Another idea is to let the ammo wagons go to the troops if desired and also let
them take hits like say limbered artillery without the +3 mod.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, Dean West <horseholder45@...> wrote:
>
> It was fairly common to hold the line after running out of ammo, and recent
research suggests that many times, ammo was brought up to the line to replenish
cartridge boxes. Moreover, we've all heard of men on the firing line ferreting
through the cartridges boxes of the dead or wounded. At 2nd Bull Run, the men of
Scale's Brigade (and probably others) pelted the enemy with rocks when they ran
out of ammo. In one of his battles (believe it was Parker's Cross Roads) Forrest
ordered some troops who had no guns at all into the firing line. When their
officers complained, Forrest said something like, "Just get on in there! I wish
to make a big show."
>
> IMHO it is not a good idea to have a rule that mandates a unit retire after it
is out of ammo. Some would argue that "out of ammo" rules in general aren't even
appropriate to simulate in a Grand-Tactical game. The "low on ammo"
interpretation is a easier way to suggest ammo problems without adding to the
complexity of a GT game.
> Dean
>

It's funny how many house rules or interpretations are driven by the kinds of
gamers you have around the table!

In my old club we had one gamer whose answer to any tactical situation is
"attack with everything you have." Figures he was a Marine. Then there was Bill.
Best gamer I ever played. Very patient, he looks like he's poking along and then
WHAM! A well timed combined arms attack is up in your grill and man can he puch
you around! Kind of lulls you to sleep than sucker punches you!

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Scot" <segore@...> wrote:
>
> In friendly defense of my table mates.  One of the common behaviors by almost
every player in the group is that on the rare occasion where you get a out of
ammo result is to go super aggressive with the unit.  Which is what the 20th MA
did, but we all know that one because it was so extraordinary.  In our games
almost every unit that runs out of ammo would "go all 20th MA on your A**". 
Which is mostly a pretty non-historical behavior.  So that led to the concensus
feeling of "must retire" versus "may retire".
>
> Scot
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "david" <dglennjr@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that it should be treated more as a 'may retire' rather than 'must
retire'.  In a real battle, the approaching enemy may not know that you are in
short supply of ammo, and you still have a bayonet for close defense (It's not
preferable, but you still have it.).  If I were a smaller unit and saw a larger
unit in front of me (though I dont know they are out of ammo), I may change my
attack so not to attack a superior number force, hence succesfully defending a
position while low on ammo. Look how effective quaker guns were (in both the AWI
and ACW) as there were lots of troops unwilling to advance on an artillery
position, not realizing that the guns were actually painted logs (and NO
ammuntion). Also, what about units that are ordered to hold their ground, at all
costs.  Look at the 20th ME @ Gettysburg.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
>

