I have one regular gaming buddy and we recently decided to get into ACW (having mainly been fantasy players).
I argued for 6mm (bigger battles etc. etc.) but he won the day and insisted on 10mm (I really didn't take too much convincing).
So:
I need two starter armies which could represent your "average" ACW battle (we aren't "history" boys who research every tiny detail).
If I had £50 for each army (and I do, get the burners ready Leon ;) ), what should I buy for each force?
Thanks guys :)
Lots of infantry. Depending on rules/basing/Orbat will affect the ratio of guns, but starting with 9 bags of infantry (£40.50 - 270 men- inc 1-2 bags of command) some officers, with the rest in cannon, would be a good base. Exact amount of command needed again varies with rules, but you can leave cavalry till later if you want- you need a good strong core of infantry.
Edit after thinking during making tea.
Inch base (F&F/TCHAE) - 6-7ish per base. About 40 bases. That will do a TCHAE scenario (regiments), but is small for F&F (brigades)
Quote from: Last Hussar on 29 March 2015, 08:14:27 PM
Lots of infantry. Depending on rules/basing/Orbat will affect the ratio of guns, but starting with 9 bags of infantry (£40.50 - 270 men- inc 1-2 bags of command) some officers, with the rest in cannon, would be a good base. Exact amount of command needed again varies with rules, but you can leave cavalry till later if you want- you need a good strong core of infantry.
What he said
Thanks guys, how many cannon would I need for 270 infantry?
Depends on rules and/or scenario Gareth
At £50 an army it would be worth starting with an Army Pack of each (£28) which will give 120 x mixed foot, 30 x command, 15 x cavalry and 3 guns with crew (7 packs that would normally cost you £31.50), then bulk out with another 4 packs of infantry (£18) and one of command (£2.30) plus a mounted staff Officers pack (£1.50) and a General (£0.70), this would bring the total to £50.50
Just my 2 pennyworth (but please note people normally ask me for change from that. :( )
In theory a Union battery consisted of 6 guns arranged as 3 sections each of two guns. 5 batteries formed a Union artillery brigade which would be attached to a corps. The Army of the Potomac, as an example, also had 5 artillery brigades as an army artillery reserve.
Confederate batteries were usually of 4 guns and brigades only had 4 batteries.
Confederate forces had fewer guns, of smaller calibre, than their Union equivalents by and large.
As much as 50% of Confederate artillery pieces may be captured Union guns.
It was said that an army of Union artillery and Confederate infantry would be a force no one could stand against!
Also, I agree with Fig.ht.
As others have said, the army packs are a good start or each force!
I decided to make my forces 'mirrored' so i have a good equal choice of troops for each side.
HAve you already decide wich rules you will be using? I have spent about the same amount on my armies, and i use warmaster basing for them (40x20, 3 bases to a unit).
Rules: undecided although Peter Pig are a front runner.
Aren't the army packs the "old " range?
Union Army - New Range (http://www.pendraken.co.uk/Union-Army-Pack-p6527/)
Confederate Army - New Range (http://www.pendraken.co.uk/Confederate-Army-Pack-p6528/)
An example of the army packs:
This is about half an army pack, when the pack is completed, i will have double the amount of infantry bases, 2 more bases of cavalry, and another cannon. only thing bought separately are the bases, the flags and the mounted officer on the hq stand and a pack of casualties to add on the bases where i want.
This is with 8 models per base. You could get more bases with 6 on a smaller base, but my original plan was to do ACWarmaster, so i got 8 on 40x20. I changed rules but kept the basing.
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff441/petercooman123/DSC03119_zps1823c356.jpg) (http://s1236.photobucket.com/user/petercooman123/media/DSC03119_zps1823c356.jpg.html)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 29 March 2015, 08:39:06 PM
Confederate batteries were usually of 4 guns and brigades only had 4 batteries.
Just to clarify. Do you mean
artillery brigades, Ithoriel? I'm thinking off-hand it would be 4 batteries (16 guns) per Infantry
Division?Anyhoo, Grip. Somewhat belatedly, my take is as follows (new posts keep arriving while I type!). Basically, you need infantry and artillery. Forget cavalry initially (not a major contributor in most big ACW battles) and add them later. More smooth bore artillery than rifled pieces for the Rebs - Union about 50/50 guys? Yes, Union had loads of artillery but did not use it all at once and, as stated above, kept batteries in reserve (either committing later in the battle or rotating with units in action - I think). So no need to have too much more model guns than Rebs for wargaming purposes. For rules, although I have war specific rules (Fire & Fury and They Couldn't Hit An Elephant) but tend to use the wider era rules, Black Powder and Field of Battle. Sorry, Grip, I've got 15mm minis for ACW (based for F&F). I have 1 inch square bases for my 10mm SYW (Foot figs arranged 4 x 2) so would guess same size would accommodate 6 Pendraken ACW minis easily.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 29 March 2015, 09:58:05 PM
Just to clarify. Do you mean artillery brigades, Ithoriel? I'm thinking off-hand it would be 4 batteries (16 guns) per Infantry Division?
