blood-phoenix

Well, its happened. I've played Scenario 1 as the Confederates...for the last time. Is it just sour grapes? Am I just a poor loser? A person might conclude that, but its really not the case. As someone whose been wargaming for over a quarter of a century, I am highly experienced in the fine art of losing with grace, and while I certainly prefer victory, I am playing in part just for the fun of the game. But I have my limits. My long-time Grognard buddy "ddschirle" can verify that we have had many discussions about "game balance" in wargame scenarios. I don't mind scenarios with unequal forces...provided that the smaller or inferior force has adjusted victory conditions. If I play a game where I'm controlling the defenders of the Alamo, I don't mind knowing from turn 1 that my destruction is inevitable...if I have some kind of objective to shoot for that serves as a measure of success. Clearly, if I'm the defenders, my Victory Condition can't be "Rout the Mexican Army". You could, as an example, set the scenario up so that the defender would be considered to "win" the scenario if they held out for at least "X" number of turns, or inflicted over "X" casualties. But if you set up the game and say that both sides have the exact same objective: to wipe out the enemy army...then there's really no point in playing! Its a foregone conclusion, and the Mexican player can't help but win. Its especially onerous (and odious) to me when the inequality is based on historical inaccuracy. At first, I just thought Scenario 1 was unbalanced in favor of the Union, and persisted in the delusion that the Confederate might somehow be able to win. I no longer believe that. Unless the Yankee General is asleep at the controls, besotted on "Oh Be Joyful" or maybe 9 years old, the Rebs cannot possibly win. (General, there are no 15,000 men alive who can take that ridge.) And the really bad thing is the WHY of it. It comes down to the fact that the units in Buford's Cavalry are preposterously inaccurate in their capabilities. No unit in the game that is marked "Skirmishers" should be able to CHARGE the enemy (with the possible allowance that they might charge an enemy skirmish line) nor should they be able to seize and hold a Victory Point Objective. But if infantry skirmishers are bad in this sense, it is the mounted Skirmishers, the VIDETTTES that take the cake...in fact they ride their horses into your command tent, take YOUR cake...and eat it right in front of you! And you can do nothing to stop them! They are like Cataphracts on an ancient battlefield, with the addition of some new Yankee carbine called an AK-47... How I have grown to LOATHE the very word Vidette, when once upon a time to me it meant only the mounted pickets that screened an army or camp. Little did I suspect that I would come to associate the term with Equestrian Commandoes who haunt the nightmares of every artilleryman in the Army of Northern Virginia. The 1st Scenario is BROKEN. Because the Videttes are Broken. Please fix them so we can all move on.

Charging Skirmishers. Skirmishers taking Victory Point locations. Super-Cavalry Commandos (Videttes in name only) Watching my artillery crews try to roll their pieces away by hand when being charged by cavalry... SIGH

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and make a broad statement (always risky) based on the people I've talked to about this. I think people can be loosely placed in two groups on the subject of Buford's Cavalry in the first day scenario. 1. The first group are those that think the dismounted skirmishers and videttes are not overpowered. There may be some true historians of the Civil War in this group, but I suspect that if there are, they are mostly either people who haven't read enough about Cavalry tactics in the war, or people who are cavalry fans and will never see them as "too powerful". But I suspect many of those who support their current portrayal do so because they like to use them to win Scenario 1 in Multi-player, or because they just find them "fun" to use. 2. The second group is those who have studied the Civil War enough to realize that as they are currently portrayed, they are a complete flight of fantasy. They not only unbalance Scenario 1, they take away from the credibility of the game as a representation of history, which is a real shame because I think the game is exceptional in so many other ways. I will recommend it to the most hard-core Grognard or Civil War Buff I know, but I will also have to recommend that they avoid the July 1st morning scenario.

I posted a review...one of the longer ones, I suspect! Its hard for me to say anything in under 1000 words!

Well, to be honest... The dismounted troopers on the first day are in skirmish formation, so while they are generally in a "line" its a pretty loosely defined line, and I don't really have a problem with that. The Videttes...well, I actually agree with you. They have no formation. Not even a skirmish line. They just wander around in a mob. Which I would not care less about if Videttes were as unimportant in the game as they should be. The word "vidette" refers to mounted troops used as pickets, sentries, scouts. They served an important function in the real army, in those capacities. But on a battlefield? In a game like this one? They should be worthless, as they are not truly "tactical units". Having said that, how many of you who've played multiplayer have watched the Videttes charge like an actual cavalry unit, and drive off or mangle your artillery? In the first day scenario, once Union Infantry arrives, the Confederates need every Brigade at the front, and cannot assign them to the ridiculous task of "herding the Videttes" away from the guns. I've seen savvy Union players swing wide around my line and park their Videttes on the edge of the map in the exact spot where they know my artillery will enter, engaging them the very second they appear! Videttes just should not have this kind of power... But Lannes, I have noticed in the 3rd day scenarios where Stuarts command arrives with some sizable units of actual mounted cavalry capable of making a formed charge, that they do not retain any kind of formation in a charge. None of the units do. And I realize that neither cavalry or infantry kept perfectly-dressed ranks when charging...but I think the game exagerrates the reality. A big infantry brigade will spread out over a huge area, and find itself fighting several brigades of the enemy...and its even worse with Cavalry. When I charged with a single brigade of Stuarts cavalry against one battery of Union reserve artillery, I soon found the entire area behind Cemetary Ridge filled with a wild swirl of berserk cavalrymen! Sigh. That's not really how it worked...

