Shenandoah Campaign System and The Peninsular Campaign System are really good for the ACW. We played Shenandoah a few times and it was great fun. Two teams of players and an umpire. There are three sets of maps one for each side and the umpire.
All movement is hidden only the umpire had the movement of both sides on a map. You sent cavalry scouts out to report on the enemy movement. Sometimes the information was good and sometimes it was way off.
The system has a mechanism to create the terrain. The Umpire had to keep track of the terrain incase we came back to that square in the future. Once the two sides ended up in the same square we then played out the battle using regimental rules. We were using JR2.
Units that performed well got to earn higher morale. Those that didn't went down in morale. When you march on the board to the tactical battle you have the option of refusing battle and retreat. But all your units will go down in morale.
The only issue I have with this and all campaign games is once one side starts to lose, it can go downhill rather quickly. The side that is losing begins to lose interest and quits playing. If I ever ran one of these I would probably give the losing side some reinforcements but then when does the game end? I think the Umpire will have to call the game when it is obvious one side is going to win and not play the whole thing out.
This system puts a lot of work on the Umpire. He is constantly walking from one room to the other updating his map and checking scouting reports and creating the tactical game. etc. You almost need three rooms/spaces. One for each side and one for the battle.
I am sure you could adapt this system to the 18th Century. I am considering on running a AWI Southern Campaign game, adapting this system.
receives a gift from his wife…
