Using Napoleonc rules for ACW

Started by Last Hussar, 01 January 2021, 01:53:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Last Hussar

Because, fundementally what are the difference?

If it comes down to 2 lines of bloke in lines firing muskets why not? Actual engagement ranges were broadly similar.
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

GNU PTerry

Steve J

The big difference I can think of is how cavalry were used, which is markedly different. In the ACW they were essentially mounted infantry with some 'classic' clashes, but few and far between.

steve_holmes_11

Much depends on the levels of detail you desire.

ACW isn't noted for use of battalion attack columns or squares.
ACW troops possess better firearms - whether they and their commanders are capable of exploiting that quality is debatable. (1)
I get the impression that ACW artillery is handier and altogether more modern.

At a large enough level of representation, these things may not matter much.


(1) Contrast Austerlitz and Picketts Charge - by the 1860s it's unwise to hurl numbers uphill against enemy foot and guns.

T13A

Hi

I'd add that a lot more of the fighting took place on rough ground, particularly woods, which of course had an effect on weapon ranges and the use of cavalry. Also more of a tendency for the men to think for themselves and during firefights to take what cover was available, fire from prone position etc. Not something that tended to happen so much during the Napoleonic period.

Cheers Paul
T13A Out!

Norm

Certainly they can share the same game engine, but each would be improved with a couple of pages of dedicated rules to better reflect tactics, weapon science and national characteristics.

fred.

Quote from: Norm on 01 January 2021, 03:45:18 PM
Certainly they can share the same game engine, but each would be improved with a couple of pages of dedicated rules to better reflect tactics, weapon science and national characteristics.

See Black Powder....
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

Fred rember there is an ACW supplement for BP (title escapes me atm)
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

fred.

Quote from: ianrs54 on 01 January 2021, 04:07:53 PM
Fred rember there is an ACW supplement for BP (title escapes me atm)

Of course, like there are ones for ECW and Naps etc.

And as Norm says they have a few pages of extra bits for the period.
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Last Hussar

I have BP, and I thought that would be thrown into the mix.

Nothing mentioned is really RULES specific though, is it?
Rough Ground - so that is scenario terrain.
No Cavalry -  That's the OOB.
They take more cover/looser formation - but both armies were the same. It makes no real difference.

I suggest there is more difference between 'Prussian' and 'French' style armies in 1805, than the armies of 1814 and 1862.
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

GNU PTerry

flamingpig0

Quote from: Last Hussar on 01 January 2021, 09:01:09 PM
I have BP, and I thought that would be thrown into the mix.

Nothing mentioned is really RULES specific though, is it?
Rough Ground - so that is scenario terrain.
No Cavalry -  That's the OOB.
They take more cover/looser formation - but both armies were the same. It makes no real difference.

I suggest there is more difference between 'Prussian' and 'French' style armies in 1805, than the armies of 1814 and 1862.

I am not  really convinced  because the ACW featured rifled artillery , breech loading and even repeating weapons and arguably  American  society lead to a different troop  mentality .

As a side point Donald Featherstone et al used to play ACW as 'horse and musket' possibly because they could easily get hold of  ACW  Airfix figures. So you could just say you are re-enacting a 60s wargame- very post -modernist! 
"I like coffee exceedingly..."
 H.P. Lovecraft

"We don't want your stupid tanks!" 
Salah Askar,

My six degrees of separation includes Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and Wendy James

sultanbev

For years we have used a converted Fire & Fury rules set to work for Napoleonics and colonial, at the same time bringing it down to 1:20 level in 15mm, 1:10 in 10mm and even 1:30 in 28mm so you can field proper sized battalions.

These are some considerations I'd have thought would be important when using Napoleonics rules for ACW:
ACW battalions were small compared to Napoleonic ones, and the regiment appears to be the basic unit of manouevre, whereas most people consider the battalion the basic unit of manouevre for Napoleonics.
ACW infantry did operate slightly looser formation, due to lack of drilling compared to Europeans and the poorer terrain. I think they can all skirmish (in effect) so are effectively dual purpose infantry.
ACW infantry tended to use muzzle loading rifles just like everyone else used muskets, so in that sense the same rules will work for both. You'll just need to add rules for the few units with repeaters. Perhaps simply allow them to fire twice or double firepoints, depending on your rules.
ACW 12pdrs are lighter and more manouevreable than Napoleonic 12pdrs, and probably akin to horse artillery with heavy guns in Napoleonic terms, hence your rules might fall down there. The of course you have rifled artillery (some of which were really big compared to Napoleonic artillery) and machine guns to deal with.
ACW cavalry are more mounted infantry than shock combat cavalry, so you'd probably class them all as cossacks but with better short range firepower.
ACW trenches, earthworks and field fortifications were far more common in field battles, but existing Napoleonic rules should be able to cope with that.

