Muskets and Springfields

When I first saw these rules announced, my thought was, "these look interesting."  Played on a grid with no figure removal, Muskets and Springfields (M&S) looked right up my alley.  Now, with my experience with the recent hit and miss nature of books and rules released from the seemingly factory-line quick publishing of some companies, I am a bit wary.  This time, I threw caution to the wind and placed an order, sight unseen.

Having played many rules (see for example the different rulesets played in 2022 alone at Year in Review: Games Played) playtested others, and read many, many more rules across more than 50 years of wargaming, a read from cover to cover with a return to reinforce concepts often provides a good grasp of the mechanisms.  Including a QRS close by as reference helps too.  Hopefully, a core design philosophy can be extracted as well.  

After reading the rules through twice with several returns to reread crucial sections, I had many questions.  Questions arose not only in the rules, themselves, but to the author's understanding of the period.  Given these reservations, I went in search of reviews.  One of the few reviews found was Colin's impression at Carryings On

Up the Dale.  Colin enjoyed the rules with no mention of the mechanisms I found troubling.  Next up was the author's (Nigel Emsen) Design Notes.   

Both Colin and Nigel provide an overview and feel for the flow of the rules.  I make no review of the rules, themselves.  Rules' metadata can be found elsewhere.  As I read the rules, stopping to reflect often, there were many facets that simply either did not make sense or were (in my mind) in error.

Where to begin?

Let's start with the title, itself.  Muskets and Springfields is an odd choice for a title.  First, Springfields were muskets; rifled muskets but still muskets.  Perhaps Smoothbores and Springfields would have been a better title choice?  Second, "...because M&S sits at the operational level, there is no separation between smoothbore and rifle armed small arms" why this title at all, then?  With a ground scale of one square equaling 300 yards and no distinction between smoothbore and rifles, the title has no relevance.

This brings up my second point.  Operational level?  With a ground scale of 300 yards, basic maneuver unit (BMU) of a brigade, and all of the scenarios depicting small ACW battles or only portions of large battles, the rules are tactical not operational.  Perhaps our definitions of "operational level" differ but to me, operational invokes campaigns not refighting portions of battles.  The inclusion of capturing and spiking guns is a bit much when players take roles of Army down to Division command. 

Even setting the basic unit in the game as a brigade is not without ambiguity.  In the six scenarios provided, this basic unit seems to vary.  In some scenarios the BMU is a brigade.  In others, a brigade is composed of multiple regiments.  Still in another, a brigade is composed of a number of stands.  There is no consistency that a BMU is, in fact, a brigade.  Perhaps, "brigade-equivalent" may have been a better term?

Speaking of terminology, each unit carries a Morale State that can be in one of three states.  These are either "Unknown", "Steady", or "Nervous".  A unit's Morale State is not known until it first takes damage.  The author calls this rule, the "fight or flight" rule.  "Fight or flight"?  Why not use the period expression of "Seeing the elephant"?  Even the phrase of "first takes damage" is misleading since the next section in the rules under Attrition states that a unit must receive at least two hits in any one turn to trigger this event.  Another oddity is the use of the term "Shooting and Scooting" for evading.  I have never read of any ACW units "shooting and scooting" as a charge bears down.  Is the use of a deck of cards for activation really a "bag-pull" system?

What about troop types? Any challenges there?  Yes! Zouaves (and Native American warbands) in melee are easier to hit (-2 modifier) and fight with 4D10.  Regular infantry melee with 6D10s.  Why?  Oh, Zouaves and warbands are immune to Morale Tests!  Makes me wonder if the author knows what a Zouave was in the ACW.

In shooting and melee a unit rolls a specified number of D10s looking for successes but nowhere does it specify if the roll must exceed or fall under the target number.  Do the modifiers adjust the Base Number or the die roll?  The answer can be worked out by studying the modifier table but this should be explicit to avoid confusion.  Similarly, nowhere is it mentioned how a melee ends.  Does the losing unit retire from the square if neither is eliminated?

Finally, the scenario maps have issues.  Given that this is a grid-based game, the maps carry no grid.  Typos are frequent.  At Cedar Mountain, one of the Confederate commanders is shown as "C. SWINDERS" and a farm is shown as "Crillenden."  Good grief.

First impressions are that this work requires more development.  When one ambiguity surfaces, I question that one exception.  When ambiguities abound, I begin to question everything.  There may be some good ideas in here somewhere but getting to them is a chore.