Yes, so a Union brigade has 30 guns per artillery brigade to the CSAs 16 guns per artillery brigade.
CSA forces were often outgunned in artillery but tended to have better infantry because of the way they handled reinforcements. The Union formed new units and let old ones dwindle while the CSA beefed up existing units so new recruits learned from the vets - good habits and bad no doubt!
Rock, paper, shotgun :)
Okay, so in my head I thought someone would say: buy this, this and this.
How naive was that? ;D
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 11:35:22 PM
Okay, so in my head I thought someone would say: buy this, this and this.
How naive was that? ;D
Well:
Union1 x Union Army Pack (New)
1 x ACW13 Union Foot Command
1 x ACW36 Mounted Staff Officers (5 figures)
1 x Mounted General (of choice)
Any 4 packs from
ACW1, ACW2, ACW3, ACW4, ACW5, ACW6
Confederate1 x Confederate Army Pack (New)
1 x ACW15 Confederate Foot Command
1 x ACW36 Mounted Staff Officers (5 figures)
1 x Mounted General (of choice)
Any 4 packs from
ACW7, ACW8, ACW9, ACW10, ACW11, ACW12
These will give an infantry heavy force with artillery and a small cavalry unit along with all command options including a General.
Unlike some posters I think having the cavalry actually makes sense, these can be used as scouts, fast flanking manouveres, and of course can attack the guns with speed, but as said previously this is just my opinion, so probably not worth mush.
Choose the extra infantry packs from how you wish to display your forces, some packs are marching, some advancing, some firing. The pictures can be found here: http://pendraken.co.uk/19th-Century-c15/NEW-American-Civil-War-NEW-sc281/
Hope this helps.
Cheers Fight ;)
Which artillery is the Union "standard" so to speak?
Update :
Made my first historical PD purchase and will soon be the proud owner of a Union army :D
The 12lb "Napoleon" was the most widely used smoothbore and the 3" Ordnance the most widely used rifled field piece. This applies to both sides. Union would tend to have more of the latter, CSA more of the former.
The Napoleons were largely bronze guns, the 3"-ers iron.
Quote from: getagrip on 29 March 2015, 11:35:22 PM
Okay, so in my head I thought someone would say: buy this, this and this.
How naive was that? ;D
That bit when I said 'lots of infantry' :P
I've got the Peter Pig ACW rules - enjoyed them but haven't played them in years - its that thing you end up playing a set of rules, and going back to a different set is hassle.
The PP ones are unit = Brigade. I've got some army lists I worked up when I was playing the game, and I'd say you need 50-60 bases of infantry, and about 4-6 artillery bases (1 base = battery).
Artillery is the biggest kludge of Horse and Musket games - people tend to use 1 base = 1 battery, but that doesn't really represent the frontage of a battery, which could be up to 60 yards wide. Or a lot narrower, depending on situation. You have 30-40 men with guns taking up the same frontage as 200-300 double ranked infantry. This is why you haven't got a clear answer on 'how many guns': it depends on your rules.
My personal recommendation for basing infantry would be 30mm square. PP ACW is 30mm, F&F is 1 1/8th inches (by 7/8ths - nope, no idea why Americans feel the need to do that) which is 29mm ish frontage, TFL 'Elephant' rules are inch squares (so 30mm isn't too bad). Black Powder, if played reading CM for inches gives a regiment as 10-12cm- 3-4 bases, or played straight as per the book is 24cm-27cm - 8 bases. I find 30mm the most flexible for multiple rules, plus the trays for Really Useful Boxes have 60mm compartments!
How many on a base is very much personal choice and interpretation of period: were they a little looser than Napoleonics, as some suggest because of rifled muskets, or were they elbow to elbow? I'd say close order - that puts a frontage of 4 men, with 2-4 behind in a second rank (or even fallen back reloading etc in a 4-2-1 type of thing). Also miniatures are on your side here. If someone says your units are too tight order, invite them to do the maths based on figure scale. "10mm" is approximately 150-160th, depending where on the figure you measure to. That makes a 30mm base about 4m50 to 4m80 across - about 15 feet, a little under 4 foot a man (assume spacing continues across bases) - That is basically people standing in 'T-pose' with fingertips touching!
Your unit 'command' stands you can make a little looser so you can see the figures. (Purists/re-enactors will say no drummers at the front, and no unfurled flags- flags in the wind are tricky. To them I say Bugger Off - I want pretty).
