22 January 2024: ACW - Character Profiles

Still using the "imaginary" 53rd Corps as my experiment using Mr. Empson's interesting tables and rules mechanisms. I've randomly generated the entire command elements of the 53rd Union Corps right down to regimental level. Note: I've simply named them all Pennsylvania units and used sequential numbering for now. For convenience while I recreate my Union forces proper. I will add their "assigned" names and numberings later on. I've also named those Infantry regimental commanders that are either Exceptional or Political. I have however named all the artillery commanders because I can. An Exceptional commander represents someone being very good while a Political appointee commander is generally not so good. And as the list will show, the majority of commanders slotted in-between these two extremes. 

53rd Corps (Maj-General Evans - Average)

    Corps Artillery (Col. Harrison - Exceptional)

    8th Infantry Division (Brig-General Taaffe - Average)

        1st Bde (Col. Jacobs - Average)

            73rd Penn. Inf. (Col. Aspley - Exceptional)

            74th Penn. Inf. (Dullard)

            75th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            76th Penn. Inf. (Dullard)

            77th Penn. Inf. (Average)

        2nd Bde (Col. P. Smith - Average) 

            78th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            79th Penn. Inf. (Whitney - Political)

            80th Penn. Inf. (Darlberg - Exceptional)

            81st Penn. Inf. (Dullard)

    8th Division Artillery (Maj. Tomlinson - Average)

            4 x 10lb Parrot (Yates - Average)

            4 x 12lb Napoleons (Fealey - Political)

            6 x 12lb Napoleons (Wilkes - Exceptional)

            6 x 3" Rifle (Venning - Average)

    9th Infantry Division (Brig-Gen. Williams - Political)

        1st Bde (Col. van Kinsbergen - Exceptional)

            82nd Penn. Inf. (Average)

            83rd Penn. Inf. (Average)

            84th Penn. Inf. (Dullard)

            85th Penn. Inf. (Mohler - Exceptional)

            86th Penn. Inf. (Zietsen - Exceptional)

        2nd Bde (Col. Garson - Political)

            87th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            88th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            89th Penn. Inf.  (Average)

            90th Penn. Inf.  (Average)

        3rd Bde (Col. E. M. Hall - Political)

            91st Penn. Inf. (Mason - Political)

            92nd Penn. Inf. (Average)

            93rd Penn. Inf. (Average)

            94th Penn. Inf. (Average)

        4th Bde (Col. Rolleston - Average)

            95th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            96th Penn. Inf. (Hickstone - Political)

            97th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            98th Penn. Inf. (Average)

        9th Division Artillery (Maj. Beal - Average)

            4 x 10lb Parrot (Quinn - Average)

            4 x 12lb Napoleon (Zimmerman - Average)

            6 x 3" Rifle (Boxton - Dullard)

            6 x 10lb Parrot (Keinmer - Average)

            6 x 3" Rifle (Dobson - Average)

    10th Infantry Division (Brig-General Browning - Average)

        1st Bde (Col. O'Loughlin - Average)

            99th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            100th Penn. Inf. (Dearborn - Exceptional)

            101st Penn. Inf. (Average)

            102nd Penn. Inf. (Kirkpatrick - Exceptional)

            103rd Penn. Inf. (Average)

        2nd Bde (Col. Pasquale - Average)

            104th Penn. Inf. (Col. Thornton - Exceptional)

            105th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            106th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            107th Penn. Inf. (Average)

        3rd Bde (Col. Dalton - Political)

            108th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            109th Penn. Inf. (Nillson - Exceptional)

            110th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            111th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            112th Penn. Inf. (Average)

        4th Bde (Col. Talley - Dullard)

            113th Penn. Inf. (O. Jackson - Exceptional)

            114th Penn. Inf. (Average)

            115th Penn. Inf. (Dullard)

            116th Penn. Inf. (Average)

        10th Division Artillery (Major Clapperton - Dullard)

