Saturday, 24 April 2021

Antietam, The attack on the Bloody Lane 1862



This post looks at the playing of the Sunken Lane introductory scenario from the Pickett’s Charge rule set written by Dave Brown and published by Reisswitz Press, using his rules.

This is a well known action that occurred during the Battle of Antietam. The scenario involves 17 Union regiments and 16 Confederate regiments, with each side also having a couple of artillery batteries.

The game was played with 12mm Kallistra figures in a space roughly 6’ x 4’. Units are regiments formed from two bases, giving a unit frontage of 80mm.

Please use the ‘read more’ tab for the rest of this post, which has an AAR and then a discussion on some of the aspects of the rules.



The scenario allows for a free set-up. The Confederate veterans under Rodes were placed on the left and for the Union, Morris had his large but green regiments on their left. The main Union attack was to come in the centre, with the approach concealed by high ground.


To reduce the length of this post, I have put together a short YouTube video that shows the battlefield and initial troop dispositions and schematic plan (as shown in the previous post), which we may as well use again here for those interested.

The Sunken Lane 1862 from B&W blog on Vimeo.

The scenario runs for 16 turns and for a Union win, they must capture enough of the Sunken lane that they end the game with more of their own units in the lane (or beyond) than the enemy have. So the Confederate plan is simply to hold on!

Turn 1 - The Union advance ..... except Morris, with the green regiments on the left flank, who hesitates.


Turn 2 - Above - Union units in the centre pour over the hill. This is where the Union will make their strongest attack, intending to break the Confederate centre. They immediately come under fire from Confederate guns, which score 5 hits on 132nd Pennsylvania - they take a ‘See the Elephant’ test and hold their nerve. Artillery is not overly effective in this system, but good dice happened here!
Storyboard - despite the central hill looking like the main danger to the Confederates, the smoothbore armed units of Meagher’s Irish Brigade, cross the smaller hill and fire into Wright on the Confederate left, scoring 3 hits and forcing a ‘see the elephant test’. This excellent shooting was done on a dice roll of ‘12’, which causes the firer to then test on the ‘Serendipity Table’.

They get a ‘Hurrah’ result (the Confederates have a rebel yell version), which means their general now regards them as a superior unit, allowing them to add +1 to all future 2D6 rolls. The defending Confederate unit goes ‘Whipped’ and retires 30cm, leaving a gap in Wright’s line. Is this where the Union will break the enemy line?


Turn 3 - Above - The action hots up, though the Union left still refuses to move forwards. Their significant forces in the centre move up for the charge and while this looks a fearful sight to the grey clad soldiers, the Union front line is already unformed and chewed up from heavy fire, with one of the regiments from Kimball’s Brigade already turning and running back ‘whipped’.

Meagher’s smoothbores press on against a thin line of sharpshooters (treated as skirmishers in the rules and unable to change formation to close order during the game) in the lane.


Turn 4 - Above - Meagher clears the sharpshooters and breaches the Sunken Lane, but to the Union centre, the initial assault is repulsed with heavy casualties.

Turn 5 - Meagher charges again, to clear the next section of the lane, but this goes to bitter hand-to-hand fighting and results in both sides disengaging. Meagher losses possession of the lane, the lull in the action giving Wright a chance to breathe and partly recover his lost ground (below - Meagher ejected from the lane).


Turn 6 - below - The Union centre, despite harsh handling, continues to relentlessly press the Confederate line. Their fire sees Anderson’s 14th North Carolina break and rout, leaving a gap. Though Confederate losses are starting to mount, Union losses in the centre by comparison have been horrendous and they are losing their offensive capability.


Meagher is stalling, with his 3rd New York dispersing (leaving the table) and 69th New York dangerously close to a similar fate.

“Reserves ..... give me reserves”! The Union simply do not have a reserve in the vicinity of the centre that can exploit the situation.

On the Confederate left, Rodes’ veterans have not done much (my fault perhaps) and are taking persistent fire from enemy sharpshooters. On the Union left, their large but green regiments under Morris, continue a very tardy performance with a rather meek approach on the Confederate positions, but they are at least pinning Colquitt’s 5 regiments.

Turn 7 - The turn opens with Meagher (Union) and Anderson (Confederate) faltering. Both need command spending on them to assist their return to ‘obeying orders’. This is done and both sides roll well for the two brigades, so a moment of crisis is averted for both sides, though the Confederates rolled very poorly for their command (ADC’s) allowance and are now left without ADC support for the rest of the division.

