American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gentlemen,

I am new to the Club and was wondering if there was an unwritten rule disallowing infantry from meleeing while in column like there is in the CCC?

This has come up in a current game and we would like a Club opinion before proceeding much further.

Thanks,

Fld Lt Mark Crawford
2nd "Lone Star State Volunteers" Brigade
2nd Division
III Corps
AoG

Lt. Crawford,

Welcome to the III Corps!

I personally have never heard distaste from an opponent over maleeing in column. In fact, you have to malee in column if you're trying to plow through a bridge. Historically, if I am not mistaken, malees in column were sometimes ordered during the Civil War. I have no idea about the warfare from the EAW so I cannot relate. Just my two cents.

Fld. Lt. Brad Slepetz
4th "Hell's Rifles" Brigade
1st Division
III Corps
AoG

Pity you're a Reb, there's an excellent thread about it at the Quarter Masters Depot.

Here's what I posted there:

As I understand it you need to stipulate in advance whether you will allow it or not.

I know it is frowned on unless necessary, ie you have positioned yourself across a bridge or in a town such that the only way your opponent can reasonably get at you is to melee in column. In those cases it is acceptable, otherwise etiquette and historicity requires that you go into line before the assault.

And of course there is accidental meetings too - a unit in column with every reasonable expectation of unimpeded movement (ie behind the lines or some such) bumps into a hidden unit. In these cases I think allowing the melee is acceptable as well.

... and a follow up clarification ...

But it's hard to make a hard and fast rule here. IF you can change formation before assaulting without disrupting, say on the edge of the terrain in question, then you should do so even though you are moving through disrupting terrain.

It would not be acceptable to move through an abatis in column and asault in column even though you could have changed formation (hard to say why you would want to anyway, there are -ve mods for assaulting in column).

Less clear is what you do if you can complete such an assault in one turn by staying in column formation, but it would require two turns (hence another round or two of fire, possibly from close range arty) if you changed formation.

Real life has no such discontinuities. I suspect purists would insist on changing formation if at all possible, while others may be more leniant.

Another issue is the flanking column and the realities of LOS limitations in our games. If you have sent a flanking column around the back way, at what point would you historically change formation for the assault? Do you allow melee if units run into something they could not see? Even if historically they would have seen the unit and deployed?

And what do you do if your lead unit on such a march runs into someone? Is he stuck assaulting alone? or are following units allowed to come up in column as well. I'd say no, they have to change formation, but that's me.

What about running a unit in column up to cut off retreat? They don't join the melee, but it's still gamey as hell.

And so on. The point is it's a good idea to lay out what you expect in your matchs right up front with your opponent. If you differ, negotiate the difference. If you can't agree, move on. It's an easier discussion when the issue is whether to play rather than who is going to win.

Hope that helps [:D]

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

Gen Walter or someone can probably point you to a thread where this has been discussed before. You'll find players that have no problem with it and players that say it's verboten.
I posted my thoughts on this at blitz, but I'll post again here for some feedback.
On one hand you can't move without disrupting except in column to get through woods at night, towns, bridges, abatis and so have to melee from column in those. Also poor quality units disrupt or worse very easily so if they bump into an unseen unit they almost have to melee from column as they won't stay in good order through a 20-min turn of withstanding shots till the next turn to deploy, and that doesn't seem historical either.
So I say that unless the players agree in advance then it should be allowed.
My pet peeve is players that use the 1 & 2 gun arty sections to roam around behind units to assist in a surround and capture move. I would think it ok if they just happened to be in the right spot or if they moved and deployed, but to just move all the many sections we now have all around units and then have only one of the surrounding hexes be actual inf/cav for the attack just doesn't seem right. But again, I guess players need to discuss that sort of thing in advance or else accept the other players tactics. Thoughts?

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

Scott and Mike have summed it up nicely, I think. There is no unwritten rule, and barring a prior agreement, you can do as you please with your columns.

