"Crossing large rivers- gaming??" Topic

Okay guys my question is part historical opinion based and part gaming based. Right now in my strategic level game if a large army is attempting to cross a large river with an enemy army on the other side the attacking army is only allowed to use half their strength the first of three rounds, one days fighting.
My question is, as a player would you find this fair, would you think it is to harsh or not harsh enough?? As you all know there are not any historical examples to go by of a 50k+ army trying to cross the MS, Cumberland, etc with a 50K army waiting on the other side or nearby. Thanks, happy gaming.

Perhaps there's a reason there are no historical examples?

Count bridges. Von Moltke says that it takes all day for a corps of 25,000 men to march down a road so the last man is at the end of the day where the first man started. If this means the attacker can't possibly make a successful river crossing with an army of more than 25,000 waiting on the far bank, perhaps that's the point.

I'd say NO opposed river crossing at an army level without serious artillery superiority, and so no opposed river crossing of any river wider than effective artillery range.

Well, there certainly IS one example, and that would be Fredericksburg. The Army of the Potomac had to cross the Rappahanock River with the Army of Northern Virginia waiting for it on the opposite shore. The key factor for this and for any such situation is that the Union Army massed its artillery on the heights of the northern shore and could produce such a powerful bombardment that Lee did not try to hold the southern shore in any great strength (except for the town of Fredericksburg itself). Instead, he built his main line of defense beyond the range of most of the Union guns but looking down on the likely crossing points. The Union forces were able to cross without too much difficulty (there was a sharp fight for the town), but then they were faced with a fortified position looking down on them that they had to attack at a serious disadvantage.

Certainly, there were no examples of combat landings during the American Civil War, like the orcs crossing Anduin to attack the western half of Osgiliath, in the Lord of the Rings movies or the landings at Normandy or Iwo Jima in World War II. The usual procedure when faced with the prospect of crossing a large river defended by an enemy force equal in strength to yours is to think up a new plan.
Grant could have tried to cross the Mississippi from across from Vicksburg. He didn't, he moved down river and crossed there. Rosecrans could have tried to cross the Tennessee and attack Chattanooga directly. He didn't, he sent some troops to that area as a diversion, then crossed with his main army downstream from Chattanooga.
Usually, the idea was to move quickly in an unexpected direction and get across the river before the enemy knew what you were up to and prepare to defend the river line. That's how Grant got across the James River in 1864.
Campaign wise, you want to encourage the attacking player to come up with a new plan, while not absolutely forbidding a direct attack. So, you might want to be a bit harsher.

Grelber

Are you crossing a bridge or making a pontoon bridge?

Probably not harsh enough, in my opinion. 50 thousand men would take up 6 to 8 miles of road column route step, and that does not include several miles of wagons. Once across the bridge, at some point they need to shake out into line. A general would prefer to cross 15-20 miles up or down river and be in a more tactically sound position before engaging the enemy.

There is a reason it was not a common occurrence.

Thanks for the input, guys. Yes, Fredricksburg is an example and I also think in 63 Grant originally tried to land at Grand Gulf but found it defended so went further downstream.
Artillery, gunboat support, what kind of bridge, how many, how big exactly is the river, how strong the current, yes all factors but ones that are to much detail for a game of the level I am doing, thus my wanting to have just a simple, easy, quick resolution rule:)
I completely agree with some comments that the key was to get across before the enemy knew about it or could arrive in enough strength to stop it. For historical reasons as well as keeping the game fun I don't want to just tell the players "no you can't" but need to represent it being way more difficult.
Each of the areas in my game represent an average of 150-200 miles. So….at this point I am thinking a die roll, comparing leaders might be the way the go. It could represent a chance to fool the enemy, which as all of you know did happen, a chance to partly fool the enemy or a chance the enemy saw you coming and is there waiting.
I am thinking as a player that might "feel" like a fair and historical, fun balance and reminds players the fighting and battle plans are never a sure thing. Thanks again for the input, happy gaming!!!

I'll throw out another lesser known example. After retreating to Virginia in the aftermath of Antietem Lee posted Pendleton's reserve artillery to cover the crossing. Porter pushed part of his command across the river and overran Pendleton's position. Then A.P. Hill showed up and drove Porter's troops back across the river.

Porter launched his attack in the dark, so the Confederates probably did not see it coming. Plus he was crossing a wider ford rather than a narrower bridge. Then once he got over the river Pendleton did not have enough support to hold him off. The flip side was the river was enough of an obstacle to keep the Union from accumulating enough troops south of it to deal with Hill's counterattack when it came.

Hooker in the Chancellorsville campaign, kept Union troops on the Rappahanock across from Fredericksburg while moving the bulk of his army under cover of darkness to cross fords upstream to get on the flank of Lee's army. That may have been the only part of his campaign to go as planned.

OP, I think a chart or table is a good idea. Rate the commanding generals as whatever you come up with (Excellent, Good, Plodding, Poor, etc.), roll a die and get the results. If needed, modify the die roll based on the quality and quantity of cavalry. Results:

Crossing unsuccessful
Cross with half strength
Cross with full strength

You could also add an unsuccessful crossing with a troops loss.

Any, just a few ideas that popped into my head.

For an even lesser known example of an opposed crossing, although with smaller troops number than envisaged by gamer1, you could take a look at the Battle of Pocotaligo, fought in South Carolina on 22 October 1862. A division from the Union X Corps was been ferried up the Pocotaligo River to Mackay's Point. From they to march inland to destroy sections of the Savannah and Charleston Railroad, disrupting Confederate supply lines, but they were stopped by a Confederate blocking force determined protect the railroad. The Union also had to contend with crossing two creeks and moving through swamps.

I have written a scenario based around Pocotaligo (but not yet played it) for Fire & Fury, but could no doubt be easily played with other rules sets. Please let you know if you would like a copy of the scenario.

Further information on the battle, including first hand accounts, can be found at:

link

link

Ezza

What are the chances of giving the Union some gunboat support? Not sure how your system works, but based on supply or even a random die roll give them a tinclad, timberclad, casemate ironclad, or a monitor to give fire support.

Okay guys, again, thanks for the input!! Yes I think I will be going with a die roll for a chance of success. Also yes….starting in 1863 the union will get a bonus to represent the fact that the union really started to dominate the naval side of things. The CSA was able to offer some resistance in 1862 but after that most of their make shift ships were gone and they didn't have the resources to replace them and after awhile not many places to build them even if they managed to get the engines, iron, skilled labor, cannons, etc that where needed………..everything the North had plenty of. Happy gaming all!!!
As a side note for any interested when New Orleans was captured they had an ironclad partly finished that did fight as a sitting battery and another that was being built. IF the union had waited just one more month the ironclad would have been ready and probably would have forced the union squadron of wooden ships to hold off for awhile. It would not have changed the war but fun to think how things would have changed IF New Orleans would have stayed in CSA hands for say…..another year and completed the four ironclads they had planed??? Happy gaming!!!!