American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Short answer: yes, the South tended to have more split sections of mixed gun types than the North. Yankee batteries tended to be all of the same gun type (6 Napoleons, 6 3-in Rifles, etc.) while Southern batteries - as much be necessity as by design - might have been a mixed bag: 2 Napoleons, 2 3-in Rifles, 2 Howitzers, etc.

The only way to accurately depict that in the games is to split the Reb guns into sections by gun type - not necessary for the homogenious Union batteries. That said, I would much prefer the Union batteries be split into 2 gun sections as well so that both sides are on the same footing for ammo use and especially road movement.

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><

Following is based on Nosworthy's The Bloody Crucible of Courage".

To quote: "Unless it was necessary to inflict the greatest amount of casualties at a single moment,..., salvo fire was to be strictly avoided. The actual recommended number of guns to fire at the same time varied between single and minium of two guns. This was done so the batteries could maintain a continuous fire without long lapses between salvos that could be used by troops to advance without danger.

This is really irrelevant to the what is happening in our games since a turn covers 20 minutes and a gun can fire every 30 seconds if it had enough ammo. The more important question is whether guns were organized and deployed in two gun sections or only as a battery size unit of 4-6 guns.

The South at the beginning of the war tended to have a larger mix of gun types so they tried to pair them in sections for supply purposes. The doctrine at the time favored mix batteries of short and long range sections so that the commander could use the appropriate weapon for the task. As such they tended to uses guns tactically in sections. The Union in the first years of the war favored a mix of four napoleons and two rifled guns in a battery and likewise used the type needed for the particular task. After McClellan reorganized the artillery they decided to try to put all the same type and caliber guns in a battery to simplify supply.

But both sides continued to deploy batteries as section as the need arose. The Union having more guns rarely was force to disperse their guns in sections but they still did it. A good example is Calef's battery supporting the cavalry on the first day of Gettysburg. He split the battery into three sections. Roder's section was placed on the north side of the Chambersgburg Pike across from the McPherson house. Newman's secton was placed between the Pike and the house on the south side. Pergel's section was placed 600 yards south of them on the otherside of Herbst Woods to support the 8th NY.

While organizationally the sections tried to stay within supporting range of each other since they sections shared some of the battery's support elements, tactically they could be deployed separately or together.

In game terms though both sides need to be treated the same way and using sections work best. This is due to two critical things. Auto-defensive fire favors the biggest stack and crew kills treat sections and batteries equally.

It has been a while since a played a Battleground game but if I remember correctly it doesn't handle artillery any better it just has different problems with it.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

This is a gameplay issue that has to do with reaction fire in teh single phase game. When playing multi-phase (I rarely due) it is much less of an issue. But as it stands it can make the reb guns almost useless.

It seems like it would not be an issue of being "historical" to make all of the sections one battery and have the longer ranges reflect the # of longer guns in the section..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim Pfleck</i>
<br />This is a gameplay issue that has to do with reaction fire in teh single phase game. When playing multi-phase (I rarely due) it is much less of an issue. But as it stands it can make the reb guns almost useless.

It seems like it would not be an issue of being "historical" to make all of the sections one battery and have the longer ranges reflect the # of longer guns in the section..

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The problem with trying to combine both sides into batteries (elliminate the Rebel sections) is that within the current game system you would have to create a fire table entry for every combination of guns. Then of course as soon as the battery took a hit the fire table would be incorrect (did it lose a rifled gun or a napoleon?). Sections are the simplist solution and works within the current game system.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)

Bill,

Your comment about OOBs is certainly valid. I too hope that soon, these restrictions will be lifted. BUT, the OOBs have been designed so that players can design games with all arty represented by sections.

My new OOBs will have both sections and consolidated rebel batteries. As it stands right now, all games can be played with sections. Some scns are designed with sections, but others can be designed. All one needs to do is open the editor.

To please everyone, I have to design scenarios as follows:

1) Historical battery composition
2) Consolidated rebel batteries
3) All batteries divided into sections
4) All the above using both weather and non-weather pdts
5) All the above winter scns with both winter and non-winter graphics.

So one winter scn would have 12 variants to please everyone.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

The HPS Antietam scenario #002 Historical 1st Bull Run is the best example I can find of the problems with Artillery organisation in the game. I'm surprised the designers didn't see the conflict of having the units represented unevenly?
Both sides field a real mixed bag with single guns, 2 & 3 gun sections and 4 & 6 gun battery's all on the field. I think it is the two 6 gun battery's on the Union side that cause the most contention?
I have set up a modified version of this scenario quite simply, by replacing all the battery's with the relevant sections from the units list.
Of course, even this process has uncovered another possible 'unfairness'? Some of the Reb units feature very peculiar 3 gun sections which are now BIGGER than anything the Union have in play! [:0] What to do? Have EVERY individual gun represented in every scenario and fire each individually? We know that the 2 gun section was the normal building block for both sides during the war. I'm glad these queer 3 gun nightmares don't appear too often. It seems I just resolve one problem in my mind and another immediately replaces it! [xx(]



Lt.Col. Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
<br />Bill,

Your comment about OOBs is certainly valid. I too hope that soon, these restrictions will be lifted. BUT, the OOBs have been designed so that players can design games with all arty represented by sections.

My new OOBs will have both sections and consolidated rebel batteries. As it stands right now, all games can be played with sections. Some scns are designed with sections, but others can be designed. All one needs to do is open the editor.

To please everyone, I have to design scenarios as follows:

1) Historical battery composition
2) Consolidated rebel batteries
3) All batteries divided into sections
4) All the above using both weather and non-weather pdts
5) All the above winter scns with both winter and non-winter graphics.

So one winter scn would have 12 variants to please everyone.

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I can sympathize with that. I was hoping we could all get to some kind of consensus on using sections only. Putting both sides into sections combined with the new one gun one ammo rule solves to many problems with artillery handling in the game to not go that route.

As I see it putting both sides guns into sections:

Advantages:

1. Puts both sides on equal footing for auto defensive fire.
2. Makes Union side less vulnerable to crew kills (must kill 2 or 3 crews to do the same damage as 1 crew kill before).
3. Makes an artillery battery take up road space more realistically and equalizes this for both sides.
4. Gives the player more flexibility in using his artillery.

Disadvantages:

1. You have more units to move each turn.


Considering all the things it fixes for the one minor disadvantage it seems to me we should go with all games in sections with an optional OOB with guns in battery for those who want to design their own.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)