I also think gamers can be pretty literal...running completely out of ammo was
relatively rare. We remember Scales and Little Round Top in part because it was
so exceptional. I don't like any kind of ammo rules unless you get very complete
with supply wagons, runners etc.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, Dean West <horseholder45@...> wrote:
>
> It was fairly common to hold the line after running out of ammo, and recent
research suggests that many times, ammo was brought up to the line to replenish
cartridge boxes. Moreover, we've all heard of men on the firing line ferreting
through the cartridges boxes of the dead or wounded. At 2nd Bull Run, the men of
Scale's Brigade (and probably others) pelted the enemy with rocks when they ran
out of ammo. In one of his battles (believe it was Parker's Cross Roads) Forrest
ordered some troops who had no guns at all into the firing line. When their
officers complained, Forrest said something like, "Just get on in there! I wish
to make a big show."
>
> IMHO it is not a good idea to have a rule that mandates a unit retire after it
is out of ammo. Some would argue that "out of ammo" rules in general aren't even
appropriate to simulate in a Grand-Tactical game. The "low on ammo"
interpretation is a easier way to suggest ammo problems without adding to the
complexity of a GT game.
> Dean
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Scot <segore@...>
> To: jriii@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 8:50:54 AM
> Subject: [Johnny Reb III: yahoo] Re: Out of ammo
>
>
> In friendly defense of my table mates.  One of the common behaviors by almost
every player in the group is that on the rare occasion where you get a out of
ammo result is to go super aggressive with the unit.  Which is what the 20th MA
did, but we all know that one because it was so extraordinary.  In our games
almost every unit that runs out of ammo would "go all 20th MA on your A**". 
Which is mostly a pretty non-historical behavior.  So that led to the concensus
feeling of "must retire" versus "may retire".
>
> Scot
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups. com, "david" <dglennjr@ .> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that it should be treated more as a 'may retire' rather than 'must
retire'.  In a real battle, the approaching enemy may not know that you are in
short supply of ammo, and you still have a bayonet for close defense (It's not
preferable, but you still have it.).  If I were a smaller unit and saw a larger
unit in front of me (though I dont know they are out of ammo), I may change my
attack so not to attack a superior number force, hence succesfully defending a
position while low on ammo. Look how effective quaker guns were (in both the AWI
and ACW) as there were lots of troops unwilling to advance on an artillery
position, not realizing that the guns were actually painted logs (and NO
ammuntion). Also, what about units that are ordered to hold their ground, at all
costs.  Look at the 20th ME @ Gettysburg.
> >
> > My 2 cents.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

It was fairly common to hold the line after running out of ammo, and recent
research suggests that many times, ammo was brought up to the line to replenish
cartridge boxes. Moreover, we've all heard of men on the firing line ferreting
through the cartridges boxes of the dead or wounded. At 2nd Bull Run, the men of
Scale's Brigade (and probably others) pelted the enemy with rocks when they ran
out of ammo. In one of his battles (believe it was Parker's Cross Roads) Forrest
ordered some troops who had no guns at all into the firing line. When their
officers complained, Forrest said something like, "Just get on in there! I wish
to make a big show."

IMHO it is not a good idea to have a rule that mandates a unit retire after it
is out of ammo. Some would argue that "out of ammo" rules in general aren't even
appropriate to simulate in a Grand-Tactical game. The "low on ammo"
interpretation is a easier way to suggest ammo problems without adding to the
complexity of a GT game.
Dean




________________________________
From: Scot <segore@...>
To: jriii@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 8:50:54 AM
Subject: [Johnny Reb III: yahoo] Re: Out of ammo


In friendly defense of my table mates.  One of the common behaviors by almost
every player in the group is that on the rare occasion where you get a out of
ammo result is to go super aggressive with the unit.  Which is what the 20th MA
did, but we all know that one because it was so extraordinary.  In our games
almost every unit that runs out of ammo would "go all 20th MA on your A**". 
Which is mostly a pretty non-historical behavior.  So that led to the concensus
feeling of "must retire" versus "may retire".

Scot
--- In jriii@yahoogroups. com, "david" <dglennjr@.. .> wrote:
>
> I agree that it should be treated more as a 'may retire' rather than 'must
retire'.  In a real battle, the approaching enemy may not know that you are in
short supply of ammo, and you still have a bayonet for close defense (It's not
preferable, but you still have it.).  If I were a smaller unit and saw a larger
unit in front of me (though I dont know they are out of ammo), I may change my
attack so not to attack a superior number force, hence succesfully defending a
position while low on ammo. Look how effective quaker guns were (in both the AWI
and ACW) as there were lots of troops unwilling to advance on an artillery
position, not realizing that the guns were actually painted logs (and NO
ammuntion). Also, what about units that are ordered to hold their ground, at all
costs.  Look at the 20th ME @ Gettysburg.
>
> My 2 cents.
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One of the things I was toying with was having the inf/cav unit roll 2d6 to beat
BMP, modified for stand loss.  The more shot up and/or the more time the unit is
in combat, the more likely they have to or want to retire to the ammo wagons.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, corzin@... wrote:
>

>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <andrewwellard@> wrote:
> >
> > As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be
any further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

In friendly defense of my table mates.  One of the common behaviors by almost
every player in the group is that on the rare occasion where you get a out of
ammo result is to go super aggressive with the unit.  Which is what the 20th MA
did, but we all know that one because it was so extraordinary.  In our games
almost every unit that runs out of ammo would "go all 20th MA on your A**". 
Which is mostly a pretty non-historical behavior.  So that led to the concensus
feeling of "must retire" versus "may retire".

