American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<font size="4"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="yellow"><center>Gentlemen, Comrades all, <i>I seek your counsel.</i></center>

While the HPS & TalonSoft game engines permit Infantry Melee <i><font color="red">while in Column Formation</font id="red"></i> under any circumstances as long as they are undisrupted, facing the target hex & not prohibited by terrain considerations, is there or is there not in existence, a "Club Rule" or "Gentleman's Agreement" to forgo this tactic unless it is the sole option available to the Phasing Player, as in across bridges...up to & including, through abatis along roads, trails & RR tracks?

I cannot now clearly recall if I read this somewhere within Club literature, am simply recalling to mind complaints I have received from certain of my opponents in the past, or confusing myself with this Prohibition as it exists within the CCC, where I proudly display my Battle Standard among <b><font color="red">the French</font id="red"></b>.

I have found myself both restraining my own hand in those rare situations where I would employ such a tactic, but also lodging complaints against some few protagonists who have utilized it against me to my utter shock & chagrin. Upon examining my memory more closely I now realize that I may have protested unjustly.

Is there even a consensus opinion among the Membership upon this point? Do please help an aging warrior clear & clarify his mind on this issue of tactical doctrine as I do so hate to be any more of an arse than is absolutely unavoidable.

You may rest assured that both my opponents & myself will, therefore, be ever so grateful to anyone willing to declare their viewpoint for my illumination & edification.

<center>I remain, etc.</center>
</font id="yellow"></font id="Comic Sans MS"></font id="size4">

<center><font size="4"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="orange"><b>Major General Tom Phillips</b></font id="orange"></font id="size4"><font size="3">
<font color="red">The Brus Artillery Btn</font id="red"></font id="Comic Sans MS">
<font face="Times New Roman"><font color="yellow"> 4/3/III/AoG
</font id="yellow"> <b><i>Confederate States of America</i></b></font id="Times New Roman">
</font id="size3"></center>

I prefer and ask for restraint in the use of column melee except in the few circumstances such as you mentioned. Imbedded melee or no blitz krieg tactic is also appreciated.

MG D. Groce
AoP
V Corps
2nd Division
"Into the breach"

I also discuss terms before a battle, and this one usually gets both suggested and agreed upon by myself as well as my opponent

Brig. General P. Kenney
3rd Division
Cavalry Corps
Army of the Mississippi, CSA

The column was sometimes used in ACW and it does not go against history to use column attacks in some instances in our games.

The most famous example that comes to mind was Col. Emory Upton's assault using 12 Federal regiments in a 3 regiment front against entrenched Confederate troops near the Scott house duing the battle of Spotslyvania Courthouse. Hancock the formed the entire Second Coprs of the Union Army into a dense column to attack the Mule Salient breaking the Confederate line.

Longstreet used a column formation at Chickamauga using brigades and divisions deployed along a two brigade front. This was also a successful attack and one of the most famous attacks of the war.

At the second Battle of Fredericksburg General John Newton used two assaulting columns supported by a line formation deployed as skirmishers followed by three more lines to and supported on his right by 3 additional columns commanded by Gen. Frank Wheaton to assault and carry Marye's Heights. This assault succeeded with heavy casualties.

At Vicksburg the May 22 assault which failed all along the line used all column formations.

The Confederates used column formations in their unsuccessful assault against Fort sanders in 1863 during the Knoxville campaign.

There were other examples at Cold Harbor, Kennesaw Mountain, Ft Stedmen (by the Rebs)and the final assault at Petersburg. The column was used with the intent to apply maximum force to penetrate against a narrow front and was certainly historical in that sense.

I don't know how your opponents or yourself used the column assaults in your games but just because a unit assaults in column does not necessarily make it ahistorical. I would never agree to a blanket house rule barring all column assaults. I think some gentlemen's agreement on when and where columns can be used might be appropriate to prevent abuse of the tactic.[:D]



Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS

"Forward Bucktails"

Tom
The answer to your questions is -NO. There is not a ACWGC rule against this tactic. Therefore the onus is on the player not wishing to allow this. If this has not been agreed upon then a player using the tactic has done nothing wrong(club wise).

