Clearly Trebian you have been reading all the wrong books and magazine articles about the ACW. Tennessee troops in grey, with each regimant having different coloured hussar style braiding on their frock coats can be pretty arresting. Hollywood is very much to blame for the impression that every Union soldier looked the same and every Reb looked like a tramp. In fact 1862 was probably the worst year for Confederate uniform supply, and at no point in the war was the Union army uniformly dressed in sack coats and forage caps. Field fortifications only really made a regular appearance from late 1863 onwards. There are numerous cavalry and mounted infantry actions throughout the war, not to mention the combined river and land actions and even some tactical (as opposed to strategical) use of railways.

"Mindless blazing away from behind field fortifications and brainless frontal charges." Yes, that's a fair description of all three of the major ACW battles, Tacna, Chorrillos and Miraflores. Oh, wait, maybe that was a different war ...  ;-)

Out of a total number of clashes estimated at around 10,000 (from John Keegan book), there are perhaps 400 main battles. Which allows everyone to find happiness!

:-)

So Us and we could agree that, in this war, it is only the cannons that are smooth-BORE ?

;-)

;-)

To be fair, there are some aspects in which ACW is definitely outshone by other conflicts. While it's not purely dull blue vs dull gray, it's true that there is less colour and variety than you find in a lot of other armies; and while there are some characterful and indeed elite regiments on both sides, that's not in the same league as having distinctive corps such as an imperial guard, or Grenzers and Landwehr, etc. The symmetry of weapons and tactics is less fun than more asymmetrical conflicts, too.

But as l'empereur rightly says, with 10,000 actions to choose from, there's no shortage of interesting situations to refight. Also, there's plenty of asymmetry to be found at the command and control level, and pitting a huge but ponderous clumsy raw army against a smaller but more agile and aggressive one can present interesting challenges for both sides.

Lots of good gaming to be had from ACW.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!

https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles

http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331/

Quod Erat Demonstrandum... there was no need at all to call the ACW boring!... you do want to wargame other wars with ACW minis?... you have my blessing... be that South America, the Spanish in Morocco or whatever. I make a point of never debasing the interests of other wargamers. There are those who enjoy Fantasy, XXth Century, Dark Ages or even obscure Xinese and Mongol clashes... They have no interest for me at all but one never knows when it will indulge in a new period out of the blue... the hobby is a minority interest it does not seem popular enough to debate between ourselves what is boring or not. That is my last say on the subject. Dourpuritan, Chris BBB and the Emperor are akin to my thoughts. Thank you gentlemen.

It says that IGaBC uses a gridded playing area. Not having or wanting a gridded mat do the game mechanics work if you just want to use good old fashioned cms/inches?. Also which units/army would you use specifically ACW and for which would you use FPW?

Nigel

Nigel,

Bit late, I know, but here are some answers:

1) IGABC has a chapter on playing without squares.

2) There are force lists and recommended figures on this thread; https://www.baccus6mm.com/forum/PaintingandModelling/Gallery/1371-1-ImperialProject:SanFranciscoBattle/

Trebian