Storyboard - 5th / 6th Alabama (combined), veterans from Rodes Brigade on the Confederate left are provoked into action following their casualties from enemy fire. They seize the moment to charge at 61st / 64th New York (combined), from Caldwell’s Brigade, who have pushed too far forwards without support.


As the charge goes in, they are met with a devastating volley, giving them 4 more casualties to add to the 6 they already have and as a small regiment, this takes them to their ‘Dispersal’ value and they are removed from play.

Rodes is given a ‘Falter’ marker for the brigade, while the New York rolled so well, they get to roll on the Serendipity Table and get Hurrah status. Caldwell however is presently a ‘Hesitant’ brigade, so they cannot immediately exploit this success, which is the only saving grace for Rodes, who will almost certainly come under significant pressure over the next hour.

Storyboard - The Union centre, exhausted by casualties, throw their last fresh unit, supported by 5th Maryland into a charge against the Sunken lane. They break Anderson’s 30th North Caroliners, who rout to the rear. As they run, they pass through 14th North Carolina, who are just recovering from their own earlier rout and cause renewed panic, sweeping 14th away. The loss of the regiment puts Anderson back to ‘Faltering status’.

Anderson looks to be in great peril, but the Union centre is hugely frustrated that their own force is pretty much spent and they simply don’t have enough fresh units on hand to push the Confederates over the edge ....... matters worsen as Kimball loses 7th West Virginia to the Confederate guns.

Turn 8 - On both flanks, the regiments finally come into proper close range of each other.

One of Wright’s regiments gets bold and leaves the Sunken lane, jumping the fence to push into Meagher’s left flank, who responds by falling back to the small hill.


Turn 9 - above - from the lane, Kimball charges the Confederate right hand artillery battery ...... who roll a 12 in their defensive fire! Kimball is lucky in getting away with a retire result, but his regiment still collects 5 casualties in the process. This looks to be the turning point against the Union ..... further impacted as Morris’ green troops on the Union left assault Colquitt, but each of his three regiments take a load of hurt, one retires, another is whipped and the third routs!

Enthused, Colquitt’s whole brigade advances, including two regiment’s jumping the fence and leaving the sunken road - the brigade advance on the retreating Morris and the deployed Union artillery battery.

Now, all along the line, the Union are falling back, the exception being in the centre, where Weber alone presses on, believing that the Confederate centre is about to break. On the Confederate left, Rodes loses his second regiment, leaving him with just sharp-shooters to cover the wing, he is in serious peril ..... and likely done for!

Turn 10 - On the Confederate right, Colquitt’s men break into a spontaneous charge, attacking both Morris and the deployed Union guns, but it doesn’t end well for them, especially for the two regiments charging the 3” artillery battery! they are repulsed and the brigade falls back to lick their wounds and resume a defensive stance.

Anderson in the Confederate centre at 50% losses is ‘tuckered out’, making it much more likely that they will hesitate, rather than obey orders in the Command Phase, while Weber, opposite him, is pulling his hair out, he has put his Union troops back into the lane, and he believes the Confederate defence is about to fall, but with the rest of the Union army retreating, leaving him isolated, he has little choice other than to abandon his plans for attack and he follows suit.

Both sides are getting too exhausted to do anything else, but for the Confederates it doesn’t really matter, as all they have to do is hold on to the lane, which they have.

Their artillery has worked well through-out the game and has been responsible for both blunting the enemy charges and covering the increasing gaps in the the line due to friendly infantry regiments breaking.

The Confederate veterans on the left under Rodes are smashed, but elsewhere, with the enemy falling back, the Confederates will claim a victory. The game ends at this point because there is no prospect of the Union effectively returning to the fray to get anything close to a victory.

Conclusion


That gave a good game. The scenario is surprisingly large for an introductory scenario, though obviously it does its job in touching on all elements of the rules.

Some elements of the system become second nature very quickly, the more quirky stuff needed quite a bit of rule referencing during play, but was well within the bounds of what would be normal for trying out a new, fairly meaty system and at no time did I come across anything I didn’t understand or that conflicted with other rule sections. Plus the two play aid cards are superb and complete.

During play some strong characteristics of the rules were quickly showing themselves and they were things that I liked. The first comes from the charge process, which uses opposed dice, 2D6 per side. You just roll and compare, the difference in the score being the advantage that the winner takes to the Results Table, which is differential based.

Now, the first impression is that this is hugely luck based, you put in an attack that has been worked for and has all of your hopes pinned in it, only to find that as the attacker you roll ‘3’ and the defender ‘11’, which would be a mighty blow to the attacking unit.

But two important things are going on. The first are the modifiers, these tend to gently temper the results rather than cause big swings, but importantly, the casualties received so far, play into the results, so the gamer needs to think about preparation by fire before assaulting and possibly assaulting with fresher units. It does put an emphasis on having reserves on hand or rotating regiments within the brigade.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly is that if a lead unit can claim support from nearby unengaged units to their flanks or rear, they can claim a re-roll of one dice for each support they have. This is a very clever mechanic. Not only does it dampen down extreme dice rolling, but it encourages the player to think in terms of support of a lead unit and keeping brigades together with a specific focus.

In one of my attacks, the Union on their 2D6 rolled 5 and 1. They had a supporting unit to the rear, so re-rolled the 1 and got another 1, such is life, but the dice in this instance were obviously and clearly telling a story that the attackers had lost heart. The re-roll is no guarantee of a win or an equaliser, but it does over the course of the game reduce the impact of extremes and gives players the feel of a fair fighting chance .... if they use the right tactics.

In a few instances, I rolled dice that were dire and then desperately looked around for a support and realised there wasn’t any, this was just plain bad planning / deployment on my part, with me thinking after the event, though it does show the potential problems of having a single defensive line like the Confederates have in the Sunken Lane, cause a few retreats and an isolated unit left behind can be in real trouble. You can of course counter this by deploying a brigade in a two up and one behind type of formation, to offer them the potential of a rear support.

This simple rule drives realistic tactical deployment, use and brigade level focus on the table-top and is probably my favourite mechanic in the system.

The Interlaced sequence of play keeps both players active, stopping one side being able to do everything in their turn, while the other just sits and takes it. Selecting who is player 1 each turn can become important in areas of crisis.

At the start of the turn players dice off to see who gets the initiative (player 1). A player’s dice roll is reduced by 1 for every one of their currently hesitant brigades. The winner will go first in each of the subsequent sub-phases, which are, Charge, Move and then Fire.

Though both players act in the same phase, they are not joint phases as such, so player 1’s fire will hit and be actionable against the enemy before that enemy gets chance to do their fire - so the sequence of play is a good way of adding some chaos to proceedings without it being overly present.

I really like the way that the Charge process is blatantly avoiding the notion of the initial charge being a man-to-man thing, rather it is trying to reflect that final bit of closing with the enemy, where each side hopes the other will break off due to their sense of presence and threat, rather than things going to point of bayonet - however, if the sides stall (draw), so that neither give way, then the combat goes to a second stage (called ‘True Grit! Close to Melee!) which is now reflecting a more proper close combat type melee and there is a different and simple way of inflicting casualties to sort it out.

One of the things that is different from a lot of games is that a unit can take quite a bit of damage before it deteriorates. Typically, an infantry unit is still fresh until it accumulates 4 hits and at that point it is really only suffering a -1 modifier on tasks. Compared with 4 hits in something like Black Powder, which takes a unit straight to the Break Test Chart, with the risk of total loss! and so after me playing quite a bit of Black Powder it takes a bit of getting used to, that a unit can have casualty dice trailing it with multiple hits, yet it can still be effective offensively.

Most of the regiments in this particular scenario are classed as small, so they will ‘Disperse’ (leave the table) once they have accumulated 10 casualties, while the large regiments (Morris has them in this scenario) don’t disperse until they have 14 hits. Average sized units go out on 12 hits, in our game Weber had average sized units, so had a bit more staying power.

The impact in play of this higher casualty allowance is that an initial clash between fresh forces, is unlikely to see any instant major combat outcome. The art of play might be to get a fresher unit against a weary unit or get a positional favour such as a flank attack, I know this sounds obvious and most systems reward this kind of thing, but here, it feels that there is a more active encouragement of the same.

If I were to re-run this scenario again, I think I would have the Union concentrate their artillery efforts against part of the line (a single brigade) to weaken it, before hurling an assault in ....... yes obvious - I know!

As the above comments suggest, reserves of fresh units are by implication encouraged. In this scenario, the Union are allowed to hold 1 brigade in reserve status, perhaps I should have done that, but then I wanted enough initial momentum to overwhelm the Confederates and to cover the whole front ..... choices, choices, choices :-)

The skirmisher rules are a nice touch and do enough to make the units feel different from line and to encourage proper use.

When looking at things like Hesitation and the allocation of ADC’s that add a bit of colour to the command and control engine, they work well here, though are reflections of similar mechanics that we see across other rules, perhaps with different names, but of course they are a universal rule type because of their relevance to battle / wargames, so are most welcome here. For example in turn 1, Green ‘Hesitates’ and doesn’t advance, in Black Powder a failed order roll would do the same, in Firepower with random movement, they might have rolled just a 2” move, roughly giving a similar effect.

All told, I like this set and will explore it a bit more to see whether it will become a 'go to' choice, though it does hold promise - not least because a napoleonic version is also available as a sister rule set, so double the gaming for half of the learning :-).

If there is interest, I will come back to this scenario, both with the same rules and with some other sets as it seems to offer good bench testing qualities. Perhaps the four sets that I looked at a couple of weeks ago would be a justifiable part 2 to that post.

Complexity
- I would place this at slightly above medium for a first game, dropping to medium thereafter. It is almost as if there are two elements to the rules. The heartbeat is actually quite intuitive, quick to pick up and quick to implement. Running alongside that are the more niche bits that need some repeat referencing, but if this was a regularly played system, they too would become second nature. By halfway through the game, I was running most things through the very good quick reference sheets. I will write myself a 1 page memo that covers my ‘most forgotten’ rules, which will help with future games. In play, I found the rules easier to implement than I thought I would from the initial read, though I had been watching some play on YouTube of the Napoleonic version of the game, which I think helped.

Size - The rules are in an 80 page A4 ‘perfect bound’ format, with 2 double sided play aid cards. The game runs with each player having a division per side, so that will be four or five brigades, each with three or four regiments. The scenario I played today was on a 6’ x 4’ table with measurements used for 15mm, though all of my regiments had 80mm frontages, rather than their proper size based upon the number of bases in a unit (between 3 and 7). The rulebook says that for this scenario in 28mm, ‘use an appropriately larger table’. As a guide 15mm infantry move 15cm, while 28mm infantry move 9”, suggesting that 28mm need half as much space again. I think I would just be tempted to just have fewer or smaller brigades, though the command system does look like it prefers four or more brigades in the game.

Solitaire - I ran today’s scenario solitaire and didn’t come across any issue that would prevent solo play. There is a bit of chaos in the system, which of course helps solo play.

Time - I’m not sure, because I played my game over two days in 40 minute stints because my back has been playing up, but I would think that four hours would have covered this game and having regard for it being a first game, that could likely be decreased with more experience. In the last few turns, things were skipping along. Next time I play this, I will come back and update this paragraph if necessary.

Resource Section.

My sister webspace COMMANDERS has a collection of shorter AAR’s. Link.

https://commanders.simdif.com/

An earlier post, looking at charge sequences from four different rule sets including Pickett’s Charge. Link

http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2021/04/acw-rule-comparisons.html


28 comments:

  1. An excellent AAR and review of the rules Norm. I like the 2D6 roll and wish more rules would use them as this 'mechanism' works brillinatly in Bloody Big Battles. Maybe people just like rolling buckets of dice though and are happy with the 'norm'.

    As you say, BPII with the GH! supplement appears to give a chance of similar outcomes as these rules, but BPII does have the chance for some extreme outcomes in comparison. However it wouldn't take too much effort to allow units to last a bit longer in BPII if one wanted this. However for most games I play BPII works perfectly well in the mid-week evening games I normally play with my friends, which is what I think they're aimed at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooops, forgot to add that I think it would be good to replay this with BPII and GH! just to compare and contrast.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Steve, I had tte two gun batteries separate, so organisationally each side was with 5 brigades (6 Union) plus two batteries, so there were 7 - 8 ‘organisations’ testing for command and hesitation etc and I think it at this scale that the swings of Black Powder work well and are easily absorbed for the big single session game.

      I think the scenario and game is worth both a replay and a comparison with Black Powder.

      Delete
  2. Not a period I play (yet!), but enjoyed the AAR and your review. I have Dave’s new WWII rules O Group, so I’m pleased to see he has got things working so well in this set, a sign the author is on top of his subject matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for stopping by, I saw that you had O Group and was intrigued at your starting with Victrix 12mm, as your 20mm is so spectacular, but I noted that someone else had done 20mm with O Group on a 6’ x 4’ and they felt that while do-able, it would have been better on a 8’ x 5’, so in that regard a 12mm move is a good direction for those rules.

      I think Dave Brown has a good feel of getting the period / setting into his rules and he has authored ACW (and WWII) before these latest sets.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for another great AAR Norm. I liked many of the mechanisms you described, especially the way they encourage and reward proper battlefield tactics. 4 hours is pretty good for a game of that size - I did wonder about your back as well, seeing the size of this undertaking. Oh yes I wanted to say how lovely the board looked as well. You keep raising the bar for the rest of us damn it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks JB, my only disappointment is that te smaller scales do not photograph in a way that actually represents the splendour that the eye sees, the photo’s always look a bit less than what I am experiencing. I suppose this is why 28mm dominates the magazines / media.

      Next time, I will write my times down so that I can nail a proper playing time. I usually do that.

      Delete
  4. Thanks for posting this, Norm! I really enjoyed it and appreciated your thoughtful analysis of the rules and your game. It made me think back to our 2x refights of this scenario and the rules as well. We experienced many of the dramatic swings in dice rolls and ADC provisioning and I remember things went from bad to worse under fire!

    Anyways I would love to see a refight with various rules and your post has motivated me to pick these up and read them.

    This was a very enjoyable read and it must have taken some work and effort on your part which is not lost on me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steve, there was some work / time spent on it (as indeed you do with your blog), which is why I didn’t leave everything set up and go straight into a Black Powder comparison, but that will no doubt follow in due course.

      Glad that it has you interested in doing a rules read, there is even stuff there to ‘pinch’ and use with some of the other systems that are stable enough to allow such things. In my last post, Stew described the flow of this battle and I felt pretty much that it followed his expectations.

      Delete
  5. A great report Norm and the rules seemed to work well - I like your diminutive Kalistra troops and the accompanying scenery and terrain is also top notch!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Keith, 32 battalions pretty much stripped my boxes bare of the 12mm infantry chaps, but the scale does allow for that sort of presence on a 6’ x 4’.

      I have another pack of the MDF fencing, which I should have made an effort on getting table ready before starting this ..... but excitement levels and enthusiasm were too high :-)

      Delete
  6. A fantastic relight Norm, very enjoyable to read. It was a closely game to the last.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Ray, it was close enough to encourage a re-fight, with some lessons for both sides to apply.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice job, Norm! You provided a good refresher course on how these rules play. I played them two or three times a number of years ago but there were aspects that just didn't seem to work for me. I do recall that the QRS was quite good so could understand playing only from the QRS after a few turns. Perhaps once we return to regular F2F play? I can get my buddy to set up a game.

    I would enjoy seeing you replay this same scenario using your own rules if time and motivation permit.

    Again, your table is superb!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Jonathan, My only reservation is how 28mm on my table size will work out, which is something I would like to do.

    Yes, I think TF-ON will make an appearance on a future re-run..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Norm. saved this post (and the previous post with excellent video) for my Sunday morning read and as usual not disappointed. I do like the language and terminology of the rules, gives a nice ACW feel. The entire layout of terrain and figures are wonderful of course. You are certainly committed to the period, in three scales now! That was a big table too Norm and I did wonder about how your back would hold up! All in all an excellent AAR, thank you for your work in posting it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Lee, thanks for the thumbs up and for making the blog part of your Suday morning ‘quality time’ read.

    I ‘somehow’ ended up here in three scales, with the problem that neither scale gets its full and proper attention and I have other projects in the wings that are crying out for time, but that is something familiar to most gamers.

    Wars of the Roses stuff passes across the painting table this morning with Somerset and Warwick ‘tufted’ but not yet flagged, plus a couple of contingent bases put together, so that rumbles on and each game of that gets a bit bigger as ‘reinforcements’ arrive.

    A 1/72 soviet BT-7 and German 38t await decals and ‘muckying up’, which may happen this afternoon, so really, there is quite an eclectic set of interests going on, plus the projects that are not seeing the brush!

