"What is the appeal of ACW gaming?" Topic

Just what the subject title says.

Gaming with pretty figures and Terrain, Learn a little bit about the past. It was a truely awful event that still effects the modern USA.

If played stereotypically, linear warfare without the wide ranging troops types and minutiae of Napoleonics. Iconic battles. Better commanders and troops of the outnumbered Confederates against hordes of lower quality Union troops and commanders. Battle objectives are often fairly straightforward. Honestly it often feels like diet Napoleonics.

I like "diet Napoleonics" smithsco: may I use it?

Anyway, I think largely the history. It's a well-documented, relatively recent war. Most Americans have ancestors who fought in it, and many of us live within easy driving distance of ACW battlefields. (You notice a lot of this applies to ECW gaming for British gamers--and both wars are disproportionately played by people living in the country where it was fought.)

Judged strictly as a miniatures game--well, I might prefer "stripped down horse & musket" to "diet Napoleonics" but it comes to the same thing: a narrower tactical range, mostly simpler uniforms, and you can build two armies and be done. With a little care about rules and basing, those forces can be whole armies at Antietam or Gettysburg one week, and division-size forces at Cross Keys or Brawner's Farm the next. (For comparison, a friend has a long wall of his facility filled with 30mm Napoleonics--well into the tens of thousands--and still doesn't have a Netherlands army for the Waterloo Campaign.)

The same appeal as gaming anything else, plus or minus a large list of modifiers that you can choose from.

In no particular order:

1) Literally hundreds of well documented engagements ranging from glorified skirmishes to multi-day battles involving 100,000+ men.

2) The above includes not only typical field engagements but riverine warfare, sieges, amphibious landings, littoral combat, significant field fortifications, etc.

3) Figures are generally "more forgiving" in terms of representation. Most ACW gamers I know field pretty generic Union and Confederate forces, barring specific distinctive units (Iron Brigade, Zouaves, etc.) and appropriate flags. Some do try for a degree of distinction between Western and Eastern theater forces, and of course right thinking people always try to have correct artillery models. I think in all my years of gaming I only meant one guy who tried to his units "correctly" with shell jackets, sack coats, etc. based on clothing records.

4) A remarkable diversity of terrain, not just across theaters but even within a single seat of campaign. And with that, a willingness to fight in said terrain, no matter how daunting or unsuitable.

1. Killing Yanks.
2. Killing Rebs.

forgot

5) For English speakers, an embarrassment of primary source material and, flowing from that, excellent secondary works. From the mountains of official records to the millions of private letters and diaries, it is a ridiculously well-documented war. Add to that the photographs, sketches by artists in the field, etc.

I recall the ACW being surprisingly popular in the UK gaming community -- more so than the ECW is in the States.

This is one of the last major wars that allowed for "short" (i.e. one-day) battles, somewhat colorful uniforms, mass combat at close relatively quarters, a balance of sorts between the three classic combat arms, and "modern" enough to be relatable to most people. The ease of assembling armies has already been noted. Fewer cavalry means cheaper to buy and easier to paint!

The period is well supplied with figures in all scales and rulebooks galore, so well supported.

"Diet Napoleonics" is a term of art!

PS: Scarlett O'Hara.

"I recall the ACW being surprisingly popular in the UK gaming community -- more so than the ECW is in the States"

Indeed it is. I blame our lengthy exposure to Westerns.

As very few troops have breech loaders, it makes a nice contrast to the rather dour encounters between the Austrians, Danes, Prussians and French which took place at the same time.

I am rather fond of my ACW chaps. What was it On Moltke said? An unseembly brawl between armed mobs? Anyway, it has a different flavour to European warfare, and very different terrain and force density.

My Zouave uniform is a chick magnet.

And don't forget, certainly in the UK, the Airfix boxed sets of 1/72 ACW figures. I suspect many of us started with those in the old days.

The high quality of many of the secondary sources is surely part of the appeal. There are a lot of very good books out there on the ACW, whereas a high proportion of those on the Napoleonic Wars are pretty poor.

