ACW typical forces.

[getagrip]

Okay, I realise this isn't going to be simple but...

I'm looking to make my own rules for ACW and I want to know the relative strengths of units (brigades / corps not sure) used at the time.

This is the level of detail I need, not sure if it's possible...

What could you reasonably expect to see on an "average" ACW battle? (I realise this may be entirely the wrong place for this question  )

Lots of infantry (I know) but what were the differences between them?  (Eg 20% militia or some such unit type etc).

PLEASE don't give me loads of historical references; I'm really trying to keep it as simple as possible but with some troop variation.

Thanks in advance.

[Ithoriel]

I hate to put a damper on things but I don't think you can write a set of rules for a period unless you understand the strategy, tactics, organisation, training, supply, etc of those involved.

Or at least, you can write a set of perfectly playable rules but they will not reflect the period.

I'd suggest picking a set of rules, playing some games, doing some reading around the subject and then either tweaking the commercial rules or writing your own.

As ever, only a personal view.

[fsn]

In "Wargaming in History: The American Civil War", by Paul Stevenson, Argus Books, 1990 gives ... and I feel the heavy breath of those who know on the back of my neck ... suggests Union - 80% infantry, cavalry 14%, artillery 6% and Confederates 70%, 20%, 10%. It also says that average regiments in the Union forces were 700 strong in 1861, 500 in 1862, 320 in 1863, 400 in 1864 and 4500 in 1865. Confederates 600, 450, 350, 250, 150.

In other words, it ain't that simple.

I think (and again, I'm not a great ACW buff but I would suggest that the composition of armies varied across the years and theatres. The way I approach these things is to find a battle/campaign I like and then mimic the OOB of the whole or (most interesting) part of the forces involved.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

The other issue is there is no typical ACW force!
Some would have more cavalry, less zouaves, coloured units, units in wrong uniforms, lack of cavalry, heavier artillery, former army troops, militia, trained troops, raw troops, the list goes on...
Basically, infantry, infantry, infantry...

[Westmarcher]

When you have got an elephant by the hind legs and he is trying to run away, its best to let him run.
                                                                                                                                               - Abraham Lincoln

A lot of sense from Ithoriel and FSN, Grip.  I would let go that elephant.   

[getagrip]

Yeah, I kind of expected this.

Thanks fellas.

The issue I have is, I don't have a local club (and even if I did I wouldn't be able to make it regularly enough to be worthwhile) and so I have no way of testing rules.

Therefore, I have to ask for advice here which, although comprehensive and informed, is wildly different.

Which leaves me with the prospect of buying loads of rules until I find one I like.

Corollary: write my own!

Hmm...

[Ithoriel]

Personally I'd suggest ACWmaster, because you're familiar with the system, they're free (if you still have a copy of the Warmaster rules) and they give a decent game.

At the risk of sounding rude (not my intention), you don't know enough about the period to be irked by the things that irk me about ACWmaster!

[toxicpixie]

Shame you're a bit further out than is practicable for a weekday evening or if suggest coming to the club here an we could give "MIT Blud & Eisen" a bash!

[getagrip]

Personally I'd suggest ACWmaster, because you're familiar with the system, they're free (if you still have a copy of the Warmaster rules) and they give a decent game.

At the risk of sounding rude (not my intention), you don't know enough about the period to be irked by the things that irk me about ACWmaster!

Thanks Ith; agree completely, I am blundering around in the dark.

Shame you're a bit further out than is practicable for a weekday evening or if suggest coming to the club here an we could give "MIT Blud & Eisen" a bash!

Where are you based Nathan?

[toxicpixie]

North end of Birmingham, the club's about five mins off from Junction 6 of the M6...

[getagrip]

North end of Birmingham, the club's about five mins off from Junction 6 of the M6...

That's do-able.

Have to pick my night obviously but, if you guys would be willing to set up an ACW, game that would be amazing!

Cheers Nathan.

[toxicpixie]

It's not my period, and would be proxies in 2mm but tbh if you ignore the base labels then 1866 Austrians and Prussians will do at a squint in 2mm

As a caveat I don't own a specific set of rules aside from "Mit Blud & Eisen" but can happily try them with a bit of tweaking from existing F&F Fury, or those ACWarmaster ones or kit-bash Pike & Shotte for ACW At least one might give you a flavour for what you're aiming to do...

"MB&E" would give a big battle overview (pushing around a big Corps either size, as each base is 600men and I can do @40 bases per side), whilst the others get a bit smaller scale in scope with each base ending up as less actual blokes.

[getagrip]

Thanks Nathan; would love to give that a go.

[Rob]

Yeah, I kind of expected this.

Thanks fellas.

The issue I have is, I don't have a local club (and even if I did I wouldn't be able to make it regularly enough to be worthwhile) and so I have no way of testing rules.

Therefore, I have to ask for advice here which, although comprehensive and informed, is wildly different.

Which leaves me with the prospect of buying loads of rules until I find one I like.

Corollary: write my own!

Hmm...

I would respectfully suggest that if you are determined to not learn anything about the period then when you complete you're rules, the testing will only going to be about whether you like the game, not is it is an "average" ACW battle, as you wont have the historical knowladge to analyse the results.

So what does it matter if the proprtions of this or that type are not spot on? Just go ahead and do it.

Rob 

[getagrip]

I would respectfully suggest that if you are determined to not learn anything about the period then when you complete you're rules, the testing will only going to be about whether you like the game, not is it is an "average" ACW battle, as you wont have the historical knowladge to analyse the results.

So what does it matter if the proprtions of this or that type are not spot on? Just go ahead and do it.

Rob 

Cheers Rob

I think I'm going to start with the ACW Warmaster rules Peter posted and go from there!

The rules are for me and friends anyway so who cares.