            4 x 3" Rifle (S. Hall - Average)

            4 x 12lb Napoleon (Bergson - Average)

            6 x 10lb Parrot (Prentiss - Exceptional)

            4 x 3" Rifle (Phillips - Average)

    Corps Artillery Reserve (Maj. Anderson - Dullard)

            4 x10lb Parrot (Merryweather - Average)

            4 x 12lb Napoleon (H. J. Simpson - Exceptional)

            2 x 10lb Parrot & 2 x 12lb Howitzer (Barfleur - Exceptional)  

            6 x 12lb Napoleon (Rawling - Average)

            6 x 3" Rifle (Theodore - Average)

            4 x 10lb Parrot (Oswalt - Average)

    Corps Cavalry (Brig-General Talbot - Average)

        1st Cavalry Bde (Col. Mawley - Average)

            51st Penn. Vol. Cav. (Average)

            52nd Penn. Vol. Cav. (Mortimer - Exceptional)

            53rd Penn. Vol. Cav. (Abbot - Political)

            54th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Dullard)

        2nd Cavalry Bde (Col. Travis - Average)

            55th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Average)

            56th Penn. Vol. Cav. (T. Wise - Exceptional)

            57th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Average)

        3rd Cavalry Bde (Col. Schiller - Average)

            58th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Average)

            59th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Average)

            60th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Garrison - Political)

            61st Penn. Vol. Cav. (Dullard)

        4th Cavalry Bde (Col. M. Davis - Average)

            62nd Penn. Vol. Cav. (Dullard)

            63rd Penn. Vol. Cav. (Ribbel - Exceptional)

            64th Penn. Vol. Cav. (Average)

By "Dullard" what is probably meant from reading the notes and comments in his tables is that the commander has reached their ceiling level. They are capable and often experienced but they lack the necessary skillset to succeed at the next level. Quite a common thing and does not mean they are stupid as some might read by looking at the word. 

The next section goes more into the character profile by adding more detailing in creating new commander profile (5.5.2). I recreated the simple Excel spreadsheet and can now "flesh" out my characters in a simple manner. I have yet, however, to explore further the impact that migrants and first-generation migrants had regarding CPS. Maybe next post.

Yes, there are definitely gaps - pieces that are missing - or omissions (deliberate so I've figured which makes sense) that can be "filled in" by whomever is using these tables to create their own "house rules" version. Which is always the fun and challenging part. Reverse engineering? Not really but at least I can put together something that is doable tabletop-wise. 

There is so much more to this which Mr. Empson has generously provided with his tables and mechanisms. It reminds me so much of how much detail I instilled within my campaign narrative back in the late 90s. Cheers.

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

Addendum

Found a writing site that listed around three hundred and fifty character traits. Perfect for my spreadsheet. One hundred and fifty negative and one hundred and fifty positive. Just some tweaking of some of the traits (such as changing romantic to robust) to make it more amenable to my needs. Refined the spreadsheet so that I get a randomised selections of traits befitting any character's profile. So, for example, an Exceptional commander will more likely have more positive than negative traits. Just working out a suitable die roll to match my aim.

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

Postscript

Will plough on regardless because I am very interested to know if I can somehow come up with a workable set of ACW rules based on Mr. Empsons tables and mechanics alone. Somehow that's never going to happen (spreadsheet for character traits for instance) but if I can generate a playable set incorporating various rules I've used in the past then I will have achieved my goal set. Cheers.

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

21 January 2024: Adapting Mr Empson's tables for a solo game

So, to get me started, I decided to utilise Mr. Empson's interesting solo wargamuing mechanisms and tables sheets I downloaded recently by creating two imaginary army lists - one Union and one Confederate. As I was rolling dice though I got worried at first because the formations and units rolled ended up being quite large. In other words, army-size large. 