Colonel Tony Best
Army of Georgia

Column melee has been discussed more than once in this forum. The consensus seems to be that column formation in the context of the game represents a road column as opposed to an assault column as described by General Blackburn, and as such, there ought to be a house rule prohibiting its use except to force a bridge crossing. Personally, I don't like house rules and prefer doing the best you can with the game as programmed. Many situations which previously encouraged house rules have been improved by creative programming, such as blocking retreat with limbered artillery and leaders no longer drawing ADF, as well as embedded melee.

Ideally, there should be a separate assault column formation that couldn't move at road movement rate but would have increased melee punch at the cost of the column fire modifier. But given the current limitations of the game engine, I personally have no problem with units in column moving and meleeing in any situation. After all, the column can't return fire, and it suffers from increased casualty modifier as well as increased likelihood of disruption before melee. The only instance I can think of where a column attack might be advantageous to the attacker would be if the defenders are so few they can't do much damage; in which case, they ought to be overrun.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

This topic has been discussed on both the ACWGC and NWC many times. MG Mihalik gets to the main point though, in that the games do not differentiate between road columns and assault columns. An ACW march column (column of fours) was a four man wide column extending the length of the battalion/regiment. On the order front, the entire column could form line in a few seconds, typically to the right side of the column.

On the other hand, a battalion/regiment formed in column of companies was basically each company in line stacked behind the two lead companies also in line formation. So a typical 10 company regiment would have a two company front in line with remaining companies behind it at varied distances to maintain wheeling capability to reform the line. Large regiments were typically divided into two battalions with each forming a separate column of companies. You can imagine how this looked when a brigade formed column of companies, and the brigade was a commanding general's basic manuever element.

If you attend one of the larger ACW reenactments, you would likely see these formations and how vulnerable they would be to artillery fire.

Jeff Mathes
Captain
Sharpshooter Brigade
1st Division
III Corps, AoA

House Rules!!!! You fellas must not have many games going, or you insist upon the same house rules for all of your games in order for you to play (this would be understandable), or you have a brilliant mind and memory. If I agreed to a different set of optional and house rules with 6 different opponents, then I wouldn't remember what I had agreed to by the time I had played 3 turns of each battle. That's the truth or my name ain't Mike.

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/1/VIII/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

<center><font face="Times New Roman"><font color="beige"><font size="4">


Lt Gen Ned Simms Suh! <salute>
Well spoken Comrade (& point taken) but what is your viewpoint on the issue itself
of Infantry Melee while in Column Formation
(if I might be so importunate as to beseech you for it)?


</font id="size4"></font id="beige"></font id="Times New Roman"></center>

<center><font size="4"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="orange"><b>Major General Tom Phillips</b></font id="orange"></font id="size4"><font size="3">
<font color="red">The Brus Artillery Btn</font id="red"></font id="Comic Sans MS">
<font face="Times New Roman"><font color="yellow"> 4/3/III/AoG
</font id="yellow"> <b><i>Confederate States of America</i></b></font id="Times New Roman">
</font id="size3"></center>

<center><font size="4"><font color="red">Thank you one & all <i>most heartily & sincerely</i>.


I must apologize for not participating as a reader more faithfully

to the many most-informative discussions that have taken place

at the Mason Dixon Tavern.


By your leave, Suhs <salute>



</font id="red">


</font id="size4"></center>

<center><font size="4"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="orange"><b>Major General Tom Phillips</b></font id="orange"></font id="size4"><font size="3">
<font color="red">The Brus Artillery Btn</font id="red"></font id="Comic Sans MS">
<font face="Times New Roman"><font color="yellow"> 4/3/III/AoG
</font id="yellow"> <b><i>Confederate States of America</i></b></font id="Times New Roman">
</font id="size3"></center>

If the rules allow it, do it. 'Rules' include any 'house rules' agreed upon beforehand. Attacking in column is not a problem with me, nor night attacks, nor a lot of stuff ... but place that supply wagon so that it'll draw my defensive fire and leave it there more than one turn and the temperature starts rising in my room. Its just like mens taste in women, thank goodness we don't all like the same thing.

