Over the last few weeks, I've been working on drawing a wargamer friendly map that covers the first days fighting west of Gettysburg. The map below is what I came up with. The topology, fields, fence lines, and Willoughby Run have all been simplified to make setup/preparation easier. My question is do you think my map has any major flaws? Would you use this map to game the battle? I plan to run separate morning and afternoon scenarios. If play testing goes well, I hope to take these games to fall-in this year. (These games will be regimental scale)(Looking at using piquet Field of Battle or Look Sarge No Charts for rules)

The map scale is 1"=40yds. The map grid is 1'. The dark green patches are woods, light green is corn, and yellow is wheat. The building footprints are scaled to the models offered by Buildings In Turmoil. Here's the map:


Thanks
Bryan

Hi Bryan,
the map gives a good idea of what is required to broadly recreate the battlefield, so top marks for that. The only comments would be that for me there is a lot 'detail' that I would not be able to recreate from my existing terrain, especially the hills and ridges. But if I wanted to game this I would certainly use your map as a great starting point. Hope this helps?
Steve.

Looks good to me.  
The only thing I can see that might have question mark over it is the unfinished railroad. On the map I've got there is a cutting through the ridges which makes sense. Depending on how you represent the railroad it might look odd if it goes up and down the ridges.

Quote from: Albie Bach on 02 July 2013, 02:40:08 PM
Looks good to me. 
The only thing I can see that might have question mark over it is the unfinished railroad. On the map I've got there is a cutting through the ridges which makes sense. Depending on how you represent the railroad it might look odd if it goes up and down the ridges.

Yes, the unfinished railroad will cut through the ridges. I should probably redraw that part of the map to make this clearer.

Thanks

  I'll look forward to seeing the final photos.

Looks good - really shows how much more complicate real terrain is compared to the average pick up wargame.  The triple ridges must make things interesting - do you enforce fog of war for units behind a couple of ridges that can't realistically be seen?

Can I ask what the difference is between corn and wheat? In the UK these are virtually identical crops and wouldn't be differentiated on a wargames table. So I'm guessing that perhaps corn is maize?

I assume the dotted lines are fences?

Quote from: fred    12df on 02 July 2013, 05:49:21 PM
Looks good - really shows how much more complicate real terrain is compared to the average pick up wargame.  The triple ridges must make things interesting - do you enforce fog of war for units behind a couple of ridges that can't realistically be seen?

Can I ask what the difference is between corn and wheat? In the UK these are virtually identical crops and wouldn't be differentiated on a wargames table. So I'm guessing that perhaps corn is maize?

I assume the dotted lines are fences?

I haven't thought about fog of war. The ridges will definitely have an effect on LOS. Yes corn is maize. The dotted lines are fence lines. I will probably build a map key when I get some time.

Why not just save yourself the hassle and use the map from Fire and Fury's Gettysburg Scenaio?  Just a thought.

Cheers Rex

Hi Bryan

The map looks really good and one day I'm going to get around to playing the first day of Gettysburg as well.

Just a few comments. I'm not familiar with the rules you intend using (I'm a Fire and Fury man myself) but if the rules regard buildings purely for 'show' then you will not have a problem. However if you intend putting troops in them then they are massively over scale. You also may want to consider moddeling part of Herr Ridge over to the west (where Herr's tavern is on the map) which if memory serves was a similar height (if not higher) than McPherson Ridge as by the early afternoon there was plenty of Rebel artillery positioned on it supporting Heth's Division (and later Pender's) attacking the 1st Corps on McPherson's Ridge.

Are you going to take into account the battle between the Union 11th Corps and Early's division later in the day off your map to the east? There is still a debate going on as to whether the Union 1st Corps (on your battlefield) only retreated because of the collapse of the 11th Corps which will impact on your battle. 

Anyway hope you have a great game and I look forward to hearing about it in the future.

Cheers Paul

As you indicate there is a significant area of dead ground, or reverse slope, immediately east of McPherson's Barn, which could house a full regiment very well. Given that soldiers in 1863 would have studied the Napoleonic Wars, that would have been noted.
The woods immediately south of McPherson's Barn are described as having been cleared of undergrowth so would be far less of an obstacle to line of sight and formed movement than they appear on the ground today, so their effect on manoeuvre would be closer to the effect of an orchard than of a wood.
I would strongly suggest that you look at Regimental Fire and Fury for your game. Your ground scale is identical and the battle is about at the upper limit of the number of units you can cope with in this rule set.

Watched a history channel doc. last night on Gettysburg.  It was 3rd Day - the charge.  The study highlighted the impact of the ground and the turnpike road on the dynamic of the advance.   Very well presented, and it explained the low death rates - many rebs did not press home the charge.

The big "if" is if Longstreet had followed Lee's orders and send 30,000 in instead of 15,000.

Hi

Apologies for going off original subject.......

Reference day 3 of the Battle of Gettysburg (3rd July 1863). The number in 'the charge' was more like 12,500 than the 15,000 usuallly qouted (see this link for those really interested: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/forums/ViewPost.aspx?ForumID=10&ID=27053

And Longstreet really never had the option of putting the 30,000 men mentioned in the charge anyway. As far as I am aware he was told which divisions to use; 2 of his divisions, Hood's and McLaws had been used the day before and both had lost around 50% of their strengh so were in no state to be used. Pickett's division, the only 'fresh' division Lee had (also in Longstreet's Corps) happened to be the smallest in the Army of Northern Virginia (only around 5,000 men in 3 brigades). The other 'division's he was given was Heth's (under the command of Pettigrew) and 2 brigades from Pender's Division (under command of Trimble). Both of these had been involved in heavy fighting on 1st July and were again severely under strength. This made 9 brigades in the main attack. There were a couple of more brigades who suported the main charge.

So really there never was a big if, the '30,000' men simply did not exist.
Sorry again for going off subject. 

Cheers Paul

Don't worry Paul, the voice of  calm, factual, polite debate is never unwelcome - at least on this forum.

Mollinary

 Paul,  thank you for taking the time to comment and for this info.

My "expertise" is on 20th century conflicts,  I was just quoting the "experts" from the Gettysburg National Park.   And I do apologise for going off subject.   I visited the battlefield in 2008 and walked the route of Pickett's charge.   There is a lot of "revision" going on amongst ACW historians regarding the events of Day 3 and why the casualty lists for Pickett's command was not higher in view of the firepower sweeping the killing ground.  I had no prior knowledge of the number under Longstreet's command so took the commentary quote  at face value.  There was a consensus amongst the experts that a 30,000 force could have made a difference and that Longstreet was detached from the action and delegated command  to an artillery colonel.
  But from what you say, the Army of Northern Virginia did not have that muster available, so even if Lee desired an attack with 30,000 it was just not possible from Longstreet's deployment ?

This was Sky channel  Discovery Mythbusters  9pm Monday 8 July - so no doubt the programme will come around again.  This time we will devote a thread to its comments and criticism .

As Mollinary says, this is the forum for calm factual polite debate. 

Checked with my son who also watched the documentary - I got it wrong.  Longstreet is quoted as saying that  15,000 could never take the position.  This led the experts to discuss that 30,000 might have had a chance.   My mitigation is a long day, late night television and probably dozing off a few times.  Sorry.

The Military history on line is a great source.  I have enjoyed reading the threads. Now I will let you ACW buffs get back to Day 1 and maps.  Always admired Buford - way ahead of his time.