Chaos, Confusion, and Casualties

This is a break from the work I am doing on the wounding and death of General Joseph F, Mansfield at Antietam. Over the past several weeks I have had an annoying bout of writer’s block, coupled with severe episodes with my asthma, general fatigue, and lots of tours at Antietam. Things have calmed down a bit and I made myself get engaged in working on my Gettysburg book and the miniature wargame I am developing for Fall-In, the November wargaming convention by HMGS-East. I am also anticipating a possible live interview on an UK radio station. [It would be difficult to conduct were I deceased.]

While trying to piece together the roll of Captain James Hall’s 2^nd Maine Battery in conjunction with the route of Cutler’s Brigade north of the railroad cut at Gettysburg, I noticed a similarity between my game, Chaos, Confusion, and Casualties, and what was occurring on the field at Gettysburg or any battlefield for that matter.

No one had control anywhere, except in their isolated part of the battle. Generals and field officers, for that matter, had little control over how the battle played out. I realized I have to change my narrative technique differently than I had before and that it could frustrate or confuse the readers but, if done correctly, they will understand the battle better from the soldiers’ perspectives.

How does this relate to my game system? Imagine a game, which once it gets started, runs itself.

The playing area is divided into at least 8 sections which do not have to be uniform in size.

Only 6 of the sections will be used for deployment.

Each player commands an infantry brigade of 5 regiments of varied sizes. (The sizes of the regiments are decided by cards.

Each side has one battery (Confederates – 4 guns: Union 2 guns). Artillery may deploy by sections in the assigned areas with or without infantry supports.

Each brigade has a brigadier with two mounted ADCs and each side has one major general with 2 – 3 mounted ADCs. 

Players with enter the table at randomly assigned locations and at randomly appointed times, should the individual team decide to follow that route. They could also enter the board at the same time.

Brigadiers do not have to commit their entire brigade in one turn. (They might not have room to deploy the entire command.)

The basic turn sequence for each section of the board runs as follows:

1.      Players deploy their troops in their sectors simultaneously at the distance allotted for their type of formation: battle line, column of 4’s, skirmishers, column of piece, column of section, battery front. Change of facing may be done on the first deployment without deductions.

2.      Once everyone is done moving, the players will determine whether or not they can identify their opponent’s forces to fire upon them or to charge them. If the proposed target is within 24 inches (400 yards) it can be seen and identified.

3.      Players place “Charge “markers as desired.

4.      Defenders react to the charge as determined by a die roll – to be explained later.

5.      Players execute the charge, resolve hand-to-hand combat, and place stalled markers if the charges did not connect or if one side or the other withdraws to reorganize.

6.      Place smoke on the pieces which they intend to fire. (With artillery, they will also place a colored chit to determine what kind of round the gun will fire: red- canister; green – case; blue – shell; yellow – shot).

7.      Starting with skirmishers, artillery, then infantry, the players resolve fire and mark casualties to be explained later.

8.      Struck targets on both sides will react to the fire by panic, returning fire, withdrawing or doing nothing, which are determined by die rolls to be explained later.

9.      Turn ends.

Officers can get hit during any action and might not be able to be replaced.  Infantry respond differently to artillery fire than to small arms fire. Flank fire causes more casualties than frontal assault. Units panic at the most inappropriate time. Officers can stop their men from responding to incoming fire. Hand-to-hand is brief and nasty.

This is a very basic explanation of a different kind of game. Based upon action and reaction. Easier to play then explain, it is very similar to trying to dissect the sequence of actions upon a battlefield.

As always, I am always open to questions and constructive observations.  Thanks for reading this.  Mike Priest