Scot
--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "david" <dglennjr@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that it should be treated more as a 'may retire' rather than 'must
retire'.  In a real battle, the approaching enemy may not know that you are in
short supply of ammo, and you still have a bayonet for close defense (It's not
preferable, but you still have it.).  If I were a smaller unit and saw a larger
unit in front of me (though I dont know they are out of ammo), I may change my
attack so not to attack a superior number force, hence succesfully defending a
position while low on ammo. Look how effective quaker guns were (in both the AWI
and ACW) as there were lots of troops unwilling to advance on an artillery
position, not realizing that the guns were actually painted logs (and NO
ammuntion). Also, what about units that are ordered to hold their ground, at all
costs.  Look at the 20th ME @ Gettysburg.
>
> My 2 cents.
>

I agree that it should be treated more as a 'may retire' rather than 'must
retire'.  In a real battle, the approaching enemy may not know that you are in
short supply of ammo, and you still have a bayonet for close defense (It's not
preferable, but you still have it.).  If I were a smaller unit and saw a larger
unit in front of me (though I dont know they are out of ammo), I may change my
attack so not to attack a superior number force, hence succesfully defending a
position while low on ammo. Look how effective quaker guns were (in both the AWI
and ACW) as there were lots of troops unwilling to advance on an artillery
position, not realizing that the guns were actually painted logs (and NO
ammuntion). Also, what about units that are ordered to hold their ground, at all
costs.  Look at the 20th ME @ Gettysburg.

My 2 cents.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Scot" <segore@...> wrote:
>
> We have at times played a strict semantic interpretation of the Out of Ammo
rules.  I don't have a rule book in front of me, but as I re-call, it reads
something to the effect, "Unit must retire to resupply".
>
> Some in our group have argued that the emphasis of the guidance is on the
"MUST RETIRE".  No options or choice to stay on the line HOLDing with one less
dice.  Unit MUST retire.  Others have argued that the guidance emphasis is on
the "to resupply".  AKA in order to resupply you must retire, but you can choose
not to re-supply and stay in place or even advance.
>
> If you play it as "Must Retire" the unit effectively can't shoot because they
turn their backs a march away in most circumstances.  I'm personally strongly in
the 2nd camp, but right now concensus in my group is must retire means must
retire.
>
> Scot
>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <andrewwellard@> wrote:
> >
> > As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be
any further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?
> >
>

one of the rules i was toying with for my chickamauga scenario was for
breechloaders and repeaters
the first out of ammo roll removes the special breechloader/repeater modifier
either the +2 or the extra die.
the second out of ammo would cost them a die. like other units.

having not really given it much thought before, i would think that a second out
of ammo roll should have some penalty. maybe no more shooting when not dealing
with an impact, or must retire unless a general holds them in line , ...maybe a
minus on morale or a plus when being shot at to show the uneasyness of the unit.
i know "out of ammo" was a code word for " we fell back in decent order" in many
reports. but at some point you do run out and you have to do something.



-----Original Message-----
From: jmkort <JamKor@...>
To: jriii@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2009 9:23 am
Subject: [Johnny Reb III: yahoo] Re: Out of ammo




Minus one more die ?

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <andrewwellard@...> wrote:
>
> As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be
any further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Minus one more die ?

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <andrewwellard@...> wrote:
>
> As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be
any further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?
>

Nope, no need for it.