So - about 4 bases per bag: you'll end up with a spare base per 9-11 budgeted for. Artillery- depends on rules, we can't be more helpful than that I'm afraid. Cavalry, oh if you really must, but make sure you have enough infantry first ('Enough infantry' for ACW is always 20 quids worth more than you have. 'What do you want for your ACW army' varies, 'What do you need' is always more infantry. Have I mentioned you need a good strong core of infantry? One last point - you should probably buy more infantry.)
Just a quick note,if you would like double standard bearers in your units, don't forget to order extra command! I kept mine generic with only the union flag, but many like to have both.
I just don't like going too specific, so everything can represent anything, if you know what i mean ;)
Quote from: getagrip on 30 March 2015, 12:11:15 AM
Update :
Made my first historical PD purchase and will soon be the proud owner of a Union army :D
Well done that man =D> =D> =D>
For a 'quick' start, I would go for just infantry and artillery and some commanders. Pendraken also do the flags for both sides.
Longer term, if you do add a unit of cavalry, also adding a matching unit of dismounted cavalry is visually helpful.
My unit frontages are infantry on 40mm bases - 2 deep, using two bases with Kallistra hexes or 3 bases in a non-hexed game. The artillery is based on a 30m frontage and I use units of two bases.
Edit - you will also likely need to be thinking of expanding your terrain collection, particularly trees and fencing.
Quote from: getagrip on 30 March 2015, 12:11:15 AM
Update :
Made my first historical PD purchase and will soon be the proud owner of a Union army :D
You serious? With that many posts? What you been doing Grips!
Seriously, well done.
If I can recommend Coat d'Arms Deadly Nightshade for your dark blue. ;)
Wow, overwhelmed by the responees, a real help guys :)
As to paint, I have the entire Vallejo range so would prefer to use them. Any suggestions for a Vallejo blue Will?
Erm... No
965 Prussian Blue with a highlight of 930 Dark Blue?
Quote from: mad lemmey on 30 March 2015, 08:26:44 AM
Erm... No
965 Prussian Blue with a highlight of 930 Dark Blue?
Thanks ;)
Anyone know what the ratio of Zouaves was to regular troops in "general" sense?
Also, did both sides use them?
Finally, was there role mainly skirmish?
Cheers :)
[until someone more knowledgeable steps in]
No, but I read that the Union had about 70 regts. and the Rebs, 25.
Yes, but the Rebel regts. soon lost their distinctive uniforms as equipment shortages started to bite.
No. Treat as normal infantry regt.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/warfare-and-logistics/warfare/regiment.html (http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/warfare-and-logistics/warfare/regiment.html)
P.S. After you've painted your first Zouave regt., you'll probably know how many more you need to paint. :)
Thanks West; they do look a bit of a pain to paint. :)
Yup
Quote from: mad lemmey on 30 March 2015, 01:12:42 PM
Yup
Maybe just the one unit of them then. ;)
Leon, LEEEEEON! Can I change my order please? :D
I wouldn't have included Zouaves to start with, although I guess they add variety with their appearance to the battlefield. I guess they also act to draw the attention of an inexperienced opponent, so perhaps use them as cannon fodder to draw your opponents attention away from your clever and devilish plan to make your main attack with other units elsewhere. :d
A bit like the scythed chariots in Successor armies.
Quote from: getagrip on 30 March 2015, 07:57:27 AM
Wow, overwhelmed by the responees, a real help guys :)
As to paint, I have the entire Vallejo range so would prefer to use them. Any suggestions for a Vallejo blue Will?
I paint my ACW Union using Oxford Blue. I really like it for these, and both the French and Prussians in FPW. I find it a much more satisfying rendition of dark blue in 10mm than Dark Prussian Blue.
Quote from: Leman on 30 March 2015, 03:20:36 PM
I paint my ACW Union using Oxford Blue. I really like it for these, and both the French and Prussians in FPW. I find it a much more satisfying rendition of dark blue in 10mm than Dark Prussian Blue.
Thanks Leman. Was there a "set" Union blue or was it really just any dark blue they had?
Having read a lot on this topic, the consensus seems to be that government contracts were given to various contractors, all of whom used their own version of dark blue dye, which inevitably faded after a couple of months of campaigning. Paul Stevenson, in his useful little book on wargaming the ACW, states that he uses five different shades of dark blue and three different shades of light blue to paint his Union troops. I have used both Vallejo Pastel Blue and Pale Blue for Union trousers. From looking at re-enactors' trousers I think you could also get away with a light bluish grey. And don't get me started on Confederate grey!
Quote from: Leman on 30 March 2015, 03:36:05 PM
Having read a lot on this topic, the consensus seems to be that government contracts were given to various contractors, all of whom used their own version of dark blue dye, which inevitably faded after a couple of months of campaigning. Paul Stevenson, in his useful little book on wargaming the ACW, states that he uses five different shades of dark blue and three different shades of light blue to paint his Union troops. I have used both Vallejo Pastel Blue and Pale Blue for Union trousers. From looking at re-enactors' trousers I think you could also get away with a light bluish grey. And don't get me started on Confederate grey!
