CNS & The American Civil War

[Cundiff]

In the absence of an opponent coming forward for a game of CNS, I've stumbled across one for the GCACW series (Great Campaigns of the American Civil War). The GCACW series has many similar concepts and qualities as CNS, and I've wondered, Kevin, if you've ever thought of adapting the CNS series to the American Civil War?

[vlozanof]

>> The GCACW series has many similar concepts and qualities as CNS

:confused:
Have you play to the two systems ?? I yes , and the two system are very differents. The scale (map and time) is different, the game system is different (GCACW is with impulses, CoN uses the classic "I go, You go") and the simulation paradigm is very different too.

[Cundiff]

Yes, I have played both systems and own EVERY game in BOTH systems.

You concentrate upon dissimilarities. There are many similarities. Both are based upon one day turns. Both are Brigade/Division level systems. Yes, CNS does move Corps, but they are themselves composed of Brigade and Division level units individuall represented.

BUT the POINT is that US Civil War tactics were extensions of Napoleonic Warfare. Most US officers spent hours studying Napoleon's tactics both at the Point and in their service thereafter. Some, like Gen. Kearney, actually went to France to serve with French forces in Morocco, and later in Northern Italy, before returning home to take part in the US Civil War. The basic concepts upon which warfare was conducted in the US Civil War are emulations of Napoleonic Warfare at its finest.

Therefore, it makes sense that the adaption of the CNS system to the US Civil War would work, and work well. THAT was the point here, not a comparison of the GCACW system and CNS.

[Nico[PL]]

I also have GCACW, great system. The only thing missing is fog of war. I love those random impulses:). However I dont see many similarities. CNS is about supply - cut enemy supply/LOC, get him and kill him:). Supply is not so important in GCACW or perhaps it is better to say - You wont loss Your army due to lack of LOC ;).

[Cundiff]

Well, I am not so certain the GCACW system is great. I have to say that the movement system, relying upon the roll of a die is the most mickey mouse thing I've ever seen. There's no connection between movement and reality at all.


Still, you're missing the point here. The American Civil War was the most logical extension of Napoleonic Warfare. There is absolutely no reason at all why the CNS system couldn't work in a US Civil War game, none at all. And, I think it would provide a superior method of reflecting that period and event.

[Barrie Pollock]

It is certainly true that the general dynamics of Napoloeonic warfare are found in the American Civil War. However, you will quickly find some profound differences once you get to work on the simulation details. The first, and most obvious probably, is the matter of railroads which makes the elements of supply and attrition, so essential to CNS, completely different.

Cavalry loses its battle role in the ACW, although scouting and screening is very important. Also, the phenomenon of cavaly raids would need to be incorporated.

I could be wrong, but it seems command control issues on the battelfield were more severe in ACW, perhaps due partially to more spread-out battles and more wooded terrain. This might need addressing.

The distances involved in the western theatre are somewhat daunting. Perhaps a 5x version would be more appropriate. There, the presence of river fleets adds another new dimension to the design load. The Atlanta campaign probably offers the best situation for a staight CNS scale. The Eastern theatre is quite "doable" as far as map scale goes, but the number of separate campaigns fought over the same area suggests a lot of counters.

In conclusion, I think it could be done, but the differences are greater than one might think at first. In truth, I suspect better fits could be found in some of Frederick's or Marlborough's campaigns, although thee are less interesting to the North American wing of the OSG community.

[Cundiff]

River fleets, now that was something I hadn't considered. Don't think it's insurrmountable, but hadn't thought of that.

Yes, you're correct the issue of supply lines was not as critical in the US Civil War as had been in earlier Napoleonic warfare. However, march attrition was still a problem, and disease, considering the larger armies involved and the pestilenial terrain fought over, brought about attrition that was greater and unrelated to supply, so that I tend to believe attrition would feature more prominently.

But, yes I do believe it could be done, and probably should be.

[Barrie Pollock]

Actually, adapting OSG systems to the ACW is something I've given some thought to. Kevin has suggested that I tyoe up some of my ideas relating to the Gettysburg campaign for possible inclusion in an issue of Wargame Design.

We will look at all possibilities - a CNS game, a Days game and a Battles game. The latter would feature variant reinforcement schedules which would be, at best, only vaguely known to the opposing player as well as possible delay or accelerated arrival times. However, completely variant reinforcements a la 4LB doesn't seem realistic for Gettysburg, as command on both sides was too unified for that.

Back to the issue of attrition, my sense is that there was huge attrition due to disease while armies were encamped, instead of inactive staus being a shield against attrition as in CNS. Perhaps this kind of loss could even be ignored in a game. Another sense I have is that much force march attrition was only temporary. Perhaps some losses here could go into the replacement pool.

[Cundiff]

I have pre-ordered Napoleon at the Crossroads because I do very much enjoy the CNS series. That said, I'd also be more than pleased to see the same methods brought forward in time to cover the ACW period. It also strikes me that if applied to the multiple campaigns and wars that criss-crossed Europe between 1700 and the Napoleonic period it would also find a following. I know for certain I'd be interested in the Campaigns of Frederick the Great ... and even Gustavus Adolphus for that matter.

Now, if only I could find someone who would play via e-mail (not cyberboard) I'd be a happy camper. The cornfields of Indiana are a lonesome place for a wargamer. Lots of crickets, turkeys even (I ran across several flocks mushroom hunting this spring), deer, and clean country air, but no fellow wargamers for miles and miles.