"essential elements in an ACW wargames rule set?" Topic

Without making this your nomination for the best ACW rule set, what would you consider are the most important things that should be found in a tactical level American Civil War wargames rule set?

Just to give you an idea of what that might entail, here`s a little list of rule type categories:

1. That regimental skirmishers are represented in some way.
2. Provision for specific tactics like the "Indian Rush".
3. That troop management and characteristics are modelled – (bonuses perhaps for the "rebel yell" in a charge?)
4. Loose order possible for troops later in the war?
5. etc…

Looking forward to your responses…

Ammunition shortages.

martin

..and would that be for infantry as well as artillery Martin?

MichaelCollinsHimself: Yes

Leadership qualities.
Training differneces.

Weather
Terrain
Fatigue
Facing
Shifting targets
Type of weapon

Hoping to run another playtest of "Cohesion. It's the name of the game" at the Colorado Military Historians (CMH) meeting today. Testing out some suggestions from last month's playtest. (YEs, Rebel Yell is now in it.)

As for the tactical mentioned of 2 and 4 above, it might just need to be some sort of modifier if playing higher up the chain of command (what we used to call "Grand Tactical Level". Nice add if the gamer is only at the Brigade level (ie: running just 5 or so regiments.)

Just my view: When you have lots of units on the table, IMHO, we need to do what we can to keep the game moving yet allow for features that don't require more chart cranking.

Keep us informed , Martin, of your results.

Hi again Tom, I hope you`re in the finest fettle Sir!

Agreed, all would need to allow the game to flow. Just down to brigade generals` local decisions/initiatives, but I think that this needs to be conditional upon their orders. So, an assault is not possible with engage orders.

Hi, Michael! That is what I am calling posture. I have 4 possible given to the brigades from the Division at the beginning of the game. They can be changed during the game but at quite the command cost.
Attack – Authorized by higher competent authority to risk your command in offensive combat.
Defend: While every commander always has the right to defend the and protect the fruits of his country's treasure, in this posture, a geographical location is associated.
Maneuver: Simple orders like go from point A to point B. If unable to, orders resort to "Defend" until new are received from next higher in command.
Reserve: When the unit is stationary and attempts to rest/refit/reorganize and rearm and awaits new orders.
I allow the brigade commanders to run their brigade but under the purview of the Brigade's assigned posture.

This makes the Division Commander player plan his actions carefully to achieve the objectives of the scenario by assigning postures to the Brigades under his command at the start of the game.

Hope that helps. Seems we are of like mind as to what our designs need to cover! Awesome, Michael!

Yes, I think we have some very similar ideas about the nature of an orders system and trying to keep it straight-forward. I`ll let you see what I`ve done so far. The player`s level can be variable, but I think it`s best at division or corps with brigades being automated/diced for if changes of orders are necessary or advantageous.
I must have your email addy in my book?

What I often fins in reading about Civil War battles is how lines are pushed back by enemy fire ect. I don't often see this in rules. Often a unit advancing to contact and fights it out until it is destroyed or the enemy they are fighting is destroyed. Rarely do I see lines move or units falling back.

re. "lines or units falling back."

Yes, good one! We usually have morale tests which result in pass/stand or fail/rout outcomes…

Yes Michael, very much infantry.
"We shot it all off Colonel."

martin

There was often some running away, even in good units. Long fire fights might happen, some units might begin to break over time after taking loses. I don't think most units stayed at full strength very long in a hard fight, there were casualties but some people skeedadled as well. Firepower may decline accordingly in my home rules.

It must be FUN!

Experience level also needs to be included. A veteran unit is more efficient and reliable than a green, newly trained unit. Depending upon how far into details you wish to go with individual regiments, the year and theater matter. A veteran in the Army of the Potomac is late 1864 will behave differently than one in 1863 and from a veteran in one of the armies of the western theater in 1864.

But Herkybird has cited the most important element. ACW rules must be fun to play as well as capturing the flavor of the period.