That's pretty much what I expected; there's no way all of the troops would be in a single shade of blue across several thousand troops. ;)
Isn't it a case that early on in the war there were some Confederate troops in blue and conversely some Union troops dressed in grey?
Quote from: Fig.ht on 30 March 2015, 03:39:59 PM
Isn't it a case that early on in the war there were some Confederate troops in blue and conversely some Union troops dressed in grey?
Oh dear Lord, don't make it any harder for me that it already is! :D
Quote from: Fig.ht on 30 March 2015, 03:39:59 PM
Isn't it a case that early on in the war there were some Confederate troops in blue and conversely some Union troops dressed in grey?
Yes, but I'd have waited until getagrip had a firm handle on the basics before throwing him that curve ball :D
Yes indeed. These were all militia units wearing their pre-war uniforms, which soon wore out. At the start of the Valley Campaign some of Jacksons troops were still wearing worn blue uniforms, but these were quite quickly replaced with official grey uniforms, or grey or brown homespun. The line I was fed back in the 60s was that as the war progressed Confederate uniforms became more ragged and more brown. Apparently this is now considered to be tosh, and in fact the Confederates became more uniform and more grey (and in some cases dark blue-grey) as the war progressed.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 March 2015, 03:42:30 PM
Yes, but I'd have waited until getagrip had a firm handle on the basics before throwing him that curve ball :D
Thanks Ith; the move from fantasy to real is quite a headache. Up to now I've been able to slap on the colours I wanted to; no-one can argue how it
should look (even orcs which can be both green and a brownie colour).
Historical stuff, massively different. :)
Getagrip - The thing is that unless you arre trying to create a museum display the thing is to be able to identify your and your opponents forces on the table top. :)
Of course it also means that going with 'near right' will undoubtedly be as right as going by any book (which all differ in opinion anyway). ;)
I would suggest keep to 'blues' for Union and keep to greys for Confederate as a rule of thumb and you will not go far wrong. :)
Another tip, which can apply to most wargames periods, is to concentrate on the troops from a particular campaign if you want to get two armies on the table fairly quickly that look 'right'. This is particularly the case with ACW - I hate seeing havelock wearing troops in an 1864 battle, or Western theatre flags in an eastern battle and vice versa. I am currently producing some command stands for the Atlanta campaign, where incidentally a very high proportion of Union troops wore the slouch hat.
This:
Quote from: Fig.ht on 30 March 2015, 03:55:03 PM
Getagrip - The thing is that unless you arre trying to create a museum display the thing is to be able to identify your and your opponents forces on the table top. :)
Rather than:
Quote from: Leman on 30 March 2015, 04:03:02 PM
This is particularly the case with ACW - I hate seeing havelock wearing troops in an 1864 battle, or Western theatre flags in an eastern battle and vice versa.
At least when you are starting out.
You can get all anal about whether the buttons were brass or steel or if these particular flags were issued on the Friday before the battle or the Tuesday after it if and when you are so invested in the period that these details matter to you. Lets face it, for many (a majority of?) wargamers it never will. Sometimes "am I the grey ones or the blue ones?" is all we need to know :)
Yep. Whilst you can get some beautiful flags, particularly in the larger scales, I opted for generic ones so that I could get the boys on the table without too much ado. Similarly with the Zouaves, I went sort of 'generic' (choosing a uniform with red) and one that fitted the minis I had bought (you can go for blue with Zouaves too. Can't recall Pendraken's sculpts but elsewhere you can get minis with fez, kepi and fez with turban).
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 March 2015, 04:20:26 PM
Sometimes "am I the grey ones or the blue ones?" is all we need to know :)
That's all I need to know! ;)
But to ME it does matter. You won't see Western flags in my Eastern Confederate armies. After 50 years studying and gaming the ACW it DOES matter to me. However, what tank fought where in WWII is irrelevant to ME, but is very important indeed to FSN. I wouldn't dream of telling him that it's unimportant. Afraid I'm one of those wargamers who games in particular periods and likes to get it right, or as right as I can.
Quote from: Leman on 30 March 2015, 06:05:35 PM
But to ME it does matter. You won't see Western flags in my Eastern Confederate armies. After 50 years studying and gaming the ACW it DOES matter to me. However, what tank fought where in WWII is irrelevant to ME, but is very important indeed to FSN. I wouldn't dream of telling him that it's unimportant. Afraid I'm one of those wargamers who games in particular periods and likes to get it right, or as right as I can.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong in that at all. But for someone starting out either in wargaming or even in a specific period I would recommend a generic approach every time. :-bd
Over the months and years a gamer new to a period or even the hobby will read more, learn more, and slowly become knowledgable on the subject. Of course it is the 'Leman's' who we all turn to for advice on specific aspects of uniforms and troop types (without them we may as well all go and buy an odd box of Airfix soldiers), but it takes time to learn the finer details of any given period, an example being that I had a recollection of the various uniform vagaries of the ACW - but thankfully Leman you could expand on it, and make it even more interesting. :-\ =D>
Hmmm. I know what you mean, Leman, and I agree to a point.