Weird and wonderful ironclads and gunboats

My first gaming was ACW – way back when Dad bought me the Airfix Union/Confederate infantry and those red coloured artillery

I think the above nail it – lots of figs, lots of great rules, vast scope of potential battles plus pretty easy to get those first few units painted up and on the field (certainly compared to SYW, my second gaming period)

Plus for me great-grandpa and his brother both served – 4th Minnesota under Grant

In the Trans Mississippi area, its large poorly lead confederates against smaller well lead Federal armies. I think part of the appeal is the larger, poorly lead army against a smaller, well lead army. This type of encounter always makes for a good game. Also, the tactics are simple, great for newcomers and casual games.

As mildbill and smithsco demonstrate, you can vary the command and quality to taste. I'll add one thing: not much cavalry so you can avoid painting too many horses.

I blame our lengthy exposure to Westerns.

That is what first got me interested in the ACW as a boy. Some of the western movies were set during the war, most in the immediate post-war period, with references to it. I was surprised and pleased on a visit to Tennessee when about 7 to learn that there had been ACW battles there -- that in fact most of the war had been fought in the "East", some not far from where I grew up.

Partly the Civil War is still alive in the US. Or at least one of our most remember periods. Even today people take sides on what caused the war, who they would support (depending on where you grew up) and why the South lost.
That plays out in people wanting to game the war. The war is still part of the United States.

As Red Dragon 44 says In the UK the cheap Airfix 1/72 plastic figures provided the armies. In addition they appeared at about the same time as Donald Featherstone's book "Wargames" gave the rules. The ACW scenario in that book "Action in the Plattville Valley" may arguably be the most played ACW game in the UK. In the 1960s I certainly suspect it was

As enfant perdus and Grattan54 expressed. it was our war, fought on our land,
by our ancestors. For all that, the ECW is my second favorite period.

I'll add one thing: not much cavalry so you can avoid painting too many horses.

Actually there are plenty of cavalry actions that can be re-created. My dear friend Tom (garryowen on TMP) has done many and is working on doing East Calvary Field from Gettysburg as our next ACW battle.

ACW is great for being able to play small actions and all the way up to full blown major battle. It is good for those with only a passing interest in the period to those like myself who enjoy detail and love to research the weapons, tactics, leaders and have personally visited a vast number of major battlefields and forts and stop at every roadside marker to get the lay of the land for even the smallest of a skirmish.

Kim

For me it was Napoleonics with simple to paint figures!

Yes, as some have mentioned, Union soldiers west of the Appalachian mountains, were every bit as good or better than their Confederate counterparts. As were their commanders.

You can also have sharpshooters there as well, just not the green uniforms.

"The 66th Illinois Veteran Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Western Sharpshooters) originally known as Birge's Western Sharpshooters and later as the "Western Sharpshooters-14th Missouri Volunteers", was a specialized regiment of infantry sharpshooters that served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. The regiment was intended, raised, and mustered into Federal service as the Western Theater counterpart to Army of the Potomac's 1st and 2nd United States Volunteer Sharpshooters ("Berdan's Sharpshooters").""

Also you can have "Wilder's Lighting Brigade". Mounted but fought as infantry.

"The Lightning Brigade, also known as Wilder's Brigade or the Hatchet Brigade was a mounted infantry brigade from the American Civil War in the Union Army of the Cumberland from March 8, 1863, through November 1863. A novel unit for the U.S. Army, its regiments were nominally the 1st Brigade[4] of Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Reynolds' 4th Division of Thomas' XIV Corps. Operationally, they were detached from the division and served as a mobile mounted infantry to support any of the army's corps. Colonel John T. Wilder was its commander. As initially organized, the brigade had the following regiments:[5]
92nd Illinois Mounted Infantry:[6] Col. Smith D. Atkins (after 10 July 1863)
98th Illinois Mounted Infantry:[7] Col. John J. Funkhouser (w), Lt. Col. Edward Kitchell
123rd Illinois Mounted Infantry:[8] Col. James Monroe
17th Indiana Mounted Infantry:[9][10] Maj. William T. Jones
72nd Indiana Mounted Infantry:[11][12] Col. Abram O. Miller
18th Independent Battery Indiana Light Artillery:[13][14] Capt. Eli Lilly"