Now if you would play *me*, I would have asked you to agree to a ban on fighting in column except where line movement isn't practicable. So meleeing across a bridge with the one-phase format in the HPS games, moving across a bridge even if the far end isn't defended in the four-phase format of the BG or HPS games, attacking in or from town, marsh, rough etc. hexes, columns are fine, but otherwise we would deploy to line before engaging the enemy, because that's how it was done in the ACW. Columns were in the books alright, but only because the books were poor translations from half a century old French regulations, i.e. they were heavily Napoleonic. And then there is the fact that the "column" in the game is very likely a road column, i.e. four abreast, in that it can use road movement and can not fire, and not a battalion column of attack with companies in line stacked several companies deep. And only the latter would be a combat formation, and then a very uncommon one for the Civil War.

But then that's me. So if you didn't agree on any ban on fighting in column with your opponent, he should be fine with your using columns for whatever you like. And if he isn't, then be a gentlemen and find a compromise for this game, and next time discuss it beforehand. [:)]

Here are a couple of threads where this has been discussed before ...

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=5983

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=4005



Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Actually attack by column of division or company was used and was the preferred method if the column could approach with some cover since it was the ideal formation for rushing a position. The largest one being probably being the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania where Hancock's corps was formed in column of attack. Barlow's division was formed in with regiments in column of division (two company front) with five paces between each regimental column and ten paces between brigades.

Unfortunately HPS/BG games only have what is actually road column. Unlike their Nappy games that have battalion columns that also double as road columns.

Main problem with adhoc rules are its hard to anticipate every situation. You can't completely rule out column melees because there are situations you need it but how do you handle the not quite situations. If you can cross a bridge in column how far can you continue to move and still melee? etc.

One idea I haven't tested but sounds good[:D] is if you use road movement rate anytime in the movement then you are a Road Column and can't melee but if you can make the movement using underlying terrain costs (have figure this yourself though) then you can consider yourself in an attack column and can melee. Just a thought anyway.

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

Lt. Crawford,

In my long experience with the ACW club, and short experience with the CCC, I would say that the attacking in column issue is a much bigger deal in the CCC than it is in the ACWGC. I personally, have never diccussed the matter with anyone in this club before starting a game. No one has ever cried foul when I used the tactic, and many opponents have used the tactic against me. Over at the CCC, however, things seem to me at least, to be different. I always assume that with the usual exceptions, column attack is considered an ahistoric maode of play. Nevertheless, this comparison between the clubs is offered more as background than as an attempt to represent some club principle regarding attack in column. As others have already pointed out in this thread, best to ask before the first "die" is cast.

Otherwise... Welcome to the ACWGC!

Gen. Thos. Callmeyer
4th Bgd.
1st Div.
XV Corps
AoT

I've completed 45 or so games since joining the club and a game started several weeks ago is the first one which brought up the question of melee in column....I have no problem playing without column melee but then again I don't have a problem with it either, I agree with Kennon that the use of column of companies and divisions were used during the ACW and so the use of column melee has a place in these games. Whatever advantage the attacker gains using columns can be off set by a defender in the following turn when firing on the disordered enemy column which can't fire back.[B)]

<font color="blue"><b>Brig.Gen. R.A.Weir</b></font id="blue">
<font color="yellow">-- CALVERT LINE --</font id="yellow">

<b>First--III--AoA CSA</b>

An idea for future patches or games might be to increase the losses suffered by units in column. That way one can move in column in LOS of the enemy and even attack in such a formation, but has to be willing to suffer the increased losses if the modifiers were changed to make such moves more costly.

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

I know for sure that this is the case in TS-BG games. You get a bonus when firing into column units.

Haven't played enough HPS (in ACW only) to tell you how it is done.

I know in CCC you also get a bonus firing into column (HPS games).

