American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Here is a tactical situation from a phased-play battle at Old Tavern in HPS Peninsula. After several turns of prep fire, Griffin has routed some of the US defenders at New Bridge. This is the only way across the Chickahominy River. See <u><i>Illustration 1</i></u>.

In the movement phase, 13th Miss. changes to column and crosses the bridge, where it encounters a US regiment sheltering in the low terrain. See <u><i>Illustration 2</i></u>.

The 13th Miss. withstands the defensive fire phase in good order. Now seeing that it faces a disrupted regiment, the 13th asks for permission to assault.
See <u><i>Illustration 2</i></u>.


Based on your own play preferences, would you allow Brigadier General Griffin to attempt an assault in the current melee phase?

Inquiring minds want to know…



[img]<font size="3">Colonel J. Ellis
Officer Commanding
4/I AoG CSA

The War Horse Division
</font id="size3">

I consider myself in the 'historical' segment of the members and I would have no problem with the unit in column in Illustration 2 initiating a melee.

I do not believe in column attacks as the columns in the game represent road column and not a column of companies. I do not believe in the use of column attacks in towns or at night.
I generally request my opponents agree not to melee in column with 2 exceptions.

Units in column may melee if
1. they are on a bridge/ford hex
or
2. moved off a bridge/ford hex directly into an enemy zoc.


To me this is a logical exception for several reasons.

1. You cannot change into line on a bridge/ford hex so you have to advance off of it in column.

2. You cannot advance a second unit off a bridge when the exit hex contains another unit so you can only melee with 1 unit.

3. Without these exceptions a river/creek crossing becomes a virtual impossibility in some situations. Even with them a full brigade in line will make such crossings difficult without bombarding it before attempting to cross.

To me this is a sensible compromise between the limits of the game engine and the historical reality. If you limit the attacker to meleeing from the bridge/ford hex only you give the defender too much of an advantage. If the defender sets up another hex back the attacker can cross, change into line then advance and bring additional units across.

I have had little trouble finding opponents willing to agree to these conditions.



Gen. Ken Miller
AoP

I agree with General Miller. That is why, when arranging matches, I insist on a house rule that there is no infantry-in-column melee "except over bridges, or from the first hex past a bridge."

Your Obedient Servant,
Lt Gen Dwight McBride
Ist Division/1st Brigade
V Corps/AOP/USA

An excellent example with good answers by the Vets. The "no column melees except across bridges or from the first hex past a bridge or within/from town hexes" should be an option for a pre-battle discussion.

Maj.Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS Chief-of -Staff,
2nd Division Cmdr, "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

As I said in an earlier post, I believe meleeing in column at any time is a lesser evil than being stuck doing nothing through two fire cycles. I play phased play and would allow column assaults under any circumstances, since once infantry moves in phased it can't change formation.

MG Mike Mihalik
2/4/I/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mihalik</i>
<br />As I said in an earlier post, I believe meleeing in column at any time is a lesser evil than being stuck doing nothing through two fire cycles. I play phased play and would allow column assaults under any circumstances, since once infantry moves in phased it can't change formation.

MG Mike Mihalik
2/4/I/AoMiss/CSA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would love to see JT change that so in phased play one can change formation for infantry anytime during the movement phase. It would help in make many situations more realistic. Could someone going to TillerCon III make that suggestion for me? Thanks.

MG Al "Ambushed" Amos, Commanding Officer
1st Div, I Corps, AoP, USA

http://albert-amos.blogspot.com/

"except over bridges,or from the first hex past a bridge" works for me, so this would be acceptable.

Lt. Gen. D. Groce
Commander
V Corps AoP
"beyond our ideas of right and wrong there is a field, I will meet you there"

I must take issue with the one hex part of the rule. It makes crossing, particular in Peninsula game, almost impossible. The defender can "game" the one hex rule to set up a defense line that acts as a trap isolating and capturing each regiment as it attempts to cross.

Since in phased play there is no way to cross and deploy into line the only valid formaton is column and the player should be able to melee from column as far as he can reach in the move required to cross in.

The particular situation in Illustration 1 doesn't show this problem since the swamps make any attempt to take the blocking hex just about impossible but in more open crossings a player can create an unbreakable defense line two hexes out that would destroy every attempt for columns to sit out fire waiting for change of formation. Combine this with routes might not head for the bridge and you have a killing field.

It would be nice if HPS had a column of companies formation to handle better how bridges were assaulted but they don't so you have to let the column formatin act as one in this special situation.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

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

I would love to see JT change that so in phased play one can change formation for infantry anytime during the movement phase. It would help in make many situations more realistic. Could someone going to TillerCon III make that suggestion for me? Thanks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi, Al,
It has been brought up in the past but was shot down because JT had a problem with folks scurrying from cover to cover in column and then changing to line without drawing any fire. But I will bring it up again.

Personally, I am about ready to request op fire as well in phased play. It is usually pretty anemic at half rate, and if all the defensive units fired at half rate in a DF phase along with op fire, it would probably average out and make for a better game.

MG Mike Mihalik
2/4/I/AoMiss/CSA

Quoting "I would love to see JT change that so in phased play one can change formation for infantry anytime during the movement phase. It would help in make many situations more realistic. Could someone going to TillerCon III make that suggestion for me? Thanks."


I can only shout "Bully for Al" for this request. How about a pontoon option to get across rivers? I have found crossing rivers near impossible if the enemy has a good idea that...

A. You have to get across to win
B. You are limited to choices where to cross

Here is a very interesting article
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/river.htm

A pertinent quote from the article:

<u>During the Civil War, Army engineers built pontoon and railroad bridges. In December 1862 Union Army enginneers laid six pontoon bridges across the Rappahannock River, under devastating fire from Confederate sharpshooters, in support of the Union attack on Fredericksburg, Virginia. </u>

Here is Siegel crossing a river



Lt. Col Elkin
Chief Engineer AoT

“I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies. . . . Let us study the probable lines of retreat of our opponents, and leave our own to take care of themselves. Let us look before us, and not behindâ€

I like the idea of changing formation in phased play. Then the melee in column at one hex rule would work. One could make a case for disabling melee in column entirely.

Opportunity fire is a tougher one because there are other problems with it as well, mainly ammo useage. It should be a free shot ammo wise. Maybe make it one quarter and free of ammo use.

Speaking of things that would be nice to add to bring up at TC III, how about a medium range setting for small arms? A setting that would cause them to fire only at 3 hex or less range (not random like artillery) so we would have some control of ammo use.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

My apologies for not paying close enough attentiont to the situation. I don't normally play the HPS games using phases and I have not played a Battleground game in some time so I had not thought of Kennon's objection to my rules which work fine when playing in the turn mode. If you play the HPS game in phases then limiting column attacks like this does present a problem for crossing a river. I would still insist on no column attacks in towns or at night but would allow them when crossing a bridge. I believe this was what I used when I played the BG games.


Gen. Ken Miller
AoP

I'm not sure I agree with those of you that say attacking in column across a bridge is not historical. In fact, I believe it correlates precisely with history. The example that comes to mind is Burnside's attack across the bridge later to be named after him at Antietam.

General Don Golen

I Corps /Army of the Potomac
"The Iron Corp"