Burnside Takes Command - Scenario #3 - The Battle of Fredericksburg - REMATCH

My virtual tip jar: ko-fi.com/patricks_tactics (Please support if you are enjoying the content!)
Heading back to 1862, Roger and I examine the replacement of McClellan with Burnside Takes Command. (Skirmisher #2, MMP 2003) The basic scenarios in this module recreate the autumn Union offensive under Ambrose Burnside to take the fighting back toward Richmond by way of Fredericksburg. Come join us and please submit comments below!
An introductory teaching session of GCACW live play using Burnside Takes Command (The Pontoons Arrive) with Vassal. This is the second play-through, with Patrick (CSA) vs Roger K. (USA). Recorded on 7/7/2024.
0:00 Welcome and Scenario Review
10:30 Game
1:05:00 Scenario Review
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...
GCACW Discord Server:
/ discord

[@richardhampson-smith6972]

im enjoying these recordings so much.Entertaining and informative, may also say inspirational. Cant wait to play again.

[@MikeCurtis7663]

This one had you on the edge of your seat until the end. Looking forward to the campaign! Thank you, fellows!

[@PatricksTacticsTutorials]

Our pleasure! Glad you enjoyed it, Mike.

[@johnskibajr5691]

If only Pickett had been so hesitant to launch his assault at Gettysburg as he was in this game. Lol.

[@christianknudsen8328]

I think it's a fantastic recreation of the actual battle as planned by Burnside, and really shows the strength of the system design. You have to go up the middle to for it to work from the scenario dispositions. It's a tough, tough ask for any Army, especially at the time, but a very good, very lucky Union player (or a very poor, very unlucky Confederate player) can win it with Burnside's plan, or at least make it close and exciting! I think it might make a decent teaching scenario, actually. I think to make it otherwise would require either a Approach to Battle variant, or allow both sides to freely set up somehow, with some mechanism for the Union to be able to mask the point of the blow somehow - plenty of ways to do that.

[@brendanirvin4277]

Wow - extremely bloody affair which is quite historical! It certainly does not look like a fun puzzle to work out for the Union - just a whole bunch of hurt! A comment on the various battles of Hamilton's Crossing - Hood who had just retreated out of there was only at f3, so he could have slid into the woods(4214) going to f4 to bring that hex in for a +1 flank against Roger. Would have been just what you needed on that first attempt. Also a whole bunch of 6s on assault attempts is quite entertaining. Had a similar experience the other day playing HSN. And - in both games - Burnside did not want to fight each and every time both of you asked him. I think each Grand Division Leader said yes each time you asked them - only to be hung up at the last attempt. He's McClellan with more whiskers! Lol

[@user-yk1fg2mu8h]

Can you not move Hunt during the leader phase at the start of the scenario?

[@PatricksTacticsTutorials]

The specific rule includes prohibiting Hunt moving during Turn 1, which is inclusive of the Leader Transfer Phase.

[@holgerschulz2107]

We, again, did not see the “scripted” opening via the starting rush into Fredericksburg downtown.
Well, then it cannot be that scripted after all… 📜🔀😉
In any case entertaining again as usual.
Just some nitpicker’s observations:
You already recognized in your editing (min 20:47 comment) that Stuart was incorrectly not routing but just retreating due to the +4 result handled as +3. Sure, such mishandlings happen in the heat of battle, and it doesn’t look that big a difference. But, via Stuart's remaining presence in the region, it had some follow-on effects on the flank kept on Howard and its retreat.
The pontoon bridge placed at min 32:50: Patrick comments/warns that it would cost 6 movement points to enter the woods.
But is that really the case?
Rule 10.1 of the standard rule has it (citation):
“If a pontoon bridge is successfully built, it is considered to have a road (not pike) running across it as long as both hexes connected by the bridge have roads, pikes, trails, or RR in them. Otherwise the bridge is not considered to be traversed by a road.”
In this case there are roads on both sides of the river.
The rule wording is not 100% clear an tight, but I read it as meaning that it is not just on the bridge itself having that road, but rather that it does in fact connect to the existing road network (otherwise there would be no difference to the “otherwise” and thus no sense for the note).
But McLaws’ ZOC, as long as he is there, stops anyone anyway, turning the question rather academic. But still for the “tutorial” aspect let’s stay straight.
And at min 40:00 it would have made difference Humphrey would have made it into the woods on the ad hoc trampled path - saving one critical fatigue.
But Roger got a repay for those accumulated mischiefs, when Brooks finally took Hamilton’s crossing on that -2 assault.
See, Burnside was wise not to allocate more men that were necessary for this task!
Of course, in the long term it didn’t help for the hex was not kept.
So, another Confederate victory overall.
Though, I think Roger overspent too many units on the eastern wing hoping for that one (too easy to block) bridge there.
BTW, are you sure you get the 3 VP for moving Hunt? One could read the VL list and the comment in the scenario rules above, that only the three outright ART units count for VP, and on moving Hunt you only loose the Stafford Heights bonus.
See forward to the campaign, gents!
Holger

[@PatricksTacticsTutorials]

Thanks for the bridge info. I'll make sure to review it ahead of the campaign. Ironically, the text in the Standard Rules for constructing pontoons give modifiers for the presence of a road/ford, roads in the connected hexes, or no roads. I think that's what was influencing the interpretation for Hooker's stack.
Yes, reading it again, the +3 VP does look like it would only be for moving the 3 Arty Units. Good catch! So the final would be adjusted to 51 VPs.

[@rogerk424]

I should have put both of my bridges in the eastern wing. As soon as we started play I realized I had goofed. I misread the rule regarding Hunt. I interpreted the sentence "these units may move on Turn 2, but there is a victory point penalty for moving each artillery unit, and as soon as one unit (including Hunt) moves, the special combat modifier is lost for the remainder of the game." In my head I equated the VP loss and loss of the combat modifier, but moving Hunt only results in losing the combat modifier. My bad...