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/1/VIII/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />The column was sometimes used in ACW and it does not go against history to use column attacks in some instances in our games.

The most famous example that comes to mind was Col. Emory Upton's assault using 12 Federal regiments <b>in a 3 regiment front</b> [...]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Exactly. The individual regiments were in line of battle.

Just because the history books say it was "a column" does not mean it was a column of companies or divisions. But that's what using the column formation provided in the BG/HPS games would mean.

To my knowledge, there is only a small handful of examples where "columns" were indeed formed with a frontage of less than one battalion. I believe there are a couple of cases where it was a half-battalion, usually in a very restricted space. Other cases where comparatively small units attacked in column were sometimes simple SNAFU's. (That's for instance true for those cases often quoted from the Mexican War.)

But the Upton "column" you quote would have to be formed, in game terms, three regiments wide and four regiments deep, with the individual regiments being in line of battle.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

BTW this *has* been discussed over and over again on this board, for instance

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=7913

I realize it's easier to post the question again than to scan our excellence archives for keywords (like "column" and "melee" in this case), but I am beginning to wonder if a FAQ or something would be useful ...

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />The column was sometimes used in ACW and it does not go against history to use column attacks in some instances in our games.

The most famous example that comes to mind was Col. Emory Upton's assault using 12 Federal regiments <b>in a 3 regiment front</b> [...]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Exactly. The individual regiments were in line of battle.

Just because the history books say it was "a column" does not mean it was a column of companies or divisions. But that's what using the column formation provided in the BG/HPS games would mean.

To my knowledge, there is only a small handful of examples where "columns" were indeed formed with a frontage of less than one battalion. I believe there are a couple of cases where it was a half-battalion, usually in a very restricted space. Other cases where comparatively small units attacked in column were sometimes simple SNAFU's. (That's for instance true for those cases often quoted from the Mexican War.)

But the Upton "column" you quote would have to be formed, in game terms, three regiments wide and four regiments deep, with the individual regiments being in line of battle.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01


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


Dierk, it is my understanding that Uptons' regiments were deployed in three long lines with each line being four regiments deep not in 4 lines of battle each three regiments wide. What you describe would not be a column but more of a rectangular formation. I think you point may have been was that indiviual regiments in the ACW were not generally formed into assaulting columns as done by the French in the Napoloeonic and Revolutionary wars to which I agree.







Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS

"Forward Bucktails"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />The column was sometimes used in ACW and it does not go against history to use column attacks in some instances in our games.

The most famous example that comes to mind was Col. Emory Upton's assault using 12 Federal regiments <b>in a 3 regiment front</b> [...]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Exactly. The individual regiments were in line of battle.

Just because the history books say it was "a column" does not mean it was a column of companies or divisions. But that's what using the column formation provided in the BG/HPS games would mean.

To my knowledge, there is only a small handful of examples where "columns" were indeed formed with a frontage of less than one battalion. I believe there are a couple of cases where it was a half-battalion, usually in a very restricted space. Other cases where comparatively small units attacked in column were sometimes simple SNAFU's. (That's for instance true for those cases often quoted from the Mexican War.)

But the Upton "column" you quote would have to be formed, in game terms, three regiments wide and four regiments deep, with the individual regiments being in line of battle.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
3/2/VIII AoS

West Point Class of '01


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


Dierk, it is my understanding that Uptons' regiments were deployed in three long lines with each line being four regiments deep not in 4 lines of battle each three regiments wide. What you describe would not be a column but more of a rectangular formation. I think you point may have been was that indiviual regiments in the ACW were not generally formed into assaulting columns as done by the French in the Napoloeonic and Revolutionary wars to which I agree.







Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS

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


NEVER MIND it was a compact rectangle as Dierk said. It was 4 lines each three regiments wide, not really a column at all.[:D]

Lt. Gen. Ed Blackburn
I/I/VI/AoS

"Forward Bucktails"