If a unit is out/low on ammo, the situation usually takes care of itself.  If
two opposing units continue to fire at one another, one at a normal rate and the
other at a big disadvantage, the disadvantaged unit is either going to be blown
away, routed, disengage/retreating, or have to charge if there are no other
options.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <andrewwellard@...> wrote:
>
> As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be
any further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?
>

We have at times played a strict semantic interpretation of the Out of Ammo
rules.  I don't have a rule book in front of me, but as I re-call, it reads
something to the effect, "Unit must retire to resupply".

Some in our group have argued that the emphasis of the guidance is on the "MUST
RETIRE".  No options or choice to stay on the line HOLDing with one less dice. 
Unit MUST retire.  Others have argued that the guidance emphasis is on the "to
resupply".  AKA in order to resupply you must retire, but you can choose not to
re-supply and stay in place or even advance.

If you play it as "Must Retire" the unit effectively can't shoot because they
turn their backs a march away in most circumstances.  I'm personally strongly in
the 2nd camp, but right now concensus in my group is must retire means must
retire.

Scot

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <andrewwellard@...> wrote:
>
> As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be
any further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?
>

Nope.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@...> wrote:
>
> So you prefer to use the longer "technical" ranges then?
>

As we know, this actually means short of ammo for infantry. Should there be any
further effects when a unit gets a second such result before they manage to
resupply? I can't find anything in the rules but does anyone use a house rule
that such a unit cannot fire at all?

So you prefer to use the longer "technical" ranges then?

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "jmkort" <JamKor@...> wrote:
>
> this might come out better... w/ 40 yards per inch
>
>
> CLOSE  0-80y  1''  2''
>
> NORMAL 81-200y   3'' 4'' 5''
>
> LONG 201-400y+  6'' 7'' 8'' 9'' plus
>

this might come out better... w/ 40 yards per inch


CLOSE  0-80y  1''  2''

NORMAL 81-200y   3'' 4'' 5''

LONG 201-400y+  6'' 7'' 8'' 9'' plus

Ideally, I would think a segmented range table with DRM's for each weapon class
at each measure of range (inches) would be the best.

     CLOSE  0-100y    NORMAL 101-200y    LONG 201-400y
        1''  2''        3'' 4'' 5''      6'' 7'' 8'' 9'' plus

Depending on the known capabilities of each small arms weapon, one would add
mods--positive or negative--to the die roll.

For instance, smoothbores could fire at a target at 5'' or 200 yards out, but
they're rolling 3 dice with a -4 DRM, whereas a unit with RM's has no mod.  That
kind of thing.

So where do you stand on the new research on firefight ranges? There's several
books that suggest that regardless of what weapon they were armed with, troops
only opened fire at 200 yards or less, and usually at ranges closer to 100 that
200. Against this, many ACW rule sets have ranges out to 400 or 500 yards.

I'm considering moving to close range = 50 yards, medium = 51-125 and long is
126-200 yards. With these range bands I would do away with distinctions between
muzzle loading weapons entirely.

Your thoughts?

One of the points that I took away from Paul Stevenson's article is that I think
there's a strong argument for having equal Close Range bands for RM's and
smoothbores.  Whether that be 1'' or 2'', at base, I think they should be the
same.  Using the evidence that Paul cites, at 100 yards smoothbores firing B&B
have a hit rate 139% higher than the rifle musket.  Even accounting for the
reduced lethality of some of some of those hits, its still 139% higher. 
Accepting nearly all of Paul's proposed small arms ranges, I would perhaps bump
up Close Range to 2'' for smoothbores, flintlocks, mixed muskets.  I would say
getting 4d at 2'' is a pretty good bump up and encourages players to get close
who are armed with smoothbores. Obviously, any mods could be argued over.  
Perhaps +2 DRM for SB's at 1'' Close and only +1 DRM for Flintlocks at 1'' due
to reliability issues and in both cases no mods at 2 inches...

Range possibilities if using an express 40 yards per inch.