I like my 6th Guards Tank Brigade to use Churchills, but I'm not that fussed about which version (excluding I and II) because they may find themselves anywhere between Tunisia in '42 and the Rhine in '45, and not in the guise of the Guards.
However, my Napoleonic armies tend to be exact. For example the 22nd Foot will be the best darned 22nd Foot I can make them, and they will be the 22nd Foot whether they're in Spain, Belgium or burning the White House. So my 22nd Foot needs to be right for the 22nd Foot, however I choose to use them.
It's an inconsistent approach, but one I'm quite happy to live with. My approach to ACW is to be generic, because it's not on of my main periods and because I am daunted by the variety within the "blue and grey" stereotype. Confederate flags!! ~X(
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 March 2015, 04:20:26 PM
You can get all anal about whether the buttons were brass or steel or if these particular flags were issued on the Friday before the battle or the Tuesday after it if and when you are so invested in the period that these details matter to you. Lets face it, for many (a majority of?) wargamers it never will. Sometimes "am I the grey ones or the blue ones?" is all we need to know :)
That's why i only got the union national and confederate battle flags. Just want to be able to look from a distance and be able to tell what is what. If it is your period of choice, and you immerse yourself completely, you tend to be more torough, but if like me, you do many different periods genres, it's sometimes best to keep it generic and try to move faster between projects (and save space to put all your other stuff :D)
Quote from: fsn on 30 March 2015, 06:40:15 PM
However, my Napoleonic armies tend to be exact. For example the 22nd Foot will be the best darned 22nd Foot I can make them, and they will be the 22nd Foot whether they're in Spain, Belgium or burning the White House. So my 22nd Foot needs to be right for the 22nd Foot, however I choose to use them.
[cough, cough, psst. Nobby. The 22nd Foot (hope you haven't started them).
1800: Portsmouth; to Cape of Good Hope; many sick on voyage; Muisenburg; Wynburg
1801: Cape of Good Hope - Simonstown; Wynburg; Cape Town; Rondesbosch
1802: Cape of Good Hope - Simonstown; Graaf Reinett; October – to India
1803: February – India; Fort William; October – Barrubatta; Cuttack force
1804: India - December – Deig
1805: India - January – Benares; Cawnpore; Siege of Bhurtpore
1806: India - Sutlej; February – Delhi; Muttra
1807: India - Muttra; August - Berhampore
1808: India – Berhampore
1809: Berhampore
1810: Berhampore; August – Fort William; November – Mauritius
1811: Mauritius; January – detachment to Madagascar; April – Bourbon
1812: Bourbon; July – Mauritius; August – Bourbon
1813: Bourbon; May –Mauritius
1814: Mauritius
1815: Mauritius; many fever deaths; April – received drafts from 2nd Battalion; June – flank companies to Bengal; November – battalion reunited in
Mauritius
1819: July – back in England after 19 years away.
Sorry, no Spain, Belgium or America. Did I pass the test?] ;)
Quote from: Leman on 30 March 2015, 06:05:35 PM
But to ME it does matter. You won't see Western flags in my Eastern Confederate armies. After 50 years studying and gaming the ACW it DOES matter to me. However, what tank fought where in WWII is irrelevant to ME, but is very important indeed to FSN. I wouldn't dream of telling him that it's unimportant. Afraid I'm one of those wargamers who games in particular periods and likes to get it right, or as right as I can.
Perfectly put. ;)
Flags, insignia etc. don't matter to me; I just want an ACW "looking" game. :)
I can be the reverse - my ACW are generic because if I do a specific regiment I wouldn't want to use it in the wrong campaigns. With my WSS because battalions were differentiated they are specified, but often because I like the flag or facing, and we fight fictional battles, so it doesn't matter.
Oh, in case we haven't been clear... for ACW buy infantry first and foremost.
And some extra infantry. Better get a couple of packs of infantry to go with that.
And some infantry.
And if you have any money left over throw in a couple of packs of infantry.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 30 March 2015, 10:57:57 PM
I can be the reverse - my ACW are generic because if I do a specific regiment I wouldn't want to use it in the wrong campaigns. With my WSS because battalions were differentiated they are specified, but often because I like the flag or facing, and we fight fictional battles, so it doesn't matter.
Oh, in case we haven't been clear... for ACW buy infantry first and foremost.
And some extra infantry. Better get a couple of packs of infantry to go with that.
And some infantry.
And if you have any money left over throw in a couple of packs of infantry.
