Comments for Sword and Rifle

Comment on Proof Burnside was an Idiot by DanDare

DanDare — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:18:08 +0000

It is hard for the South. Yet I like playing them the most because of the challenge. If you can keep the Union off balance and stop them from forming for a united assault you can win. Its just very hard to do.

Comment on Line Or Column: Which Is Better? by DanDare

DanDare — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:15:02 +0000

This is slightly modified by the time of the US civil war, where cavalry were more like mounted infantry than shock troop cavalry of the Napoleonic era. The advantage of column to square was thus lost. Also the range and accuracy of the weapons had increased so columns make poor choices for combat indeed.

Their advantage was speed and manoeuvre. This was so even in Napoleon’s time when his forces, having advanced in column, were often expected to deploy to supported line before charging. This did not often happen because the columns needed quite a distance between them to allow the line to deploy. Often it was more convenient to just charge in.

In playing Line of Muskets I find it useful to consider these factors. March columns are for rapid advance. Field columns for nimble moves and occasional massed charges. Supported lines for a good punch. Finally battle line to hold a position and shoot lots!

Comment on Proof Burnside was an Idiot by Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:55:41 +0000

As many times as I’ve played both sides of this battle, I heartily agree that for the Rebels it requires an inept Union CiC in order to win. With a concerted Union assault, the Rebs stand no chance even if Burnside’s IX Corps is held at the bridge named for his folly. The fact that the Rebs DID win it historically only goes to show it wasn’t just Burnside who was inept, but McClellan as well!

Comment on Leonidas and his 11,000 (not 300) by DanDare

DanDare — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:12:48 +0000

Fascinating detail. I didn’t know that so much detail about the battle was available. I look forward to the next article.

Comment on Leonidas and his 11,000 (not 300) by Tweets that mention Leonidas and his 11,000 (not 300) | Sword and Rifle -- Topsy.com

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:32:58 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Chris Wilkins. Chris Wilkins said: Leonidas and his 11,000 (not 300) http://bit.ly/aOpZkD A very good analysis of the Battle of Thermopylae by George Bisset. [...]

Comment on Proof Burnside was an Idiot by DanDare

DanDare — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:02:05 +0000

I have to say that as the south, playing with a fordable river was very distressing. The scenario doesn’t even include two extra corps that McClellan had available to him at the battle, but even so its a total rout for the South.

One has to wonder why Lee deployed as if the river was not fordable. It seems that both sides had troops on the ground that knew this but the commanders did not.

Of course, when playing a wargame you have more knowledge about what is going on than the historical commanders could have hoped for. Yet in this case the lack of knowledge seems inexcusable.