RM      C:2, N:5, L:10 (12ss)

SB      C:1+2/2+1, N:4, L:6

MLCar    C:1, N:3, L:5

BLCar +2  C:1, N:4, L:6

Mixed    C:2, N:4, L:7

Flint    C:2, N:3, L:5

Artillery ranges would remain unchanged except for an XL range band where 2d6
could be rolled with a -1 or -2 DRM across the board.  For instance, 12pd Naps
get XL out to 36'' w/ -1 DRM.  10#/3'' rifles get XL out to 44'' w/ -1 DRM,
etc... or it could be a -2 DRM.

All muskets would get close range at 80 yards or 2'' or less.  Percussion
smoothbores firing B & B would get an additional +2 DRM at 1'' close and say +1
at 2'' close.  Mixed Muskets and Flintlocks would still get two inch close b/c
of the inherent capability to fire B & B, but no mods due to Mixed being Mixed
(not all SB's) and Flint being Flint (reliability).   I think this would
encourage a player to close with smoothbore armed units.

Another idea would be to allow infantry/cav units to fire beyond their Long
Range max., but to add a -2 cumulative DRM for every inch beyond.  This could
serve as a type of XL inf/cav range.

Also, from a 15mm tabletop perspective I just "feel" 40 yard range bands relieve
congestion when units start to enter normal and close range, particularly when
skirmishers are factored in.  Furthermore, if one uses 40 yards w/ 1 fig = 30
men, then if one adopts a standard 4 figs per 1'' wide stand, the troops to yard
frontage question seems to match its historical counterpart more closely.

As I said, just musings.  I'm sure people have tinkered with these ideas before.
I am definitely in the "tactical camp" when it comes to JR, rather than the
"grand tactical" one.   Obviously, I don't think they  are mutually exclusive.

Thursday's full; now let's work on getting JR games for Friday and Saturday. I
may run a second game, but I will wait a few weeks to see if any time slots are
left then.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Turlington <andrewturlington@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Scott!  I am planning to run a JRIII Event on Thursday as well.  I am
putting it in for a 6pm strt time, so it shouldn't interfere with your game.  I
haven't picked a scenario yet, but will in the next couple of weeks.  I will
post here when I know more...
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: jriii@yahoogroups.com
> From: scottmingus@...
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:37:30 +0000
> Subject: [Johnny Reb III: yahoo] Cold Wars JR3 game registration
>
>
>
>
>
> I have submitted a game for Thursday at noon to open the convention. It will
be a game based upon Meade's planned defense of Pipe Creek near Union Mills /
Westminster Maryland.
>
> "General Meade, beaten at Gettysburg on July 1, withdrew into Maryland to his
fallback Pipe Creek Line. Robert E. Lee reorganized his Rebels and marched into
Carroll County for the decisive victory he has sought on Northern soil. Can the
Yankees hold off the Rebel attacks and defend the roads to Baltimore? Can Lee
push through and end the war in the Eastern Theater? A new scenario from CHARGE!
mag."
>
> 8 players, 4 hours. I will use the JR3 random events cards for this scenario.
>
> Any one else submitting games for the PEL?
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Thanks for the tactical tip.

Paul Stevenson's article probably talked me into using his range tables.   I'll
just say the scale is 40 yards per.  Interesting points about Buck 'n' Ball and
the need to close.  Canister recs are neat too.

Jim

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@...> wrote:
>
> Historically the 8th IL stayed dismounted. However in my playtesting, I have
allowed the Union player to mount them if he wishes, but no one has did do to
date. The most common order is to make them prone and then blast away with the
carbines.
>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "jmkort" <JamKor@> wrote:
> >
> > Scott,
> > Yes, Issue 25 is excellent.  Monocacy is an interesting scenario and looks
particularly well suited for a convention AND its within my capability to game
on my own some day.
> >
> > One question:  Is the 8th IL Cav dismounted throughout entire scenario or
can they mount up if they want to ?
> >
> > Paul Stevenson's article does raise some fascinating questions and provides
a lot of food for thought.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
> > >
> > > Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran down
in Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and repeated
with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
> > >
> > > There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of
your attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with
your friends.
> > >
> > > Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
> > >
> > > Scott and Debi Mingus
> > > York PA
> > >
> >
>

Thanks Scott!  I am planning to run a JRIII Event on Thursday as well.  I am
putting it in for a 6pm strt time, so it shouldn't interfere with your game.  I
haven't picked a scenario yet, but will in the next couple of weeks.  I will
post here when I know more...