So, march in column all you like I say! Don't be surprised when a few of my cannons lops off a few of your guys heads![:D]



<font color="gold"><b>Lt. Col. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman, <font color="limegreen">Sharpshooter</font id="limegreen">
<font color="beige">3rd</font id="beige"> '<font color="red">Jayhawk</font id="red">' <font color="beige">Brigade
1st Light Inf. Div.</font id="beige">
<b>XIX Corps, AoS,<font color="gold"> USA</font id="gold"></b>



Cartographer

Both BG and HPS games give the firer a bonus for firing at a target that is in column. The problem come in when people use the column to move a large number of regiments quickly down a road and assault a position without changing to line. All of a sudden regiments can move 12 hexes and melee a position. It's really the bonus movement I think people have a problem with not the use of the formation for melee. Any Union commander wouldn't mind Pickett's charge being executed in column rater than line.[:D]

Its really the movement bonus that is the problem not the formation or its defensive factor penalty. Fire bonus isn't really out of line for fire on a road column (they were only four rank versus lines two rank) assuming you didn't get to shoot right down the column. However, a column of attack was quite dense and should be a much better target.

The ideal cure would be to introduce another formation so that road column has the bonus movement but no melee ability and column of attack has no road bonus and a more severe fire penalty.

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

So from a design perspective of the current game engine, which would be easier to put in a patch - an even more severe fire combat modifier against column or make it so a column has no melee ability? While the additional formation of an assault column vs road column might be more accurate, I don't think it as easy to program into the game.
But while we're talking about changes, on arty folks have always asked about crewing captured guns, spiking them, etc -- what if an additional combat result besides crew killed, what if horses killed was added? Then a battery could still fire, but not move... ?

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS

I am still not convinced that the battalion column of attack was common in the ACW except for exceptional circumstances. I think at Kennesaw Mountain, one division attacked in columns on a half-regiment front--still not what the regulations would call a battalion column where we would expect more companies in depth than in width (like two companies abreast four or five companies deep). General Whitehead quoted one example that I hadn't heard of before.

In all other famous "column" attacks in the ACW, including all those usually quoted in defence of the use of columns for combat in our games (mainly the II Corps attacks at Spotsylvania), the "columns" were on a front of a regiment or more, i.e. one regiment <u>in line</u> stacked behind another, and another. The huge columns of the late war were often on a brigade or half-brigade front, i.e. they resembled successive waves of brigades. All the individual regiments in such a "column" were of course deployed in line of battle.

I am not sure that the obviously very few instances in the ACW were columns of attack were actually formed with a front of less than a regiment (so that to be portrayed in the game they would justify the use of columns rather than lines for individual regiments) really warrant the introduction of an additional formation, or the re-definition of the road column as a column of attack. I believe there were a very few squares being formed to repell cavalry in the ACW--does that mean we also need squares in the game? I think the games should reflect standard tactics and formations of the actual war and need not to account for every historical eventuality. And the standard tactical formation for a regiment in the war was the line of battle.

So for me personally, in my games the column remains a road column only, unless where the game engine enforces the use of columns because a line cannot move.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Scott Schlitte</i>
<br />So from a design perspective of the current game engine, which would be easier to put in a patch - an even more severe fire combat modifier against column or make it so a column has no melee ability? While the additional formation of an assault column vs road column might be more accurate, I don't think it as easy to program into the game.
But while we're talking about changes, on arty folks have always asked about crewing captured guns, spiking them, etc -- what if an additional combat result besides crew killed, what if horses killed was added? Then a battery could still fire, but not move... ?

BGen, 2/XIX/AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unfortunately you can't fix it by just saying column can't melee because there is no other formation that can move across bridges and a few other special terrain situations. If they could modify the bridge so that line infantry could cross like a ford maybe with disorder and/or one hex movement, then you could change column to a non-combat formation.

And, I guess you could take the more rigid stance and say that bridges should be harder to get across so you have to clear the other side by fire and then move across in column without melee ability. It will make towns a lot tougher too but they probably should be. One advantage to just saying column can't melee regardless of situation is we can implement it by informal rule and there is little confusion as to how to apply it.

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

Thanks to everyone for their opinion!

My opponent and I have decided to limit column meleeing to only when it is necessary by movement restrictions (bridge, towns, etc...).


Fld Lt Mark Crawford
2nd "Lone Star State Volunteers" Brigade
2nd Division
III Corps
AoG