American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br /> My preferrence is not to use stacking limits to control the battlefield ... a graduation of affects for zoc where at low unit density it just adds movement cost not prevents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Wow - brilliant, I love it ...

Maj Gen Mike Kaulbars
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS

Hi, Gen McBride,

In a book "Arms and Equpment of the Civil War", by Jack Coggins (1962),
he maintains that black powder rifles had a higher trajectory than modern high-power rifles, so the kill zone was relatively small. In other words, a bullet that missed a man probably wouldn't hit someone a hundred yards back. Of course, the bullets had to go somewhere, but my understanding was they spent most of their flight up high. I think this is true of high-power rifles too, but to a lesser extent. One interesting tidbit in the book is that of 37,000 rifles salvaged from the battlefield at Gettysburg, 24,000 were loaded and 18,000 had multiple loads. Of the other 6,000 with single loads, he wrote that many were loaded with untorn cartridges or bullet first. Anyway, from what I have read of ammunition expenditures, soldiers fired nowhere near the number of rounds they were physically capable of firing. Why that is, I'm not exactly sure. I suspect that the moments of crisis saw rapid ammunition expenditure, but after the immediate crisis was decided, only a few sharpshooters continued to fire. But that is a conclusion based on intuitive logic and not on fact.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Den McBride</i>
<br />I'm very much a non-expert on this stuff and always marvel at how advanced these discussions can be. I have 2 questions:

1. On the subject of limited frontages, if the assumption is made that only a certain number of men could fire, due to some units simply not being able to access the firing line, should there be some correlation in terms of which units can experience casualties or to what extent... at least from small and long-arms fire? Solid shot would rip right through a group but if you're a rank or 2 back you should experience less damage as from muskets, rifles and pistols.

2. Seond question. In that the game turns represent 20 minute timeframes, is it the correct approach to assume that only the first rank or 2 would get off a volley or cumulative number of shots fired at will? Or is the volley in these games really an abstraction, i.e. does a single volley represent more than one round of fire and do the casualties which result really reflect those that would be incurred by more than just the single volley? If so then it seems to me that a 400 man unit, going toe to toe with an enemy at 125 yards or less, and firing at even a moderate rate for 20 minutes, would create more than the 14 or 19 casualties we might expect to see in the game engine.

I don't usually get into these discussions, so please be gentle. [8)] Oh, and speaking of "fire at will", my Grandfather's name was William (or Bill) Shepherd. He fought in the trenches of France during the First World War and apparently took great exception to the term's use, as I'm sure have all the other Will's and Bill's who've fought before and since. [:)]

Gen. Den McBride
ANV, C.S.A.
ACWGC Cabinet Member
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

On item 1 the formation used in CW was the two rank line so that both lines could fire in a single volley. A two rank line gave a pretty much solid line with no gaps since the second rank was firing between men of the front rank. Firing at such a line pretty much limits missing to high and low. If a second regiment is behind the front one even a few hundred feet it greatly improves the chance of fire hitting because high misses now have a target. When firing artillery they (more during Napoleonic) actually planned for this by firing solid shot on a very flat trajectory so it in front of the target. This made the ball bounce at man hight through the lines.

On item 2 you are right in saying its an abstraction. A well trained unit can fire a volley every 20 seconds. In our 20 minute turns this would be 60 volleys or for you 400 man unit 24,000 shots. Even at a 1% hit rate that would kill 240 men. It would also run the unit out of ammo. This is one of the reasons our games missrepresent combat in CW. They generally didn't fire at distance over 100 yards. Also, units rarely stayed in the open not moving or taking cover once within that 100 yards. You either move forward and took the position, found a hole, or ran.

The reality is more a defender held fire until the enemy was within the 100 yard range and then started delivering fire as fast as they could. The attacker can cover 100 yards in less than two minutes. If its relatively clear flat ground maybe one minute. This means a defender that holds steady and delivers the volleys can fire 3 to 6 volleys before the enemy closes. None of this standing toe to toe that our games imply and firing away.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>

The reality is more a defender held fire until the enemy was within the 100 yard range and then started delivering fire as fast as they could. The attacker can cover 100 yards in less than two minutes. If its relatively clear flat ground maybe one minute. This means a defender that holds steady and delivers the volleys can fire 3 to 6 volleys before the enemy closes. None of this standing toe to toe that our games imply and firing away.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

So should we then change the range of the weapons down a bit? Rifles might fire five hexes (5 x 125 yds = 625 yards) but even if it hit something it would likely just leave a nasty bruise by then! Heck, that's a good drive, a 3 wood, and an 8 iron! [:D][:p] And woe if the Yankees have placed too many bunkers or water hazards along the way! [xx(]

Perhaps we should drop the range to 3 or 4 for rifles, keep muskets at 2 (but drop their effectiveness past 1), etc.



Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

The game scale itself is part of the problem, but unfortunately a smaller scale (eg. company level with 5 minute turns like the EAW series) would be quite impractical for a full scale battle.

For even greater realism, it would perhaps be better to reduce the scale to company level and use just 1 minute turns. Of course at this scale it would only be possible to represent relatively small actions rather than large scale - or even medium scale - battles. Each hex could be 25yds, with movement at 2 hexes a turn in open terrain or 1 hex in difficult and max stacking just 100 men. Veterans would only start firing at 100yds but green troops at 150yds or even 200yds. Within 100yds rifle fire would be lethal and within 50yds for muskets. Any troops armed with breechloaders or repeaters would be really devastating and might easily break up an attack by firepower alone. Ammo depletion would be perhaps 25% (maybe higher), so on average the defender will probably get off just four "volleys" (even with 1 minute turns each "volley" would in fact be several actual volleys) before running low on ammo. This would mean that green troops might well be out of ammo by the time the enemy are within 100yds.

I'm not sure of the best solution for the standard regimental level -reducing the ranges but significantly increasing the firepower at close range, ie. 1-2 hexes (rifles) or 1 hex (muskets) might be worthwhile, but only for multiphase mode. (Single phase mode with its unreliable ADF would still benefit the attacker far too much). If the weapon effectiveness of rifles at 1 hex were increased to say 12 (maybe 5 at two hexes and 2 at three) and faster loading muskets to 15 (perhaps 2 at two hexes) that would help to deter attackers from launching direct frontal assaults. It would also resolve combat quicker and stop lines of adjacent units slugging it away at point blank range turn after turn.

Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Rich, Bill,

Remember that it is a game that we're playing - history has been and gone.

It's getting there, gradually and surely. Remember that hexes were the solution for an inability to create lines and alternate hexes came from ZOC's.

Now, do something with that![:D]

Keep pushing the boundaries!

regards

Maj Gen Mark Oakford
1/XVIII, AoJ