American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

If I remember correctly the whole melee in column issue came from BG Shiloh where the Rebs could march down the roads and cut off fixed Union troops. I would think that the only time the tactic would be used would be if you had to rush a unit up a road to plug a gap. The unit could then get hit pretty hard the following turn.

Lt General Jon Thayer
III Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

What if:
1. An enemy unit is engaged frontally by a friendly unit, and you have a unit in column that can approach from the flank or rear? It can reach the enemy unit only in column during this turn.

2. If you deploy on line, you will not be able to move adjacent in this phase.
The enemy unit will be able to turn or withdraw and fire upon you in the next turn, causing losses that might have been avoided and you lose the flank/rear attack modifier advantage.

Defending units in line formation usually do not cope well when heavily engaged from the front,... and then assaulted from the rear.[;)]

I argue that a commander very well might order a charge in column to melee for the shock effect and to avoid unnecessary casualties from ranged fire. [:p]
Accordingly, I propose that it would be realistic to allow melee in column formation not only across bridges or town hexsides, but also against enemy units in column formation and/or from the flank or rear at any time.

Caveat:
There is potential for abuse or unrealistic use of such an allowance, because a 1 man unit of infantry or cavalry can presently cut off retreat of up to a thousand men. But that problem exists anyway, in line or column formations. (I cannot remember that being a problem but I am sure that it happens regularly.)

Probably the best default solution is to play melee in column is permissable at any time. Otherwise, BG Kenney is correct. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> 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

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

My own house rule would be to only prohibit melee in column after dark. I have had several well played, realistic games go crazy and stupidly unrealistic with massed melees continuing turn after turn after darkness has fallen. It rather spoils the fun of the contest for me. [8D]

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG, CSA

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

My own house rule would be to only prohibit melee in column after dark. I have had several well played, realistic games go crazy and stupidly unrealistic with massed melees continuing turn after turn after darkness has fallen. It rather spoils the fun of the contest for me. [8D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, General,

Personally, I think night is another area where Talonsoft dropped the ball. Night combat was rare, and a successful night attack rarer still, in the ACW. Culp's Hill and Wauhatchie are the only two that come immediately to mind. Both failed.

I can find no historical justification for the night morale penalty. At least the fatigue penalty discourages night attacks, but it would probably be unnecessary if they would eliminate the night morale penalty. The flaw that requires units fired on in the last dusk offensive fire phase to take its morale checks with the night penalty is particularly repugnant.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA