Another ACW query

[Leman]

Again, To the Strongest seems to be a unit game where the unit is roughly equivalent to a battalion, or ACW regiment. Consequently the unit is likely to be using its ammo at roughly the same rate from one end of the unit to the other. This would be a similar situation to F&F Regimental rules, but I don't think the same can be said of F&F Brigade rules, Altar of Freedom or BBB. One of the "problems" I have come across with many wargamers is their difficulty in viewing any level of game other than at battalion level, and insisting on rules being included which are just not relevant at the higher level, and anyway slow down and diminish the enjoyment of the game at divisional or corps level. An example being one player who could not understand why there wasn't a rule for turning a chariot model 90 degrees to launch javelins, then 90 degrees again to move away. when it was gently explained that the model represented a number of chariots and that manoeuvre was abstracted into the rules his response was that this was unrealistic and made no sense.......... ah well.  

[toxicpixie]

Of course that leads onto the question of dice and random factors... depending on scale/level of game, perhaps your shoddy dice rolls that turn represent the troops running low on ammo - not "how did I miss at that range!" or similar. How deep a simulation do you want, and what do you deem important enough to disrupt the normal game function over, and what can effectively be rolled into the random factors?

[Leman]

I suppose I have horrific memories of the ultra-realism of a set of ACW rules produced in the early 70s by a London group. They were definitely designed to make your brain implode. Has anyone ever tried Johnny Reb 1 or 2, e.g. does the unit actually have bayonets? Did sergeant Jedediah Hobson remember to re-do his flies after taking a leak? Did Captain Merryweather get his Weetabix for breakfast? 

[toxicpixie]

100% agreement from me, Leman! Keep it simple, keep it generating the right overall result, don't bog down in minutely exact subsystems that take ages and produce duff results (if they even manage to produce any result at all!).

[d_Guy]

I suppose I have horrific memories of the ultra-realism of a set of ACW rules produced in the early 70s by a London group. They were definitely designed to make your brain implode. Has anyone ever tried Johnny Reb 1 or 2, e.g. does the unit actually have bayonets? Did sergeant Jedediah Hobson remember to re-do his flies after taking a leak? Did Captain Merryweather get his Weetabix for breakfast? 

I will confess that the ridiculous detail of the rules that covered EVERYTHING in the late 1970's and early 80's was one factor in my long wargaming hiatus (I had not the time for that level of detail and much of the joy was sucked out of the thing). I game at the battalion level and below, but even there too much detail can occur. It's just figuring out what is historically important (and even then a good deal of editing is required).

How deep a simulation do you want, and what do you deem important enough to disrupt the normal game function over, and what can effectively be rolled into the random factors?

Yup.
Is it a fair statement to say that logistics (at any level) really only  becomes important in campaign games?

[toxicpixie]

As a separate function, as opposed to rolling it into the game rules on other actions? Ehhhhh, mebbe. Rules limiting road movement, or artillery fire missions, or how many LAW's a squad has might all be needed from skirmish up, but it depends on what you want I guess? Which is the hard part

What can you "roll in" so it doesn't detract focus, and when do you want to MAKE IT the focus?

I'm not sure "normal" wargame players want to be playing "Logistics Commander" but all the tactical acumen in the world is wasted if you don't have the guns or the ammo or the communications or hot meal and boots etc etc.

[fsn]

Hmmm. My thought (for what it's worth) is that it depends on the level you're fighting.

I would postulate that if you're fighting a skirmish game, you would have each character fire no more than 5-6 shots anyway. the fun bit would be limiting ammo.

At company/bttn level, you're probably going to be aping a firefight which is of relatively short duration, and if one assumes that troops go into combat with full ammo pouches, then in a brisk firefight they're not going to run dry.

At brig/div level, you're likley emulating an action of several hours. This is when one would consider ammunition supply. Then again, at that sort of level, troop fatigue, supply, and communications eficiency become most important. 

"The tactics...no, amateurs discuss tactics,.... Professional soldiers study logistics." – Tom Clancy

[d_Guy]

Pixie, I had separate function in mind. I haven't looked but does  "Logistics Commander" actual exist and, if so, how many copies has it sold?  I might actually buy it! 