;D ;D ;D
Yeah, began to realise that as people started posting army suggestions. I was a little naïve about the period but it just "appealed."
I've started reading around the subject and it seems the cavalry were used mainly for scouting or operated like dragoons. :-\
Have the sneaky feeling I'm about to be corrected. :D
Brandy Station, Yellow Tavern, East Cavalry Field.
Quote from: Leman on 31 March 2015, 08:59:07 AM
Brandy Station, Yellow Tavern, East Cavalry Field.
I assume I've just been corrected! ;D ;D ;D
Thing is, those names mean absolutely nothing to me! :D
Quote from: getagrip on 31 March 2015, 08:46:05 AM
.. it seems the cavalry were used mainly for scouting or operated like dragoons. :-\
Leman is quite right to point out some ACW cavalry battles. You also have Grier's* raid in the Vicksburg campaign (inspired the film, "The Horse Soldiers") and numerous "Kleine Krieg" actions between and behind the lines. However, because cavalry warfare tended to be peripheral to the big battles and you will have to paint 2 war-games units for each cavalry regiment - a mounted version and a dismounted version - cavalry tend to be missing or minimal in most ACW games (I've got 2 cavalry regiments for each side in my own collection and can't recall when I last use all of them in the one game - but that could also be because I haven't got a clue how best to use them! :-[ )
* a teacher too, Grip
The cavalry played important roles as scouts (find your enemy dispositions) and as fast mobile reserves to plug weak spots in your own line or to take sudden advantage of bad dispositions in the enemy line, for these two reasons alone every army IMO should have a small cavalry unit. Of course a good tabletop general will also possibly try using the cavalry in isolation for attacks on the enemy rear or as a flanking force.
Of course the ACW armies are mainly infantry, but as a general would you really want to handicap yourself by having no scouts or fast mobile reaction force? :-\
Quote from: Fig.ht on 31 March 2015, 09:27:46 AM
Of course the ACW armies are mainly infantry, but as a general would you really want to handicap yourself by having no scouts or fast mobile reaction force? :-\
I just can't conceive of an army without at least
some cavalry even if only, dare I say it, for the look of the thing. :-\
Some rules span both the napoleonic and ACW periods. It is the absence of cavalry on the ACW battlefield that partly helps such rule systems to feel a little less generic.
I would like to have a couple of units of cavalry (and their dismounted other half), but pressure on the painting table always seems to mean there is something more needy that needs to be painted.
I would like to do the opening hours of Gettysbury and that will be my motivation to get some cavalry (at least dismounted bases) painted.
First day at Gettysburg is an excellent way of getting cavalry into a major ACW battle. Also, look to the West, eg Pea Ridge featured cavalry and Confederate Indians. One of the good things about the ACW is the sheer amount of information, scenarios etc, that are around. I even have a scenario for 'The Horse Soldiers" - ding dong, ding dong.
Quote from: Leman on 01 April 2015, 08:10:16 AM
First day at Gettysburg is an excellent way of getting cavalry into a major ACW battle. Also, look to the West, eg Pea Ridge featured cavalry and Confederate Indians. One of the good things about the ACW is the sheer amount of information, scenarios etc, that are around. I even have a scenario for 'The Horse Soldiers" - ding dong, ding dong.
Funny you should say that. I started reading about Gettysburg last night and the author has started with Stuart's cavalry. :-\
Dismounted bases with a couple of mounted guys on a penny to put behind to show when they're in "prepare the BBQ boys, the burgers are comin'!" mode?
I think most of the "cavalry on cavalry" battles are probably well fought at something approaching an almost skirmish level set, preferably in some sort of flowing campaign structure. It'd lend itself well to a bigger version of the Necromunda/Mordheim/Legends of the Old West sort of approach I reckon, but at a somewhat higher level. Basically let you do a chevauchee into and across enemy lines and supplies opposed by who ever is sent to hunt you down...
Think you're right!
I'm going for a single unit of cavalry which will be deployed as Dragoons. :)
Their not 'dragoons' as such; think of them more as mounted infantry.
Of course this is distracting. What you actually need is infantry.
And trees.
No matter how many trees you have, you don't have enough for ACW.
And some more infantry.
Okay, so what's the difference (please be kind) between a dragoon and a mounted infantryman? :-\
I'm new to the history stuff. :-[
A dragoon is a cavalryman trained to fight on foot using a carbine. A mounted infantryman is an infantryman trained to travel by horse, but fight on foot using normal infantry weapons. There were designated mounted infantry in the ACW, such as Wilder's Lightning Brigade. I would suggest that the cavalry were more like dragoons.
Quote from: Leman on 03 April 2015, 09:57:55 PM
A dragoon is a cavalryman trained to fight on foot using a carbine. A mounted infantryman is an infantryman trained to travel by horse, but fight on foot using normal infantry weapons. There were designated mounted infantry in the ACW, such as Wilder's Lightning Brigade. I would suggest that the cavalry were more like dragoons.