    I think I will flick to some SPQR boadgame battles for a while, using the Simple version of the Great Battles of History rules and perhaps explore the Trebbia (218 BC), a battles that interests and that many years ago, I collected and played in 2mm with the Irregular Miniatures figures.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great AAR Norm. I really enjoyed reading how the assault went. You did a good job capturing the action. Not to mention that the ACW collection looks the business! 😀

    I’m glad you liked PC. I mentioned that I wanted to like to like more than I ended up doing. It’s not that it’s a bad rule set, it’s decent. I just like the way RFF works so much better. I played about 4 games of PC and each one got less enjoyable (but that’s just me). One of the things that started to wear on me was the way brigades can still become hesitant even when all its regiments are fresh. Just shouldn’t happen in my mind. I know you can use the ADC to get the reroll to make it less likely but in RFF fresh units even on a bad roll will be able to act. I had more thoughts on the rules on my ACW rule review post.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks Stew, I popped over to your site for your thoughts on PC and didn’t know about the errata file. I managed to track that down. At first I thought it was a serious problem .... all those pages, but on a read through it looks mostly to be an explanatory document from a designers perspective, with the changes being fairly modest. Many of the points raised, I had just assumed they were the case anyway. It actually looks an interesting document, perhaps a good refresher to the rules when they have not been used for a while and showing design intent.

    Some systems can run foul of repeating every bit of clarification in an official document, even when a clarification was not actually needed, making the original rule set look bust when that is not the case. I remember years ago, seeing the errata that put me off a GMT game. At some point I bought it and it simply wasn’t an issue, some of the the people asking for some of those clarifications could have worked it out for themselves.

    I’m OK with fresh brigades rolling HESITATION, as for me it just represents command friction, lost orders, cautious commanders, tardy units etc and the same sort of principle is used in other rules (Black Powder), but just called by a different name. I wouldn’t mind though if the Hesitation roll had some modifiers that reflected better / worse troops impacting on that roll.

    I had Fire & Fury years ago when the only two games in town were that and Johnny Reb - another example of something that I moved on and shouldn’t. Perhaps I should rectify that and get the regimental set.

    I was quite pleased that the scenario played out in a way that you suggested it should, but would like an opportunity to see how some other rues handle exactly the same situation as I suspect the situation itself provided the result rather than the rules as such.

    I liked your comment of fight by regiment but manoeuvre by brigade, a very useful divider of designation for design / scenario building / rule writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool. I really hope my comments won’t detract from your enjoyment of the game. These are just my observations and don’t mean anything. Maybe I should give it another go? I recently reread sword and spear after reading how you played it with the WoTR.

      Bye; how did you keep track of the 12 casualties? Use a rooster?

      Delete
    2. No problem Stew, Likely, as with all rules, more plays with it will reveal things that I don’t like and only then will I be able to hold a balanced view.

      I’ve never been a fan of rosters, I think the main problem is that with playing a lot of solo, I can’t cope with managing rosters for both sides, so I like something more visual, which have typically been small dice, though I have just bought some of those MDF casualty wheels to try out.

      Delete
  14. A fine blog post Norm, it would be interesting to see the same using Black Powder and wonder if one would get a similar result and enjoyment without the additional faff that Pickett's Charge seems to have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Phil and that is very well put, though perhaps I see that because I know BP so well. The scenario would translate to a BP game very easily and while the exact game might not follow (well it wouldn’t even if I ran it with Pickett’s Charge again), I think BP would give the same range of outcomes and if using the Glory Hallelujah supplement, then we get similar terminology such as ‘whipped’ etc. I will run it with BP.

      Delete
    2. I shall look forward to that immensely, I did start an ACW collection but with Dave having such a vast collection it seemed a bit daft to duplicate things, even so the GH supplement is so good I did buy that, the best BP supplement by far IMHO.

      Delete
    3. Phil, a tight call between Glory Hallelujah and Rebellion (for AWI). Good job there is so much goodness :-)

      Delete
    4. Indeed a mighty fine tome from Mr. Jones, I have that too🙂

      Delete
  15. Interesting and thoughtful post,it seems to capture the period feel, looking forward to a rematch with blackpowder, the Napoleonic version of Picketts Charge sounds intriguing !
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks Iain, I sat down last night with the napoleonic version and it is different enough ..... to be different, though many of the mechanisms are present and recognisable. There are some Lardy videos on both systems, with the napoleonic on being particularly helpful and detailed - done over 4 videos if I remember rightly.

    ReplyDelete

FOR THE TIME BEING THE COMMENT SECTION HAS BEEN TURNED OFF, BUT THANK YOU FOR VISITING.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.