Lomgstreet campaign games

[mellis1644]

Hi,

Just thought I'd share my blog post iof the start (games 1 and 2) of a new Longstreet campaign we are doing. All the figs are my 10mm Pendraken models - which have posts around them as well. I must admit I really like Longstreet for good ACW games and the campaign system is one of the best I have ever used for a simple but effective set of games.

Game 1:
https://mellis1644.wordpress.com/2024/04/21/longstreet-campaign-game-1-in-1861/

Game 2:
https://mellis1644.wordpress.com/2024/05/01/longstreet-game-2-battle-of-hicks-farm-1862/

[Deedles]

Looks interesting - a rule set I should pick up

[mellis1644]

Yeah it's my favorite ACW rule set. It is brigade/divisional level so you could say the table top will often really be part of a much larger battle. It uses cards but those are for bonuses and saving hits etc. It's not intrusive and yet adds a lot of flavour and random minor events/bonuses which the player has to manage.

The campaign does not allow you to change history but follows your brigade/division through the war as it develops and changes. Units start in the early war period eager to attack and unskilled. Over time they can become veterans etc. but also become less willing to get up close and personal with the opposition. Some units will never make it through the war though due to battle losses and some will be decimated by camp fever etc. You get replacements along the way as well so battles are somewhat even - but are not perfectly balanced or 'level on points'.

The campaign is also much more about 'having a good war' as a divisional commander vs just winning battles. It's how you come out after the war - your reputation, fame and glory gained as a commander. Yes winning battles helps, but as a divisional commander at the time that was more about how you and your troops did in the fighting vs. just winning. After all the confederates are going to loose the war.

In most cases commanders were rarely punished for even extremely high losses of troops. So losses are not an issue for you as a commander in the campaign - other than how it affects the game on the table and the types of units available for the next game. It also does sometimes mean you may do moves which are not always the best tactically as a player focused to just win a game. However, these are more likely to model the mindset of the actual commanders of the time better. So cold steel of a large bayonet charge is much better for you than say hiding in cover and from there steadily shooting the opponent to bits. Equally being able to fight off such an attack gets you a good reputation as well. The ACW was a transition period of opinions, tactics and combat capabilities, which IMO it does a decent job of reflecting.

[Deedles]

Yeah it's my favorite ACW rule set. It is brigade/divisional level so you could say the table top will often really be part of a much larger battle. It uses cards but those are for bonuses and saving hits etc. It's not intrusive and yet adds a lot of flavour and random minor events/bonuses which the player has to manage.

The campaign does not allow you to change history but follows your brigade/division through the war as it develops and changes. Units start in the early war period eager to attack and unskilled. Over time they can become veterans etc. but also become less willing to get up close and personal with the opposition. Some units will never make it through the war though due to battle losses and some will be decimated by camp fever etc. You get replacements along the way as well so battles are somewhat even - but are not perfectly balanced or 'level on points'.

The campaign is also much more about 'having a good war' as a divisional commander vs just winning battles. It's how you come out after the war - your reputation, fame and glory gained as a commander. Yes winning battles helps, but as a divisional commander at the time that was more about how you and your troops did in the fighting vs. just winning. After all the confederates are going to loose the war.

In most cases commanders were rarely punished for even extremely high losses of troops. So losses are not an issue for you as a commander in the campaign - other than how it affects the game on the table and the types of units available for the next game. It also does sometimes mean you may do moves which are not always the best tactically as a player focused to just win a game. However, these are more likely to model the mindset of the actual commanders of the time better. So cold steel of a large bayonet charge is much better for you than say hiding in cover and from there steadily shooting the opponent to bits. Equally being able to fight off such an attack gets you a good reputation as well. The ACW was a transition period of opinions, tactics and combat capabilities, which IMO it does a decent job of reflecting.

Thanks - useful synopsis