I played in Dave Schafner's 28mm ACW Muskets and Tomahawks game several weeks ago at Miniature Market's retail shop here in St. Louis, MO. I ran two 12 man Union green regular infantry regiments. Craig Ackerman (Rusty Musket) ran two 10 man regular Confederate infantry regiments.
The 28mm ACW rules are a variant of Muskets and Tomahawks. It's a specific card driven system where you can get both movement cards for both sides. I found this rather confusing. The Sword and The Flame is also card driven. However, everything happens in a specific order. There's a Movement, Fire, Close Combat, and then a Morale phase.
Dave's 28mm ACW house rules handles movement, or fire, or reloading. Everything is based on D6s. Morale test happen as the unit needs to test. Because of the randomness of the card play, you never know when your movement card for a particular unit might be played. I didn't see the point in playing enemy movement cards to confuse the enemy. Dave Schafner loved it.
Part of the problem was there was too many players on a 4' x 8' table to maneuver. That was out of the question. It then became a question of a slaughter-fest as troops got in range of rifled muskets. Craig Ackerman (Rusty Musket)rolled outstanding. His command was eventually liquidated. The Union left center was gone by the end of the game. I would take a casualty, roll morale, and fall back. This happened most of the game. I did inflict casualties on the Rebels, however, because of my large 12 man regiments.
You could also burn command figures for extra morale and firing effects, depending on the command figure. Another example of the "GW reroll" mentality that now pervades historical gaming. The game ended in bloody draw with not much being determined other another massacre of figures...
I do like 28mm ACW. It's been a long time since I played it. Most of my 15mm ACW experience has been as a Union commander playing Fire and Fury. I played 28mm Brother vs. Brother when I lived in Ames, IA at Iowa State Wargamers Guild. Craig and I agreed not to playtest 28mm ACW Muskets & Tomahawks again. Neither one of us liked it. If there had only been two players aside and room for maneuvering, I would have liked it better.
However, Mr. Schafner isn't the only one guilty of that. Many of my scenarios had too many troops and not enough terrain for maneuvering. That is something I'm trying to rectify in future gaming scenarios....
Blake
Sorry you didn't like the game Blake. A bloody draw was probably the best display of the game system's functionality – roughly equal forces (2 small infantry brigades on each side) facing off against each other in battle lines……mutual destruction was more than likely going to be the expected outcome.
ReplyDeleteAs the initial introduction to the rules, and having players bring their own units to the game setting, the game wasn't a pre-planned scenario, and didn't transpire as one that involved many flanking opportunities. Players held a part of the battle line, and engaged forward, some with benefit of local terrain cover, others with units at a disadvantage in open positions.
Not much more than a display of the fighting that occurred between battle lines of enumerable actions of the black powder era.
I'll likely not try this non-scenario format again, nor get the opportunity, as I can't control the forces involved from the outset if the game is open to whomever brings troops. Perhaps if the opposing forces hadn't been so similarly matched, the game would have panned out differently.
This "run what you brung" match format probably won't be getting a do-over, but the game system itself plays well IMO, and I'll continue to use it for future scenarios.
TweakBox
ReplyDeleteTweakBox APK
TweakBox Apk download