Thanks :)
By the late 18thC Dragoons were used as cavalry- the original idea was pretty much out of use in Western European armies: in the 17?70s I think (might have been 80s)
Horseguards redesignated all British cavalry as dragoons without changing the role, purely because dragoons were paid 2d a day less. I don't think you'll find a 'cavalry' regiment in the Army today - they are Hussars or Dragoons (the odd lancer etc)
Yes there were cavalry battles, and yes there were important contributions made in some battles by dismounted cavalry, and yes Custer did make his name with a charge at Gettysbury, but we remember them because there are so few. They are really mounted infantry, fighting skirmish order, often with the better weapons - think a sort of mobile 95th Rifles. You won't need more than a couple of regiments - good for a flying column maybe, but often not much more than a speed bump.
Quote from: Leman on 03 April 2015, 09:57:55 PM
A dragoon is a cavalryman trained to fight on foot using a carbine. A mounted infantryman is an infantryman trained to travel by horse, but fight on foot using normal infantry weapons. There were designated mounted infantry in the ACW, such as Wilder's Lightning Brigade. I would suggest that the cavalry were more like dragoons.
For a large part of his history. a dragoon is
also an infantryman trained to ride a horse to get to the action faster.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 April 2015, 03:30:17 AM
For a large part of his history. a dragoon is also an infantryman trained to ride a horse to get to the action faster.
Hence they have drums not trumpets for instruments :)
Lots of Dragoons promoted themselves to "actual" cavalry - even as far as French mounted longbows, or British Dragoons up to the WSS. Doesn't mean they *cant* fight on foot, just that it's got a bit beneath them.
Union cavalry still armed as dragoons with carbines. Union mounted infantry armed with rifled muskets. Confederate cavalry armed with a right mixed bag of goodies - shotguns, muzzle loading carbines, the odd BLC, muskets etc.
I know dragoons were originally mounted infantry, my point was by the ACW, and being in the US cavalry tended not to be cavalry. Did any yanks call themselves Dragoons? Ive never seen reference, and they usually took great delight in pretending to be French.
This from Wikipedia:
The word dragoon originally meant mounted infantry, who were trained in horse riding as well as infantry fighting skills. However, usage altered over time and during the 18th century, dragoons evolved into conventional light cavalry units and personnel. Dragoon regiments were established in most European armies during the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
Which means I think you're both right! :)
Blessed are the cheese makers.
I'm more worried the Bad Men are tempting you to buy cavalry. Now I love a lot of men on top of some eastern European lasagne (see the name) but with ACW any time painting cavalry is time not spent painting infantry. Combined sunjester and I have about 120 US and 90 CS stands of infantry, AND THAT STILL ISNT ENOUGH
The tactical usage shifted back to actual mounted infantry by the ACW although in Europe cavalry preferred/was wedded to mounte action still. Not to say there weren't mounted cavalry actions in the ACW, as with Custer at Gettysburg as mentioned :)
But that's really reall rare. Tbh I'd suggest something like but infantry and more infantry and maybe a couple of blokes on horses to stick behind your "cavalry" to show when they're mounted :D
Every time I play ACW, I find my cavalry tend to move to a point, dismount and then act basically as infantry. And I thought the dismounted figures were the luxury!
Remember the Charge of the Light Brigade and von Bredow's Death Ride - FSN
I don' t really care their "real" effect, I simply cannot have an army without cavalry. :)
Quote from: getagrip on 04 April 2015, 08:51:02 AM
I don' t really care their "real" effect, I simply cannot have an army without cavalry. :)
Don't let them talk you out of it. Cavalry are a defining feature of a good wargame. Even if you have an army with no mounted, the Conquistadors will be using them, for instance.
At least it gives the catering corps something to do post-battle ;)
And they do look pretty! The new mounted sculpts are lovely.
I know, I play SYW too, where I don't even have dismounted figures for dragoon regiments. I do have dismounted figures for the scramble for Africa regular forces, who are real cavalry but seem to dismount to shoot rather a lot. One of my opponents has even been known to attempt to form square with them when facing cavalry attack, in fact, but he's about to get married, so perhaps his attention is a bit divided.
Undoubtedly the best way to start is by purchasing or including in your purchase an 'Army Pack'. The Army Pack contains 15 mounted figures (call them cavalry, dragoons, mounted infantry, or anything you like ;) ). Now after acquiring this unit of mounted figures you may decide that you do not want anymore, but the thing is that at least by getting them in the Army Pack you have the 'OPTION' to use them. What is more if considered as the cheap bag included in the Army Pack then they have only cost you a solitary, lonely, singular £1 coin, now that cannot be bad. ;)
That's pretty much what I thought Fight. I originally ordered 1 army pack and several "add on units" but, following discussion here, changed it. :)
Thanks also to Leon for accommodating my whims. ;)
I'm painting my union cavalry this weekend, pretty sculpts! I'll be using small numbers, just because i like them! i'll use them as reserves, riding where it is most needed, dismount and strengthen the line, or more historically, scouting forward, and holding an important objective (like high ground etc) untill the foot sloggers arrive, after wich the cavalry will be pulled back.