This then led me to consider scale ratio. I noticed in Mr. Empson's Index of sources he listed Terry Wise's Airfix Guide to ACW. Memory reminded me that Mr. Wise used 1:33. But it gives numbers that did not quite sit well with me. So I switched to 1:45. Why? Well, I noticed that the unit figures listed in Tables 2.1 and 3.1 (Union and Confederate respectively) share a common value - being multiples of 5. And 1:45 is large enough to enable fielding large-scale action. 

ActuallyI could have easily chosen 1:25 or 1:35. Both will enable fielding lower-level formations (divisions and brigades) - the kind commonly preferred in modern-day gaming. But 1:45 seemed, to me, suffice for corps and army level. 

In rolling for the Union force, I ended up with 3 corps formations which I have arbitrarily numbered 51st, 52nd, and 53rd Corps. The Confederates meanwhile rolled and received only the 1 corps formation which I have temporarily numbered the 1st CSA Corps. The dice rolling for formation structure is designed to give an unbiased (or un-influenced) composition without unconscious bias from the gamer, so Mr. Empson explained. The results though are just the infantry. I had yet to roll for both artillery and cavalry. 

Eventually I came up with the following structure for both sides. But because they are quite large I am going to focus on utilising on part of each list for my eventual playtesting in the coming weeks (or months depending on how I'm progressing with my major Makeover Project). 

The following below is the structure and composition of the 53rd (imaginary) Corps:

• 4 infantry divisions including divisional artillery of between 4-5 batteries each
• Corps artillery - a reserve of six batteries
• Corps cavalry comprising four brigades of between 3-4 regiments each

I have gone as far as defining each unit within their respective corps as far as rating their quality and experience. Example below is the composition of the 1st Division from the same Union 53rd Corps.

    1st Division (2 infantry brigades and divisional artillery)

        1st Infantry brigade

            1 Elite, 1 Veteran, 2 Seasoned, 1 Green regiments

        2nd Infantry brigade

            2 Elite, 1 Veteran, 1 Seasoned regiments

        Divisional artillery

            2 x 4-gun batteries

            2 x 6-gun batteries

In contrast, the 1st Division from the 1st CSA Corps looks like this:

    1st Division (5 infantry brigades plus divisional artillery)

        1st Infantry brigade

            2 Veterans and 2 Seasoned regiments

        2nd Infantry brigade

            1 Elite, 2 Veterans, 1 Seasoned, 2 Green regiments

        3rd Infantry brigade

            1 Seasoned, 3 Green regiments

        4th Infantry brigade

            3 Veteran, 2 Green regiments

        5th Infantry brigade

            3 Veteran, 2 Seasoned regiments

        Division artillery

            3 x 4-gun batteries

As shown, Confederate formation were generally larger than Union ones although the numbers lay with the Union for the most part. And the Confederates were generally more adept at war than their Northern counterparts for some reason. Especially their cavalry. 

The term "regiment" for me has a modified meaning to the normal meaning. I prefer to append the name "regiment" to a unit that has variable strength, i.e. not necessarily full-strength. And full-strength was only ever a rarity (at least by 1863). This is due to the losses incurred over time plus lack of sufficient reinforcements to bring numbers up to their deemed combat effectiveness. And paper strength is different to actual campaign strength as any ACW wargamer will tell you. So although it looks imposing written down, the actual numbers are much less impressive.

I have not started on commander profiling which will happen next. I am contemplating re-using my 1999 campaign commanders but locating that information may take some time. If unable, I will happily generate "new" commanders.

Cheers...

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

Addendum

Mr. Empson has basically provided sufficient material for me to generate my own simple set of rule variant, stuff like ground scale and weapon ranges (except artillery) can be worked out later. I believe that's the intent and therefore won't be pursuing hopes of ever locating the full ruleset. 

Already I've started "fiddling" with what's given, i.e. using 1:45 figure scale for instance. Next post should include simple commander profiles for everyone from top to bottom using his charts, dice, and cards. And weapons per unit such as breech loading carbines, rifled muskets, etc.