Thanks

Andy







To: jriii@yahoogroups.com
From: scottmingus@...
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:37:30 +0000
Subject: [Johnny Reb III: yahoo] Cold Wars JR3 game registration





I have submitted a game for Thursday at noon to open the convention. It will be
a game based upon Meade's planned defense of Pipe Creek near Union Mills /
Westminster Maryland.

"General Meade, beaten at Gettysburg on July 1, withdrew into Maryland to his
fallback Pipe Creek Line. Robert E. Lee reorganized his Rebels and marched into
Carroll County for the decisive victory he has sought on Northern soil. Can the
Yankees hold off the Rebel attacks and defend the roads to Baltimore? Can Lee
push through and end the war in the Eastern Theater? A new scenario from CHARGE!
mag."

8 players, 4 hours. I will use the JR3 random events cards for this scenario.

Any one else submitting games for the PEL?





_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey Scott,
 
Another great issue of Charge -- the Paul Stevenson article is fantastic.
 
I am sure it will spark some spirited discussion in our JR community!
 
Thanks for you're and Debi's  hard work.


Bill Di Giulio









--- In jriii@yahoogroups. com>, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@ ...> wrote:
>
> There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
>
> Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran down in
Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and repeated
with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
>
> There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of your
attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with your
friends.
>
> Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
>
> Scott and Debi Mingus
> York PA













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have submitted a game for Thursday at noon to open the convention. It will be
a game based upon Meade's planned defense of Pipe Creek near Union Mills /
Westminster Maryland.

"General Meade, beaten at Gettysburg on July 1, withdrew into Maryland to his
fallback Pipe Creek Line. Robert E. Lee reorganized his Rebels and marched into
Carroll County for the decisive victory he has sought on Northern soil. Can the
Yankees hold off the Rebel attacks and defend the roads to Baltimore? Can Lee
push through and end the war in the Eastern Theater? A new scenario from CHARGE!
mag."

8 players, 4 hours. I will use the JR3 random events cards for this scenario.

Any one else submitting games for the PEL?

Historically the 8th IL stayed dismounted. However in my playtesting, I have
allowed the Union player to mount them if he wishes, but no one has did do to
date. The most common order is to make them prone and then blast away with the
carbines.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "jmkort" <JamKor@...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
> Yes, Issue 25 is excellent.  Monocacy is an interesting scenario and looks
particularly well suited for a convention AND its within my capability to game
on my own some day.
>
> One question:  Is the 8th IL Cav dismounted throughout entire scenario or can
they mount up if they want to ?
>
> Paul Stevenson's article does raise some fascinating questions and provides a
lot of food for thought.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
> >
> > Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran down in
Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and repeated
with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
> >
> > There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of your
attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with your
friends.
> >
> > Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
> >
> > Scott and Debi Mingus
> > York PA
> >
>

I was wondering if anyone could offer any explanation as to why JRiii went to 50
yards per inch, rather than staying with the 40y per from JR I & II ?  You can
go to 30 men per fig, keep yardage at 40 per and Time at 15 minutes approx. per
Turn and still accomodate all the changes that were made in JRIII ?

Just some thoughts.

Scott,
Yes, Issue 25 is excellent.  Monocacy is an interesting scenario and looks
particularly well suited for a convention AND its within my capability to game
on my own some day.

One question:  Is the 8th IL Cav dismounted throughout entire scenario or can
they mount up if they want to ?

Paul Stevenson's article does raise some fascinating questions and provides a
lot of food for thought.