Isn't that called July 1st, 1863.
Quote from: Leman on 04 April 2015, 08:25:36 PM
Isn't that called July 1st, 1863.
Indeed, That's one battle most people know, so I found it fitting to base my cavalry tactics upon that. It's not that easy to incorporate the flanking moves and raiding parties on the table top unless your table represents a significant area.
Having them grab objectives and plugging gaps is the easiest to represent the cavalry on smaller tables.
I'll probably make my dismounted cavalry without horses on the base, and have the horseholders on a separate base to place behind my unit. That way they can represent skirmishing infantry when i con't use the cavalry in battle.
But US cavalry are far less use than the English variety - they don't add any class.
IanS
And the uniforms aren't as pretty.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 05 April 2015, 07:56:31 AM
And the uniforms aren't as pretty.
Well there is one temporary Brigadier - guess...
IanS
Interesting to see about 3 or 4 ACW threads currently kicking about on the forum. Whilst waiting for your order, Grip, here's a 3 minute clip just to keep you in the mood (sorry, no cavalry in this particular clip). Found it via the Krieg Spiel link in the Too Fat Lardies website.
btw ianrs54: answer is George Armstrong Custer?
I'd watch Glory a few times, gets one in the mood :)
Funnily enough, that's exactly what I've been doing! :o
OK, tell me (and I'm not being nasty here): what is the appeal of ACW? It's so popular that I feel I must be missing something....
Lots o Yanks around ?
IanS
Personally, my first foray into historical stuff. I was drawn to it because the history is well documented (could say that for many periods), there's a certain "hugeness" to it (again true for others), I love infantry (weird I know) and finally, it looks great.
Don't think this really answers your question very well but that's my 2p's worth. :)
Arguably the first "modern" war - machine guns, wire, trenches, et al.
Lots of source material, written and photographic.
Extensive secondary sources.
A plethora of rules systems allowing games to be played at any level from "Once Upon A Time In The West" to BBB.
Basic troops are easy to paint but there are lots of interesting uniforms for those looking for such things.
Infinitely more engaging than bunches of savages with fancy-dress costumes cutting each other's hearts out :D
Quote from: Ithoriel on 05 April 2015, 11:22:29 AM
Infinitely more engaging than bunches of savages with fancy-dress costumes cutting each other's hearts out :D
Yes, but I'm not talking about fantasy.
I like ACW. It's a lovely basic war to fight. You've got yer infantry, yer cavalry and yer artillery. One side dresses in blue. One side dresses in grey. They use the same weapons.
I use it on the rare occasions when I introduce people to wargames.
Then, you can add levels of complexity. Differentiate between weapon types, add zouaves and other fancy units, butternut for the rebs, etc, etc.
What's not to love about the ACW?
Quote from: toxicpixie on 05 April 2015, 09:27:35 AM
I'd watch Glory a few times, gets one in the mood :)
Or Gettysburg
Agreed, I really can't quite put my finger on why I want to play it.
Think I'll borrow rationale from my 4 year old; why? "Because I do!"
ACW does have some huge battles but it also has have some nice small encounters that can be played in a couple of hours
Quote from: Fenton on 05 April 2015, 11:42:47 AM
Or Gettysburg
Yeah, trying to track that one down too. :)
I've also ordered the ACW documentary shown on TV repeatedly but I wasn't really interested then.
The Ken Burns one?
You can download it at some naughty torrent sites
Mate of mine was very confused by the Gettysburg film with it's sudden stop halfway they the battle and lack of ending or credits. A year or two later her realised the DVD was a double sided one and turned it over to watch the second half :D
Quote from: toxicpixie on 05 April 2015, 11:59:14 AM
Mate of mine was very confused by the Gettysburg film with it's sudden stop halfway they the battle and lack of ending or credits. A year or two later her realised the DVD was a double sided one and turned it over to watch the second half :D
I did to recently, hadnt watched it in ages spent a day looking for disc 2 :-[
http://youtu.be/j0U_E2ueuuQ
Quote from: mad lemmey on 05 April 2015, 12:05:21 PM
http://youtu.be/j0U_E2ueuuQ
Is that Ken Burns on guitar?
Quote from: Fenton on 05 April 2015, 12:00:47 PM
I did to recently, hadnt watched it in ages spent a day looking for disc 2 :-[
I think there may have been some complaining to that effect.
"But there's no second disc, I've been conned!"
"Maybe it's a double sided one?"
"..."