Some views on Johnny Reb III

Dear David,

I have played Johnny Reb III several times now and just love it; it is the best set of regimental rules on the market. The new streamlined mechanics help the game flow, and no longer will a charge bring the whole game to a halt; charges now move more quickly. Also, the new command rules add realism, the number of charts has been reduced to fit on one page and there is less dice rolling than before.

I have a few minor complaints. I've always had a problem with the basing system in JR II, and JR III retains much of it. John Hill is hung up on frontage. In JR III, no matter what size a regiment is, the frontage (four bases) remains the same by adding or subtracting figures to each base. This means you have to have bases with different numbers of figures on them. Does anybody really do this?

Most people I know have the same number of figures on their bases, and use as many bases as necessary to build regiments at the required strengths, rounding up or down. For example, say you mount four figures per base, and a particular scenario calls for a 15-man regiment; four 4-man bases would be used, rounding up to 16. A 25-man unit (huge for JR III!) would use six 4-man bases, 25 men rounded to 24. I don't understand how a 200-man regiment would have the same frontage as one with 1000.

Infantry and artillery base sizes from JR II are fine for JR III. But the new cavalry basing is radically different, and one is forced to rebase both mounted and dismounted cavalry figures. We put two mounted cavalry on 1" x 1" base, because the size recommended by the rules is too small.

My quibbles about basing are minor, though, and don't detract from a brilliant tour de force! The ebb and flow of battle, and the sheer drama of combat are as real in JR III as any miniature rules can make them. If you played JR I or JR II, and then later switched to Fire and Fury, it's time to come home to Johnny Reb III; leave brigade-level gaming to board gamers. Bravo, John Hill!

and another gamer's response!

Dear David,

I have read with interest David Hoover's regarding JR III basing and frontages. I agree that JR III is the best set of ACW rules out there.

I have played all editions, and must say that I prefer the third edition the best. In fact, I have rebased and organized my armies to better fit JR III and have had the greatest enjoyment doing this.

David Hoover indicated that he prefers to have the same number of figures on each stand of his regiments. I assume that this means 16 figures. I used to base my figures this way for JR II. With JR III, I found that to be awkward, and remounted my armies; I now have regiments with 10 to 20 figures. I have adjusted the base sizes to reflect more or less figures per base. This change has added a completely different tactical situation to our battles. The commanders have to deal with lower strength units breaking unexpectedly. While I still have some 16 figures (480 men), they are not in the majority.

JR III suggests different stand frontages depending on the number of figures: M" for 4 figures and I" for 3 figures (page 2.) JR II suggested the same basing sixes as JR III (page 6.) The basing has not changed between editions I and II except for the depth. John Hill indicates on page 2 of JR III that 1/8" or 1/4" one way or the other is not critical, and will not impact the game. (In fact, I utilize a frontage of 1 1/8" for 4 figures, 1 1/4" for 5 figures, 7/8" for 3 figures, and 5/8" for 2 figures. In all cases, I use widths of 3/4" for conformity and because the troops tend to fall over less.) I utilize the same basing for my dismounted cavalry, and 1 1/4" frontage for 3 mounted cavalry figures. These minor changes have had no impact on the game. In fact, I routinely borrow figures mounted for Fire and Fury from friends, to recreate larger engagements. I have never had any hang-ups with this or any problems affecting game mechanics.

I believe you will find that adjusting your base sizes a little here and there to accommodate your figures will have no effect on the outcomes of your games. Experiment and have fun with it!

JR III basing idea from John Hill

(This information was provided by Doug Kline.)

Dear David,

I have begun using an optional rule (with much enjoyment) created by John Hill to recreate "large" regiments. I used this approach in an Antietam scenario where we had 900 man (30 figure) regiments. The following text comes for the Johnny Reb Home Page which can be found at www.erinet.com/bp/johnreb.html. John Hill can also be reached at Hilljhn @AOL.Com:

JR III suggests that big units be portrayed as individual battalions, so as to maintain the four stands per unit mounting. While this works fine for U.S. Regulars or 1862 or 1864 veteran units, it works less well for big 1861 regiments. The problem with these units is that in 1861, there would not be a sufficient supply of experienced officers to enable the units to function as individual battalions. They were forced to fight as big, clumsy mobs. To reflect this, try using this alternate regimental mounting.

One way, as outlined in the rules, is to break the big units into separate battalions. But as an alternative mounting, more than four stands could be used. Taking this track, the per stand morale modifiers would be: 5 or 6 stand unit:

(-2) per stand lost; 7 or 8 stand unit: (-1) per stand lost.

This is both good news and bad. The good news is obvious: the lower morale penalty per stand and a very high musketry blast form these big regiments. The bad news is less obvious. Since the big unit still takes morale checks for each stand lost Ð keep that rule Ð its total morale checks per percentage of unit lost is higher than for a conventionally sized unit. Nothing unhistorical there, as these big units, when they appeared, were often very fragile. Also, when the inevitable "snake eyes" are rolled and these big regiments rout, they will leave a big hole in the line.

A few other special optional rules for big regiments:

1. In my opinion, these big regiments would be difficult to reform if they fell into disorder. Hence, if they do go into disorder, they would have to make a tactical competence roll to reform. Likewise, to reform from skirmish order, a tactical competency roll would be required.

2. Regardless of unit quality, a big regiment would take a full turn to change form one non-disorder formation to another.

This methodology could also be used to portray the occasional late war merged regiments, which could contain as many as twenty or more regimental fragments. Such a mob, depending on junior officer availability, may also not be able to operate as individual battalions. These should be considered as optional rules, to be used where it is appropriate. And like all optional rules, other complexities may arise that are not covered in the rules. If such problems cannot be logically resolved, a roll on the dice can resolve it.

ACW Play-by-Mail Games

The article in the Winter 1996 Zouave about play by mail gaming prompts me to write. I currently am running Civil War PBM games that are open to players interested in this long-distance form of war gaming. Mine are two-player games, with a number of separate games running at the same time. I use the Shenandoah Campaign System map, but my games have their own rules, featuring fog of war and emphasizing the problems of command. Reports back to the players are in character from the players army adjutant. Orders of battle are individualized for each separate campaign. The games run a maximum of 30 campaign days, so there is a definite beginning and end to the experience.

The games are run through the Solo Wargamers Association, with periodic reports appearing in SWA's publication, The Lone Warrior (North American edition) but the games are open to any and all who might be interested.

I'd appreciate it if you would help spread the word about this PBM opportunity in the Civil War era. If any readers of The Zouave wish to inquire further, drop me a line at the address below and I'll send them an explanatory flyer.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com