Jim

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@...> wrote:
>
> There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
>
> Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran down in
Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and repeated
with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
>
> There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of your
attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with your
friends.
>
> Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
>
> Scott and Debi Mingus
> York PA
>

Strictly East politics; yet another reason I refuse to join that organization.



--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Scot" <segore@...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> I had assumed that if education day got controverisal is was about using "War"
games to teach people about history, decesion making, leadership, or risk/reward
decisions or whatever the point of your exercise.  If it's just internal strife
amongst HMGS-East, you don't need to reply regarding the matter.
>
> I've been bringing historical miniature war games into my daughters elementary
and middle school that last few years.  So far, no problems.  It has crossed my
mind that some parent might get upset if they hear that their child is being
taught war in Social Studies and I wanted to hear about complaints as means of
being prepared if it ever happens to me.
>
> Thanks
> Scot Gore
>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@> wrote:
> >
> > I will answer this privately; no use dragging this board into HMGS-East
politics, other to say that some folks hated the move of Historicon to Baltimore
and linked GED to that hotly debated move, which in part cost the president of
HMGS-East his position.
> >
> > --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Scot" <segore@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate on the controversy generated at HMGS-East Games in
Education Day.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Scot
> > >
> > > --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
> > > >
> > > > Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran
down in Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and
repeated with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
> > > >
> > > > There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of
your attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with
your friends.
> > > >
> > > > Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
> > > >
> > > > Scott and Debi Mingus
> > > > York PA
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Scott,

I had assumed that if education day got controverisal is was about using "War"
games to teach people about history, decesion making, leadership, or risk/reward
decisions or whatever the point of your exercise.  If it's just internal strife
amongst HMGS-East, you don't need to reply regarding the matter.

I've been bringing historical miniature war games into my daughters elementary
and middle school that last few years.  So far, no problems.  It has crossed my
mind that some parent might get upset if they hear that their child is being
taught war in Social Studies and I wanted to hear about complaints as means of
being prepared if it ever happens to me.

Thanks
Scot Gore

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@...> wrote:
>
> I will answer this privately; no use dragging this board into HMGS-East
politics, other to say that some folks hated the move of Historicon to Baltimore
and linked GED to that hotly debated move, which in part cost the president of
HMGS-East his position.
>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Scot" <segore@> wrote:
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > Can you elaborate on the controversy generated at HMGS-East Games in
Education Day.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Scot
> >
> > --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
> > >
> > > Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran down
in Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and repeated
with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
> > >
> > > There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of
your attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with
your friends.
> > >
> > > Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
> > >
> > > Scott and Debi Mingus
> > > York PA
> > >
> >
>

I will answer this privately; no use dragging this board into HMGS-East
politics, other to say that some folks hated the move of Historicon to Baltimore
and linked GED to that hotly debated move, which in part cost the president of
HMGS-East his position.

--- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "Scot" <segore@...> wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> Can you elaborate on the controversy generated at HMGS-East Games in Education
Day.
>
> Thanks
> Scot
>
> --- In jriii@yahoogroups.com, "scottmingus" <scottmingus@> wrote:
> >
> > There is a fascinating article by long-time ACW gamer and author Paul
Stevenson that is sure to be of interest. Paul argues that the current weapons
ranges in JR3 need modification, and he presents his case for revising the
charts. He has also included a new chart with the proposed changes.
> >
> > Also, the issue contains my recent Battle of Monocacy scenario I ran down in
Baltimore at the controversial HMGS-East Games in Education Day and repeated
with some twists at Fall-In in Gettysburg this past weekend.
> >
> > There are some neat articles from other contributors that are worthy of your
attention, as well as another regimental level scenario to try out with your
friends.
> >
> > Debi and I look forward to serving the JR gaming community with this
newsletter that we publish and underwrite. As always, we are constantly looking
for fresh material and new articles and scenarios, so please send them in to us!
> >
> > Scott and Debi Mingus
> > York PA
> >
>