attack is going to depend on a variety of factors. It isn't as simple at activate the attack, defenders fire, attacker checks moral and if that hold melee. If you want to have an interesting Cold Harbor game you'd need rules that put these factors under the control of the players.

Bill, I think the trouble is that although an attacker does have options, they're really all pre-game options. Night attack, pre-dawn, or day? Cold steel and columns a la Upton, or skirmish forward in loose lines? What kind of prep bombardment? And shall we set a mine and create a crater? Once those decisions are made, the die is cast and the rest is mostly just going through the motions, bar maybe committing a reserve at some point. Not a whole lot to do during the game.

And don't forget the poor defender. Sit tight, shoot, and choose the one moment to counterattack.

Simplifying a bit, of course, but the point is that such constrained linear games are of much more limited interest (to me) than ones with more opportunity for manuever by both sides.