My playtest today with 4 people who never played before went better than I expected! The scenario was the Rebs had to make the yanks leave their table's edge by force. We had for each side 2 brigades (5 Regiments and an arty battery each) and played 9 turns to where the Reb players threw in the towel. On turn one, one player was correctly running the game and I only had to answer a few "normal" questions. My CRT has results to where rolling high is not always good and low not always bad. Combat results could be : No Effect, Loss of 1 Cohesion hit, a force back (with a loss of 1 Cohesion hit). Introduced "rebel Yell" where if the Rebel players wanted to use it, they had to yell out their version of a rebel yell and get to add 1 temporary cohestion point to see if they charge. If successful, the defender must make a roll to stand but with a temp -1 cohesion point to see if they stand. If they do not stand, they are forced back with a permanent -1 CV point. If the Rebs fail to charge, they take a permanent -1 and stay where they are. Union not forced to make the check if the Rebs fail to make the charge. (Works both ways- needing to see if the unit is well enough under control but I don't allow the yanks to use the Rebel Yell). Regardless of the rules used, any fresh unit charging a fresh unit deserves what they get. Like in real life, if you do not enjoy some advantage (like prep fire that hurts the defender from Arty or from a firefight) then charge beat up units already suffering from loss of unit control, usually ensures success.

We played 9 (I think- could be different) in 3.5 hours with 4 folks who learned the rules today- and wanted to play again next meeting. (We had to be out by 6PM of the facility.) No casualty counting- No command radius, one unit ran out of ammo (doubles on 2 D 10- pretty hard t0 do!) and most of all- they all had fun!! I can't ask for better results than that!

Now to edit the organization of the rules into logical order and organize the designer notes- add pictures- final edit then off to the printers! It's only been 20 years in the making with playtests in Europe, East coast USA and final 3 playtests in Colorado. "Cohesion. It's the name of the game" will see light in 2025! Fingers crossed that I have finally crossed the Rubicon (er was that the Potomac?)

Michael: the email is my first and last name 14@ yahoo DOT com.

Command and Control, and Morale are much more important than details of combat. The ACW is unusual in that troops would run off then rally and return to the fight. In most periods once troops rout that is it.

If the rules truly are at the tactical level, i.e the battalion/regiment is the basic unit in the game, I would want to see realistic tactical maneuvers. The men trained using the period drill manuals and many years of study on my part indicates that they used the drill-book maneuvers throughout the war. So whoever writes the rules needs to study the drill manuals and base the rules on what is in there.

True Scott, but it depends too on your time scale. If a turn is a minute then you need to go through the evolutions. But if a turn is 10 minutes, most any drill could be completed in that time. All that's needed is to account for the time taken to do so.

A veteran in the Army of the Potomac is late 1864 will behave differently than one in 1863 and from a veteran in one of the armies of the western theater in 1864.

I have always wanted to see some rules reflecting the AoPs groundswell attitude change, post Wilderness/Cold Harbor.

As in 'OK we done our share, let these new guys take a turn'.

Right up to the point where Company and Regimental Officers decide to just go with it, launching Attacks of 25 yards and going to ground!

You would also need some rule to cover the Army of Tennessee conspiring in its own destruction too, I suppose.

I want to recreate an entire historical battle, wilderness does interest me but i expect it would be difficult to recreate. The UNION player would need to be suffering from concussion, which would make it hard to find players willing to command the union forces. BBB does a reasonable job at this scale, but there are few other rules i am aware of which allows you to recreate a significant historical battle, unless its a small affair – like Cedar Mountain, which is another battle which i find interesting.

Lots of great items above.

To me, they should not neglect the cavalry. They were not just mounted infantry. Most rules indicate to me that the authors do not understand Civil War cavalry at all. In some ways they are too weak, and in some, too strong.

Unfortunately, my real life does not presently allow me time to go into specifics.

Tom

Well, I`ve got back into this thread again by using a different browser… so I can continue
Yes, thanks for the good points here…
Thanks Tom, I guess if you`re unable to explain here, then I guess that we can look into the subject of A.C.W. cavalry tactics ourselves.
I was under the impression that the exiting US cavalry units were light horse, but the trend from shock to fire and a mounted infantry (dragoon) role as the war progressed….
But please anyone correct me, if I`m way off the truth of it here – I`m always willing to learn – or take a reference or two.

pfmodel – I think you may need the particulars of a scenario that may be adapted to a rule set, rather than a specific set of rules?

Hi Trajanus… I get what you`re saying; I have some "old lag" shooting/combat outcomes which I need apply from an earlier set… Thanks for the reminder there!

The primary use of cav in the ACW was recon and raiding- to deprive the enemy of some important, strategic asset or capability. Many battles were fought due to no or poor intel provided by the cavalry. Cav in the ACW on the battlefield was to present a threat to the opposing commander forcing him to pull troops or commit reserves to deal with that threat.

As Clausewitz said describing what war was "By denying the enemy the means to resist". Capturing or destroying railroad lines, wagon trains carrying food, ammo, pontoon bridges, herds of livestock etc. would make for interesting scenarios for seeing cav on the table. Not ignore their use as mounted infantry to buy time for the army to arrive (as in Gettysburg) can also make for an interesting scenario to game out.

