design problems with river hexes

[Norm]

My Hexon terrain uses 'in hex' river features, but I am having problems getting my rules t reflect how smoothbore armed units that can only fire 1 hex, can engage with units on the other side of the waterway, which is essentially 2 hexes away, even though the waterway (Bull Run) is know to be narrow enough for smoothbore fire to reach the other side.

I have done a blog post, more really to highlight the problem of trying to shoe-horn new rules into existing systems.

LINK
http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2019/01/tf-on-design-problems-with-rivers.html

[Westmarcher]

Sorry, looks like if you can't change the terrain to make Bull Run run through the hex edges or cannot increase all small arms ranges, you'll have to accept that you've boxed yourself into a hex corner and that you cannot fire effectively across Bull Run with smoothbores.  

[Norm]

3rd option starting to look about right 😀

[Westmarcher]

3rd option starting to look about right 😀

Apologies again, Norm. I must have been modifying my original suggestions when you were composing your reply.
(I modified my post by deleting two other options which, when I had more time to read Norm's blog properly, had already been covered by him    ).

[Norm]

That's ok, your text still reflects option 3.

Someone on another forum suggested just count the river as zero for range, which I covered in the post, but it made me consider doing that but counting the fire as though it came from the stream hex and thus at least preserving the issue around fire arcs and reducing additional rules overhead.

[d_Guy]

I am likely thinking about this wrong but for simplicity maintain the rule that only one regiment may occupy a hex and allow that the first regiment to enter the stream/river hex controls it (their ZOC extends across even an impassable stream which may be an issue). This does allow smoothbores to be in range without fiddling with modifiers AND gets away from dividing a hex into three locations (two banks and the water)

If the opponent wishes to cross (charge) an enemy occupied passable stream then it would be done in a single move with the various modifiers applied (they could be applied in sequence to provide narrative).

I think you may have tried this approach before and was not happy with it.

[Dr Dave]

That's ACW right? If you have 1 hex range for smoothbores what's the rifled musket range. Is it 2 hexes?

If so they should probably be the same (or very close). Firefights in ACW we're at about the same same range (100 - 140 yds) regardless of small arm carried.

[Norm]

Bill, thanks for reminding me about ZOC's and how those influences may change, depending upon crossable / non-crossable  :-)

[Norm]

Dave, yes, 1 hex for SB and 2 hexes for Rifled muskets. I was reading in the Black Powder ACW supplement (I think), Glory hallelujah that some veteran units actually preferred to keep their smoothbore because they were proficient at getting off a greater rate of fire, as the rifling made ramming harder / slower. One assumes that that comes from a premiss that unit firefights were often fought at close quarters and that the veteran unit would not necessarily be disadvantaged by being so armed.

[steve_holmes_11]

Certainly a tangled web.
I'm a big fan of grids or area movement.
It has a capacity to simplify movement and range issues - in most cases.
The cost is  a certain loss of resolution in the battlefield terrain.

A modest suggestion to bypass the issue - at a cost of slightly reduced visual appeal.

Have 2 types of water course.

Big ones - too broad for smothbores - using the entrenched hex river sections.
  Treat the river hex as all river, and don't split sthe hex into 3 different areas.
  Really wide rivers could use the same approach, through with different tiles, and be two or more hexes wide.

Narrow watercourses - Smoothbores can shoot across these.
   Run these along the hex edges using suitable coloured felt or similar.
   I believe this meets your game mechanism requirements, through won't look quite as good.

[Leman]

Nosworthy notes that the minie in  America was pretty novel in 1861. Similarly, so were most of the officers in the ACW. They were heavily reliant on Napoleonic texts to inform them about musketry. Consequently they tended to think in terms of the flat trajectory of the smoothbore musket ball. This led to many units firing their new fangled rifles as if they were muskets, which resulted in the minie bullet hitting the ground before it got to the enemy, owing to the curved trajectory of said bullet. As a consequence the soldiers were instructed not to open fire until they were a lot closer to the enemy. This was a quicker and cheaper solution than spending hours, and valuable ammunition, on training.

[Norm]

Thanks Steve, I am going to write the rule on the basis of a narrow waterway and then use scenario rules if a waterway needs to be defined as wide. I will use the terms narrow and wide in respect of whether a smoothbore would be able to reach the far side...... but, i will allow one unit to enter to enter the hex regardless of whether it is wide, narrow, crossable or uncrossable and the simply aducate that on wide rivers the smoothbore cannot hit the other side and on uncrossable, the unit cannot physical reach the other side. Cheers.

[Norm]

Andy, a number of commenters at the blog post and a reminder for me to dig out Paddy Griffiths' book on the ACW, reinforce that notion that despite the rifled barrel, units were still largely engaged at ranges more akin to Napoleonic warfare than the 'imagined' longer ranges that the rifle would fire at.

[Dr Dave]

... in the Black Powder ACW supplement (I think), Glory hallelujah that some veteran units actually preferred to keep their smoothbore because they were proficient at getting off a greater rate of fire...

That's the "pour it on" optional rule.

Regardless of how they were armed, most infantry firefights took place at the same range of say 120 yds. Giving rifles twice the range of muskets isn't really very ACW at all. My 2p