Nothing insurmountable I wouldn't have thought.
But in terms of command and control any Napoleonic set would work fine.

Mark

Orcs

Quote from: Last Hussar on 01 January 2021, 01:53:09 PM
Because, fundementally what are the difference?

If it comes down to 2 lines of bloke in lines firing muskets why not? Actual engagement ranges were broadly similar.

I have to ask this - Why?

There are numerous period specific rules available for ACW games. Find one with the mechanism you like and tweak the bits you don't .  To take a completely different period specific rule set and tweak it  is making work for yourself. Each tweak you make will have a knock on effect to other parts of the rules

You are familiar with Black Powder and like them so just get the Glory Hallelujah addition and use that.
The cynics are right nine times out of ten. -Mencken, H. L.

Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well. - Robert Louis Stevenson

steve_holmes_11

Consider that we are each looking to create the wargame experience that we want.

I agree that changes were small enough to port a Napoleonic Core to the ACW.
I'd also suggest that the ACW requires less variety of troops and organisations - so you'll mainly be ignoring sections of the Maps rules (as opposed to authoring extra bits for innovative stuff).

Find and equivalent and see how it flies.

Berdan's sharpshooters - try using te 95th rifles ratings.
Mounted raiders - see how Cossack ratings work out.
It's then the gamer's job to play a few small games, see what works and adjust if necessary.


I've read a lot more on Naps than ACW, but my impression of the differences for ACW are.
1. Almost everybody carries a rifle, but doctrine and conditions prevent them exploiting the additional range to the full.
2. Some of the fancy infantry formations from Napoleonics are obsolete.
3. Artillery has improved and ought to be more deadly, but as with small arms, doctrine and practice prevents the full potential being used.
4. Very little cavalry, but late on some of them have very effective repeating carbines.
5. Mostly volunteers - difficult to model, but this ought to have some impact on morale issues.
    I'm amazed by the courage shown by ACW infantry, with some units remaining effective when seriously depleted.
    Combine that with a wobbliness, that some might hesitate or fall back at first contact, ut often re-form and fight like lions later in the day.
    My impression of the pressed men of the Continental Napoleonic armies is that they mostly fought reliably, reached a point where their unit was spent, and then withdrew (some earlier and quicker than others).


Last Hussar

Quote from: Orcs on 01 January 2021, 11:50:17 PM
I have to ask this - Why?

There are numerous period specific rules available for ACW games. Find one with the mechanism you like and tweak the bits you don't .  To take a completely different period specific rule set and tweak it  is making work for yourself. Each tweak you make will have a knock on effect to other parts of the rules

You are familiar with Black Powder and like them so just get the Glory Hallelujah addition and use that.

I have other rules. Fields of Glory is the next level up from BP - you are a corps commander, and the sub commanders are divisional.  Blucher you are the Army commander, ordering corps. With Blucher it plays completely differently to BP - its not just saying that unit is a Brigade not a battalion. Because Sam Mustapha has gone for 'open' points system to allow you to work out costs of your own units, you can easily say "Ok, Gamble's cavalry actually count as Infanty, that is 'Mobile' [can move and fire], and has 'Skirmish' [skirmish fire more likely to hit], 'Mixed' '[affects enemy skirmishers] and has Elan [combat strength] of 7  [one more than 'standard'].
I have neither the time or the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

GNU PTerry

John Cook

Thousands of pages have been devoted to the subject of tactical warfare.  In very simple terms, tactics have always been the relative application of fire, manoeuvre, security, and shock.  They really haven't changed much in centuries. 
Even today military doctrine contains all these elements – look at the British army's manual on Land Operations on-line and you'll see all of them described one way or another. 
What changes is the relationship of these tactical elements one to another which is often dictated by the effectiveness of available weapons. 
Musketry in the ACW was more effective with the advent of rifled percussion muskets.  This meant that ranges and rates of fire increased.  Infantry now outranged artillery, which was still dominated by smoothbore guns, and the percussion system was much more efficient than the flintlock.  This, I think, is the principal reason why Napoleonic rules won't reflect the ACW very well.
All this made the offensive tactics of the Napoleonic period less effective, shock was even less successful than before and, as a result, security (the physical kind) became more important, seen by the increase in the use entrenchments and cover during the ACW.
Manoeuvre was, more or less, unchanged.  Men and horses still moved only as fast as their legs could carry them, ACW drills would have been recognisable to any Napoleonic soldier and the objects of manoeuvre, at every level of warfare, remained as they always have.