In summary, I feel that cav is better suited in a grand tactical sense for recon and interdiction mission than in most positional battles.

@ ScottWashburn,
I personally have a "tactical level" which involves battalion formations and integral regimental skirmishers, but with the 1st command level represented by brigade generals.
Having said that though I have provision for regiments moving out of line, but for colonels taking that initiative without orders is not the easiest, nor always wisest thing to do, of course!
I have 2 infantry regiment bases, so there`s no great choice of species of column; a units is in either column or line. And I have one base for a regiment`s skirmishers.
So, I`ve gone for this level of detail/abstraction in order to be able to have more than one corps per side on table and it still be manageable.

Yes, thanks Tom, not to forget the use of a light cavalry arm in recon, but raiding too of course, which became the big idea in using large cavalry formations! Although I`m more focused on conventional set piece battles, I would agree there is some scope for re-fighting cavalry raids too.

Hi Trajanus… I get what you`re saying; I have some "old lag" shooting/combat outcomes which I need apply from an earlier set… Thanks for the reminder there!

You're welcome MC. Long time, no see! Hope you are doing well.

"You're welcome MC."

TY, TY!

Yes, a bit of break from wargames rules chat… mostly engaged in some historical research… plus one`s website went belly-up last year so no trading of my rules, nor paper armies for quite a while now.

However, I will try to make my ACW rules available next.

While I agree that most ACW sets I've played don't handle cavalry too well, I think only part of that is lack of understanding. It also is a reflection that a lot of rules already see "conventional set piece battles" as the target player audience.

Its a chicken and egg idea too, in some ways. Going right back to the Original Fire and Fury. You could play a big game by having Brigade size units but the fundamentals of cavalry action were really poor. No idea if this has changed in the scaled up "2nd Edition" based on Regimental Fire and Fury BTW.

Also, it depends on what "set piece battles" we are talking about. There were some important Cavalry interactions/interventions dotted throughout the Overland Campaign that don't fit into the Raid/Recon bracket but occur as part of wider or rolling battles.

Then some that hover round the fringes of it, Yellow Tavern, Trevilian Station. Although in those cases, if you take a line that says 'no Raid, no Battle' ………?

What about Five Forks, or Third Battle of Winchester? Is that a size issue? Or just a developing use of cavalry that didn't exist in 61-63? Possibly a shift in the battle concept itself?

Or what category does the whole run up to Sailor's Creek come under? (that's a genuine question BTW) The Sheriff J W Pepper Gambit, perhaps?

Tricky.

I think you may need the particulars of a scenario that may be adapted to a rule set, rather than a specific set of rules?

You are correct, or at least you need a set of rules which can, with special rules, achieve the same thing. I am currently using a figure game conversion of the old SPI Blue & Grey board-game, which does have a battle of the wilderness scenario. This contains special rules which reproduced the issues the UNION player possessed. I may also convert the SPI TSG game system into a figure game format as well, as there is a cedar mountain scenario available. I enjoyed both board-games, but I prefer the bling of figure gaming.

Cavalry does not have much use on the battlefield in the ACW. My opinion. They do not have the fire power or the impact. They are either scouts or raiders, mostly, dismounted infantry in a pinch, or fighting other cavalry once in a while. They were held in some contempt by the AOP, but they were not well handled in the early years.
The Rebels made better use by raiding, supplies, disrupting lines of communication, guerrilla raids.

I painted up cavalry for both sides years ago for my armies, but rarely use them on the table. Cavalry scenarios are best for these, at a tactical level, or maybe as a hunt and chase, like Grierson's raid. Or cav vs cav skirmishes or occasionally larger scale mounted actions. Gettysburg demonstrates why cavalry charging infantry was no longer a good choice as the senseless charge against Longstreet's infantry at the end brought the expected results.

Gettysburg demonstrates why cavalry charging infantry was no longer a good choice as the senseless charge against Longstreet's infantry at the end brought the expected results.

Well yes if the criteria is a suicide charge, over ridiculous ground, ordered by an someone who should have known better, with no regard for his subordinate, or men under his command.

Mind you the same could be said of other actions during that battle as recall. Not ones that involved cavalry either.

Overall though, is the alternative of representing the probable outcome of any event in the period, within the game structure, not better than excluding the possibility purely in terms of 'well, nobody would have done that'?

A lot of rules prevent players making mistakes by not allowing them to occur in the first place. How about 'try it and just you see what happens' Kilpatrick did it and people died. We don't have to worry about that happening!