Ran across this article that goes into great detail about the different tactical practices of European and American Cavalry in the 19th Century, and some of the reasons it developed. Quite interesting. http://battlefieldanomalies.com/us_cavalry/index.htm (at the bottom of the Introduction, there's a little blank rectangle you have to click on to open the article, or you can go to it here...) http://battlefieldanomalies.com/us_cavalry/02_american_experience.htm

I completely concur. The Confederate player doesn't have enough units to press the attack if they have to leave a Brigade behind to guard Herrs Ridge. Besides, its completely ahistorical for something like a pickett force of a couple hundred mounted skirmishers to seize and hold an objective.

This thread appears to have finally died gracefully, and I should let it rest, but I have to offer a comment, because its a topic that surprised me when I first learned about it. From what I've read, Infantry manuals of the Civil War contained instructions on forming Square, and they did practice it on the parade ground. Outside of drill, it was possible to count the few exceptional situations where it actually took place in combat. But IT DID! Amazing, huh? I had always been led to believe that it simply never happened in the ACW. Apparently the two best known incidents were the Thirty-Second Indiana Volunteer Infantry at the Battle of Rowlett's Station, December 17, 1861 against Terry's Texas Rangers; and a Colorado Volunteer company which formed square at the Battle of Valverde on February 21, 1862 when charged by the 5th Texas Mounted Rifles. It should be noted that almost every time it happened, it was in response to a feint by cavalry that never actually intended to press the attack, and were only seeking to slow the infantry's advance. The charges were not pressed home for the same reason that infantry in the Civil War rarely formed square: it was unneccesary when the range and accuracy of rifled muskets allowed infantry to repel cavalry charges by simply standing in line formation and shooting them to pieces. I have read account after account of infantrymen in the ranks and the one-sided outcome of such charges. Though the thread at the following link arises from a discussion of rules for a Civil War wargame, it addresses historical specifics, and I found it interesting. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=134213 But recognizing that this is indeed a game about Gettysburg, I ran across an occasion of the formation's rare use that surprisingly, happened at Gettysburg on July 1st! http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=3578 I have to stress though, that as much as these will likely make Lanne's heart beat more rapidly, this Napoleonic behavior on the part of infantry or cavalry was generally rare in the American Civil War. Lannes, I sympathize, because I love a good Cavalry charge, but I'm afraid it just doesn't fit this conflict. You mentioned longing for Heavy Cavalry, and maybe that underscores part of the problem. In Europe, anachronistic Cuirassiers with breastplates still existed at the onset of the First World War. But there simply WAS NO "Heavy Cavalry" in the traditional sense on the American Continent. In fact (people can correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't recall true Heavy Cavalry ever being mustered on this continent in the 18th or 19th Century. All the Cavalry I can call to mind from the American Revoluntion to the Mexican-American War to the Civil War would have been classed as Dragoons or Light Cavalry (with the occasional rare Lancer unit). The central reason for this is essential to understanding how they were employed in the Civil War era: the typical terrain of the Eastern United States lacks the kind of wide open spaces that made Heavy Cavalry effective. There was far too much rough ground. Gettysburg is unusual in that it has some large open spaces. But it also has the type of terrain that is very typical of most Civil War battlefields: woods too dense for effective use of Cavalry, steep hills, and rocky ground. This being the case, Civil War Cavalry performed the functions that Light Cavalry has always performed: screening the movement of the army from enemy reconnaissance, scouting the enemy's movements and strength, raiding enemy supply lines (the Confederate's skill with this particular use of horsemen is justly legendary), and pursuing a withdrawing enemy. To this was added a Dragoon type function, because the effectiveness of the firearms issued to Cavalry allowed them to function as what we would today call a "rapid deployment force" moving quickly to a threatened point on the battlefield on horseback, and then dismounting to fight on foot and delay the enemy. The saber was as secondary a weapon to Civil War Cavalry as the bayonet was to Civil War Infantry: a bayonet was far more likely to see service as a candle-stick or impromptu entrenching tool than it was for perforating an opponent. Civil War battles were decided by fire-power. (I don't have the precise statistics at hand, but bayonet and saber wounds accounted for less than 1% of battlefield casualties in the Civil War).