A further confession - sometimes, after I have had all the joy of setting everything up, all the terrain done, all the figures in place, I have an impulse toward the ultimate abstraction: Roll a 1d6, odd, side A wins, even, side B.  In my solo (and very much peripheral world) this would almost be acceptable. In the real gaming world it would become, best 2 out of 3 ...with suitable modifies. The entire battle could be the one fought over modifiers.   

I liked the Tom Clancy quote, fsn. It occurs to me that many of us might in actuality be much more adept at logistics than to  leading troops in the field (and here I mean no disrespect, particularly to those here who have actually done the latter).

[Ithoriel]

The older I get, the more inclined I am to let die rolls cover the vagaries of chance and the inevitable quirks of military endeavour. Tracking the number of arrows fired, panzefausts issued, bowls of breakfast porridge consumed is best left to computer games IMHO.

I shudder at the memory of the board game "Campaign for North Africa", which tracked things in such detail that Italian troops needed to be supplied with more water than British ones because pasta requires more water to make than bread!!

KISS

[toxicpixie]

The tactics/logistics quite is Napoleon originally, isnt it?

Although it's technically at least as old as Sun-Tzu - "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war."

Actually a well thought out logistics game would probably be rocking. Maybe too board game-y for minis on the table top but well good fun.

[holdfast]

At a session on the Eastern Front in Carlisle Pennsylvania, run by the incomparable  David Glantz in 1985, I think, the German Eastern Front Veteran dragged in for the occasion said that as a brigade commander he put his best officer in charge of logistics because without that everything else fell apart.
So there.

[toxicpixie]

Sensible chap. Must have borne fruit, if he was alive and well and in the 'States forty years later.

[Dr Dave]

@ Dr. Dave - when you wrote about "one aimed round per minute", was this artillary? That seems a tad low even for a rifled musket but not my period.

Small arms fire.

I think it's in Griffith's "Rally once again" where he cites several cases of units expending x rounds in N minutes and the reposts are surprisingly low. There's a cavalry unit (dismounted) on the skirmish line for several hours and (iirc)'they fired 18 rounds per man.

The key thing to bear in mind as well is whilst it may be a nice to have, how will you represent it in the game - what is the game impact, slight or huge? Will it be irksome paperwork to keep track of. What happens if the "low" unit  moves over the old position of a routed enemy. Can the pick any useful rounds - are they using the same guns? It's all relevant, but more a low level better suited to a skirmish game I think.

Careful the tail doesn't wag the dog.

[Orcs]

The original Fire and Fury rules had a system that if you threw an unmodified  10 on firing (which was the best you could do) you became low on ammo. You then had to retire out of musket range to replenish, or fire at half effect

I have found this works well no book keeping, just a marker on the units that run low.   It sometimes had an effect on the battles and sometimes not. 

[d_Guy]

@ Dr. Dave. Thanks for that data. I have seen a good deal on flintlock smoothbore parade ground firing which was around three round per minute (of course the data also suggests that the hit rate at effective range was rather low).

Agree with probably not trying to do a round by round accounting (that would be truly gastly).  Except in very small skirmish games the time intervals in a game represent some indeterminate amount of shooting so a good deal of abstraction in ammunition supply needs to be done.

Incidently in the ECW period standard calibers were only starting to come into practice. In the worst case scenario each man had to cast his own shot. IIRC in the ~1750 - 1820 period the French used .69 caliber Charleville's and the British .75 caliber Tower's. British could fire French loads but not the reverse (of course the powder and flit would be interchangable). My point is a whole new layer of complication is added that only a chartered accountant would probably want to keep track of 
So yes, the tail could easily wag the dog.

@ Orcs   I like those types of implementations as well. One Hour Wargames Musket and Pike does not allow a M&P unit to initiate close combat until they are out of ammo. Each time a unit fires it has a 1/3 chance of running out. There is no way to replenish. It is a very simple and playable adaptation.