8 February 2024: Short attention span

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. 

===========================

4 January 2024: Everything happens of its own accord

While researching cavalry standards for the English Civil War, I found a book I've been searching for since I lost my own copy in the early 90s.

Terence Wise's Airfix Magazine Guide 24: American Civil War (1977) was my main go-to ruleset after Donald Featherstone's seminal Wargames (1962). This little booklet was the main inspiration behind many of solo ACW games and even my late 90s solo campaign. 

Now I have a very good quality PDF copy. By that I mean everything is legible, both text and imaging. Found it both by luck and persistence. Good luck finding yours.

======================

As for the ECW cavalry standards, I should bite the bullet and simply purchase Steve Archibald's excellent reference titles (there are two in the series I believe). It will save me on time wasting. As one blogsite reviewer pointed out (among others no doubt), they're an excellent source of information on various ECW flags because the book is all illustrations. 

Instead, I am spending time doing needless research with no real clue where to look. The best source are the original sources but accessing them requires jumping through various hoops that I'm not prepared to undertake. My usual lazy man's approach of searching online comes with severe limitations and often relies more on luck than any basic research skills. I vainly persist however.

Started on my own range of copies of the excellent range of ECW standards last night based on those already available commercially. Reasons: (1) I don't appreciate watermarks on my flags, (2) As commercial entites they cost which, again, I protest because it's pretty obvious that anyone can recreate these product freely, and (3) following on from (2) I like being creative. 

There are discrepancies between same flag identities having different colours or devices. Inital guess for this is that they're earlier and later versions. Units shifted around, were reorganised, received new commanders, new postings, and so on. No mind; they give me the luxury of choice. 

Below is an example showing my progress so far in recreating my own ECW flags graphically. This is my copy of Sir John Gell's Regiment of Foot # 2 based on the Flag of War website item. 

The base template for all Foot flags - background - was created in MS Paint (I love my old tools). Getting the folds and shading has been hit and miss but sufficient as an experiment. The actual final designs may go solely 2D in look. Or not. I've done multiple colours - black, white, blue, green, purple, yellow. Next, I've added the St George Cross in the upper left corner to complete the template. The subsequent company flags cater for variants (depending on devices used). For the example above I simply added two inverted 5-point stars and voila!

The cavalry cornets have also been given similar treatment to the infantry standards - a base flag colour background and then adding the various choices of flag trim before applying the numerous devices and emblems. 

 

The example above is based on an actual Parliament unit whose name eludes me at the moment. This is one of the companies. The source I am using has Latin mottos but I can't decipher or distinguish properly because the image I working with as source is so tiny. Needless to say, there is loads of further work needed to improve to finish status - sizing, placements, designs, etc. 

The entire flag group as a whole is only at the start stage. At least a start has been made. Cheers.

=======================

Addendum: 

Instruction on How to create basic and simple double-sided flags using MS Paint.

To get the double sided flag look is really simple. I use the convenience and familiarity of the old MS Paint (Win7/8/10) instead of the latest MS Paint (Win11). It is still the best for basic 2D designs.

STEP 1: Start with your design (by choice I always start with the flagpole side on the left as you're looking at the design). Next, and pretty important step, copy design by keying in Select All (Ctrl + A shortcut) then Copy (Ctrl + C).

STEP 2: Next, expand the canvas (background) area by selecting the handle on the right side of the canvas to stretch your canvas to double the size of your original design as shown below. Be careful of selecting the canvas resizing handle and not the design handle otherwise you will have a very distorted and very stretched out looking image.

I have coloured the expanded area light blue for visual reference; by default it is white. Add a little extra gap for the flagpole (as seen below in the final image).

The copying step now comes into play as you now finish your design. 

1. Paste (Ctrl + V). The copied image will superimpose itself over the original (you will see handles of the superimposed image: don't touch) in the top left corner by default. Next I use the right arrow key (>) for simple precision sake in moving the new image to its new position on the far right of the canvas. If you have a good eye and steady hand you can select the image and slide it manually. But I have wobbly hands and a wandering eye. 
2. Next, paste a second copy atop the original. Use the Flip horizontal tool to reverse the design without moving the second copy. It should look like the above image. 
3. I tidy up by using the Fill tool to colour in the background which in this example is your base Green colour of this flag design. Or whatever source material tells you.

Voila! You now have a double-sided 2D image of the flag.

NOTE: This is my approach to creating simple double-sided 2D flags using MS Paint. Very basic but quick. You will, no doubt, find a more convenient or quicker approach. There are a plethora of other more suitable graphical design programs, preferably those that generate vector designs as opposed to the pixelated effect that I use a la MS Paint. You're really spoiled for choice. I recommend going with what you're comfortable using.

The graphical devices (the cloud, the sword and arm, and the scroll banners) created in the above example were all done using the various Shapes and Brushes tools. And the Flag folds was created using the Spray Paint Brush tool (widest setting and fast runs) along with excellent shades generated using the Colour swatch tool to break up the plain and flat 2D background. Not ideal or perfect but sufficient for my needs; at least there is no Watermark.