Been a fun intense few days jumping down the ECW rabbit hole. For me the warren has so many tunnels to explore and investigate thoroughly that it can quickly become a self-losing venture. So, to spare spawning further any rising frustration or dead-end moments, I will pause here now and draw back a little to re-focus on the many other projects I have awaiting completion this year - the Makeover Year.
American Civil War
Part of my thought process in acquiring Mr. Wise's Airfix Guide involved extracting the necessary background information needed to reverse engineer some adaptation of Mr. Empson's Tables and Mechanics so that I may generate a working ruleset to run (eventually) my Red River campaign. By reverse engineer, I mean nothing as serious or as ludicrous as anything undertaken by the Tofu regime or the Orc Natives.
I will be using the historical names for the RR campaign as extracted from wikipedia's OOB. But for the early playtesting and rules refinements I am simply going with my imaginary ACW formations - the Union 53rd Corps (Evans) and the Confederate 32nd Corps (Lawerton). As I have previously posted MG Evans' Union formation, here now I present the Confederate side.
But firstly let me confess: copying to paste from one PC to another doesn't work if they're not connected. D'oh! Tells me I'm still tired from the past few nights.
Nonetheless, Lawerton's 32nd Confederate Corps is generated using Mr. Empson's Tables sections 3.1 and 3.2. I've decided to name them "units" instead of "regiments" because the latter denotes some fixed and large body of troops which wasn't necessarily so especially towards the latter part of the Civil War. And thereby misleading. The term "units" however gives more flexibility and leeway regarding composition and design, as in it permits play with numbers. So a unit might be anything from an ad-hoc battlegroup of a few companies, a battalion of several companies of varying size and strength, or it might be an under-strength regiment that's taken several heavy losses from recent engagements and actions, or it can be a severely-depleted regiment that's on its last legs, or a legion comprising all three teeth arms of infantry, cavalry and artillery (probably uncommon in 1863), or it might be a locally raised conscripted militia or state militia. Anything's possible therefore.
I will also amend the Union corps after having read Mr. Wise's text. Both original postings will therefore suffer some unit and formation restructuring to make the whole shebang playable. I mean, I really don't own that many ACW figures in my collection. Close to it but not totally.
Commander-in-Chief - Lawerton (name resurfacing from my late nineties campaign)
- 1st Division Polson (another remembered name from the same late nineties campaign)
- 1st Brigade - 4 infantry units
- 2nd Brigade - 6 infantry units
- 3rd Brigade - 4 infantry units
- 4th Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 5th Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 1st Divison artillery - 3 units
- 2nd Division
- 1st Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 2nd Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 3rd Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 4th Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 2nd Division artillery - 4 units
- 3rd Division
- 1st Brigade - 5 infantry units
- 2nd Brigade - 4 infantry units
- 3rd Brigade - 6 infantry units
- 3rd Division artillery - 4 units
- Cavalry Division
- 1st Cavalry Brigade - 4 cavalry units
- 2nd Cavalry Brigade - 6 cavalry units
- 3rd Cavalry Brigade - 4 cavalry units
- 4th Cavalry Brigade - 5 cavalry units
- 5th Cavalry Brigade - 4 cavalry units
- 6th Cavalry Brigade - 6 cavalry units
- Corps Artillery Reserve
- 1st Battalion - 5 units
- 2nd Battalion - 5 units
After thoroughly reading, reviewing, and totally enjoying Mr. Wise's Airfix Guide all over again after all these decades, revising my ACW imaginary lists is definitely on the cards. Not a criticism nor a rejection of Mr. Empson's work but I fear not everything was disclosed when he generously donated his Tables and Mechanisms for public scrutiny. And there is also the factor that I probably failed to understand the instructions when generating the units and formations (I cite my recent design work on the ECW Orders Cards as proof that I need to de-wax my taringas when it comes to hearing right). I suspect that the latter might be the case. Anyway, here is a quote from Mr. Wise that made me laugh out loud. And reinvigorated my well of inspiration which was dried out last year.
"...wargaming is a highly individualistic hobby, and there are really no rules except those you make yourself..." (p7, Wise. T, Patrick Stephens Ltd, Cambridge, 1977)
Point worth remembering - for me especially. Of late, I have lost my way a little. Burn out? Not really. Just flat maybe. Need an injection of good old wargaming medicine. Touch base with my origins, so to speak. As the author points out a few sentences later,
"...periodically, as the rules become too unwieldy, people revert to their original simple rules of two or three pages in order to just gain the maximum enjoyment from a game..."
And I am finding much that I had forgotten or that knowledge was gradually replaced as the wargaming years progressed and I was exposed to many other subsequent rules. Times change many things. Obviously. The current meta seems more into "playing the game" and not the period with blocks of minis. To what end? The same outcome is reached across the board but it's a lifeless kind of outcome irrespective of period, rules, or innovations. It's been the fashion for many years now whereby historical rules are a bland entity clothed in historical costume. It's all about convenience, and looking good, from my observation. I really don't like that fad or I've grown weary of it.
For instance, Mr. Wise makes valid again certain elements and aspects of ACW wargaming that drew me in all those years ago in the first place. Stuff such as how much influence an artillery train has upon deployment and how it will at times influence ensuing tactics,
"...Most wargamers do not bother with limbers, certainly not caissons and baggage wagons, but it should be pointed out that each gun had a limber, a caisson with ammunition, and the battery as a whole extra caissons, a baggage wagon to each gun, and a field forge. This clutter of vehicles often caused problems on a battlefield, where the gun and caisson horse teams were drawn up to a depth of 47 yards..." (p21)
Convenience dictates we simplify it and thereby lose a certain aspect of period "feel". And how much more interesting would it make the game if somehow a ruleset incorporated this aspect. As Mr. Wise points out, "...Such models will cause loss of manoeuvre..." but how much more interesting would that situation add to the gaming experience itself.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through re-reading the Guide. And already it's given me a boost to my motivation. I will complete the review and give a summary. Cheers.
===========================
POST EDIT: 9 February 2024
The more I read into this text, the more I see myself using Mr. Wise's rules (adapting more like) because they suit me to a T. But I will also utilise parts of Mr. Empson's Tables and Mechanism (especially his unit/formation creation and terrain generation, both of which I find very detailed and extremely useful in adding "more colour" to the individual engagements proposed). In fact I will tweak the best bits from both to run my Red River campaign although I was sorely tempted switch to Mr. Wise's 1862 Peninsular campaign because it looked interesting enough from the standpoint that he has presented the outline of the campaign; all one has to do is fill out the details. Cheers.
===========================
No comments:
Post a Comment