Big Game of ACW with (almost) no tears...

[Grompix]

Very glad you are enjoying the BP rules too. Our club has been using them for ACW since their publication and we find them very fast and hugely enjoyable.

Not sure what you mean by 'field columns' though but I assume you're using them as 'attack columns' as per the BP rules.

My understanding of the period is that such formations were rarely if ever used. There is a thread on the topic here: -

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1535&p=14805&hilit=columns#p14805

So the number of columns -v- line is one debate that need not (IMHO) apply to the ACW.

Our club allows column formation attacks only on narrow defiles such as bridges. We class all other columns in ACW as march columns as per BP definitions.

Chris

[Greenjacket]

[why ditch the +1 morale save? We find the +1 to hit it gives cannon cancels that out rather nicely.

We found that +1 Command (+2 for French), 3+ Morale save, combined with Mixed Formation skirmishers meant Attack Columns were too flexible and tough to make for a fun game.

I wonder if the +1 Morale save for Attack Column should be limited to troops who either were too unsteady to stand in line (i.e. Blucher's Prussian soldiers) or troops who had a doctrine of eschewing musketry in favour of impetuous bayonet charges (i.e. Russians, or French in 1859 with their cult of furia francese)?

But were Attack Columns used much in the ACW anyway?

[Big Al]

I recently had a "chat" with Rick and asked him to confirm the +1 save for units in Attack Column. He says that it is to be used against all attacks. The way we read it and play it is that the +1 was against non artillery shooting because that is what it says in the book and not when in Hand to Hand. The confusing bit is the part in the Combat section that says morale saves are treated as in the shooting section in every respect. It is the "in every respect" that caused us to take it as meaning against shooting only, just because it is specified. Rick went onto mention that it is ok to do that if you all agree. Attack Columns aren't quite as fearsome if you adopt the same view that we do.

We don't allow the 3+ save against shooting hits when the Attack Column is in Mixed Formation. We use the save that the skirmishers would get. Bad enough, anyway, seeing as they are -1 to hit.

[ScottWashburn]

ACW tactics are my particular field of expertise. I wrote my master's thesis on the topic and I've been a reenactment battalion commander for 25 years. I've read hundreds and hundreds of reports from the regimental and brigade commanders on just what formations they used in battle. My conclusions in brief:

Lines: This was the primary combat formation. Two-ranks, shoulder-to-shoulder lines of battle. 99% of the time this is how the troops fought. Skirmishers were used a lot in support of the lines or in very dense terrain, but nearly all the fighting was done by lines.

Columns: Columns of companies and columns of divisions were used frequently to move from place to place or for standing in reserve. Longstreet's famous flank march on the second day at Gettysburg saw his corps marching in columns of companies. But using columns as an attack formation was very rare. I've only found one example of that during the battle of Kernstown in March 1862. A Federal brigade of five large regiments attacked in columns of divisions against Confederate troops in line behind a stone wall. The attack did not succeed (at least not while in column. The columns deployed and more Federals arrived and eventually the Confederates broke.) And, of course, there was Emory Upton's famous attack column at Spotsylvania, but that was just a bunch of regiments all in line of battle stacked up one behind the other.

Squares: These were used more frequently than you might think. Still quite rare, but you find troops in square at a number of battles including First Bull Run and Gettysburg.


The troops were drilled in all these formations and could have adopted them if necessary.

[Cubster]

But using columns as an attack formation was very rare. I've only found one example of that during the battle of Kernstown in March 1862.

I have a vague memory of Union troops deploying into column to quickly assault and occupy earthworks left thinly defended in one of the Western battles. I think it was a fort next to the Mississippi, but it's a bit vague. They may have simply quick marched ahead in manoeuvre column.

I think the problem occurs as well around what one classes as a column. An absolute solid body of men in ranks, as on parade, is easy for marching about from A to B, but on the battlefield around flying lead would be a tad silly and impractical. So what some call a column, others might call a succession of lines assaulting in waves. It's down to the gaps inbetween men I guess and your (or the game's) definitions, which may or may not conform to the official drill manual.