"In 1861, the Governor of Indiana commissioned Wilder as lieutenant colonel of the 17th Indiana Infantry. He was promoted to Colonel in March 1862 and saw action in Tennessee and Mississippi. He was captured at Munfordville, Kentucky, in September 1862 and held briefly before being paroled and exchanged. Upon returning to service, he was given command of a new brigade in Gen. William S. Rosecrans' Army of the Cumberland.
Wilder's Brigade spent part of the winter of 1862 protecting Union supply lines against raids by Col. John Hunt Morgan's Confederate cavalry. Wider quickly learned that his immobile infantry was unable to keep pace with cavalry on horseback, so he requested, and received, permission to refit his unit as mounted infantry.
In addition to increasing the mobility of his brigade, Wilder also wanted his men to be outfitted with the best available rifle. His first choice was the 1860 Henry rifle, a 16 shot breech loading, lever action rifle. He placed an order in March 1863 with the New Haven Arms Company for 900 Henry rifles. Unfortunately, the company lacked the manufacturing capabilities at the time to fill such a large order, so Wilder was forced to seek an alternative firearm.

Around the time Wilder was negotiating his deal for the Henry rifles, a young inventor named Christopher Spencer came through Tennessee demonstrating his new breech loading rifle to officers of the Army of the Cumberland. Wilder was impressed with the efficiency of the Spencer Repeating Rifle and, when the Henry rifles became unavailable, he decided to outfit his unit with the Spencers.
Although the War Department had started purchasing Spencer rifles on a limited basis as early as 1861, the Ordnance Bureau was not in favor of purchasing the weapon on a mass scale. Subsequently, flow of the rifle through government channels was slow. Frustrated by the red tape, but still determined to outfit his unit with the repeater, Wilder negotiated a private contract with Spencer for 1,400 rifles at a cost of $35.00 USD a piece."

Kim's last sentence points up another consideration; the abundance of well preserved battlefields and historical sites. I think the ACW may be unique among conflicts in that so many places were either set aside in the immediate or near term aftermath of the war or reclaimed at a later date. In addition to the wealth of written primary sources there is also the fact that much of the early preservation work involved veterans of the events themselves.

Red Dragon has a point. For some time, the ACW was the only conflict for which a young wargamer could buy horse, foot and guns all in soft plastic From Airfix. I have no way of measuring the shadow of such a thing, but presumably there were more rules and scenarios to take advantage of this, and more wargamers starting out with ACW armies.

Sunday afternoon (wet or I'd be outside) TV- usually westerns- but for me it was a boardgame series (Great Battles of the American Civil War). Interest started with the game Terrible Swift Sword and a group of friends to play it. That got me interested in the mid-war period in the east, where there was some parity in the quality of the opposing armies. Featherstone's War Games and the Airfix booklet led to Airfix figures and then Johnny Reb and Battle Honours 15mm ACW.

Not being American the background politics and issues were just noise, until I did the ACW in Modern History, for my HSC. To a great extent they still are just noise.

David Manley, +1. Thank you for your articles about ACW and WW2 coastal warfare.

In the 1970-90s, I was not into ACW. I was Napoleonic then flowed into American Revolution.I enjoyed ACW board games a lot.just not painting them.
The reason for interest varies based on individual preference.

Another+1 for the influence of Airfix in the UK – it seems somewhat ridiculous now but there was a time when having infantry, cavalry and artillery for both sides plus support in the form of the cowboys, native American and High Chaparral boxes meant this was one of the best options for a gamer who couldn't afford large armies of metal figures.

Add in that they also did a rulebook that was available in "all good book stored" and had articles in Airfix magazine on how to convert additional troops and scenery items. For the time it was impressive.

Which is a long way to say that ACW got chosen in part because it was possible to do.

Another +1 for David Manley & those oddball ships