American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ALynn</i>
<br /> How historic is it to have a fresh regiment, just sent to battle with their cartridge boxes full to shoot off their entire supply of small arms ammo in a single 20 minute period while the regiment next to them might be able to fight for horus upon hours and never run out?

Regards,

Brig. Gen. Alan Lynn
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

General Lynn,

Actually, something very much like that actually happened at Shiloh. A federal regiment got off the boats the morning of the first day and starting marching toward their assigned brigade. They didn't even know fighting had begun until they showed up at the battlefield -- and they had NOT been issued cartridges when they disembarked, because no one back at the landing knew the fighting had started, either! Their regimental commander promptly countermarched them back to the landing to try and find a supply depot. (As you can imagine, their fellows in the brigade were none too happy to see them come marching up then turn around and march away!)

Also, remember that each turn represents a 20-minute period, not a single volley, and as such must be somewhat abstracted. Soldiers going into battle were only issued 40 rounds of ammunition and were expected to load and fire 2-3 times per minute. During a heated exchange, it would be entirely possible for the regiment to be so low in ammo that it was no longer able to maintain enough fire to be counted as such in game terms. (In actuality, few firefights went that long.)

Still, I agree with you -- I would like to see each regiment and each battery have its own ammo counter. I think it should be decremented each time the unit fires, however, not just during offensive fire. I'd also like to see separate artillery ammo wagons. (I'm just guessing, but I would expect the ammo was kept in separate wagons.)


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory


David W. Mallory
ACW - General, 3/2/I/AotM (Club President & Cabinet Member)
CCC - Lieutenant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Department, Colonial American Army

for Scott Schlitte and his "Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><font color="yellow">"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."</font id="yellow"> -- Ben Franklin<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
From Alan Lynn
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please God never give arty an ammo setup like our current infantry setup. There is no reason for random low ammo. None. How historic is it to have a fresh regiment, just sent to battle with their cartridge boxes full to shoot off their entire supply of small arms ammo in a single 20 minute period while the regiment next to them might be able to fight for horus upon hours and never run out? If anything, the INFANTRY ammo situation needs to be changed - give each regiment its own ammo stock and show a counter for ammo so we know when they are running low.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I agree whole heartedly. Total War Shogun, TW Medieval, etc does it that way with ammo level indicators on each ranged fire unit, and it works fine. A major difference is that they are "real time" games and firing is automatic for archers, musketeers, aquebusiers, etc.

If a unit was historically low on ammo, that too can be programmed in on the scenario. But it does not make sense that some units can fight for days and never run out of ammo or require resupply. It is past time that this aspect of game play was brought up to the level of certain wargame competitors. <u>If you keep a unit in enemy contact exchanging fire and don't have resupply available, they must run out of ammo</u>, infantry or artillery. Remember that at Bunker Hill, the colonists ran out of ammo and had to abandon the field, upon the next British advance. (Which will lead to units out of ammo should usually be withdrawn, which will probably lead to a liberalization of allowing such units to withdraw off the map.) The British claimed a victory of arms while the colonists claimed a moral victory in that it was the first time that their militia had stood up well to British regulars.

Another plea for allowing only units to melee that their higher command, brigade on up, is in command range, and "in command." (<font color="yellow">Yellow leadership indicator</font id="yellow"> should mean units won't melee.)
The easy, at will, at any time allowance of melee attacks has set up this tactic for some players as their primary strategy. Melee was generally seldom done, whether because troops were reluctant, or for some reason that it was out of desperation, or because it was obvious that the defenders could be overwhelmed. The unrealistic tactic of massive melees in column as though they are tank columns,(which has spoiled the opportunity fire mode of play) won't be sustainable and after dark, won't happen due to lack of command control. The better commanders will be able to command more units to melee. A regimental commander still may lead the melee, while the brigade or higher commander status requirement allows it, without a requirement to participate in it.
Possible compromise: Any yellow indicated brigade or higher commander in the chain of command can lead a melee, if they personally accompany the assaulting units. I don't like it, but I can live with it. I would prefer to have much less liklihood of melee combat.

I also favor a change that if the movement points are available, let the unit change formation at any point during the movement phase, both modes of play.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the
right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.â€

The draw back of so many scenarios, every one has to be touched to make a change that affects them. My recommendation would be to make it an optional rule along with an optional rule to double the available ammo for both sides in the scenario if you went to 1 gun uses 1 ammo. This would work in ninty percent of the scenarios.

Although I suspect a good programmer could write a short routine to make the conversion automatically. I don't have the format of the scn file but I suspect all the numbers are there that are needed.

<new ammo level> = (<old ammo level>/<# batteries>) x <# guns>

And, as for infantry ammo. It would be nice to have the computer track each regiments use of ammo to determine when they run out but this would require much better player control over fire than currently exsists especially auto defense fire.

It would also be nice to have ammo resupply be based on how low the ammo was. A "Low Ammo" unit say requiring only half as many points of wagon ammo to resupply.

It would also be a nice touch to limit how quickly wagons can resupply units. Right now eveyone in range just sucks up the ammo it needs. Better would be to require you to select the regiment and then click on the wagon to resupply it. After that that wagon couldn't resupply another unit that turn.

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

In order I believe; 1, 5, 2, 3.

Also very much agree with BG Ross McDaniels comment of <blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Disrupted units should keep their movement points. A compromise would be to double disrupted movement costs if moving closer to an enemy unit. They cannot melee anyhow and fire power is quartered after moving. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As I have also said on a few occasions I would also like to see better pathing for 'routed' units. They often take the wierdest paths and always thru non disrupted units, even when a clear path behind them is available.

Lt Col. Paul Sharp
2nd Div - XIX Corps
Army of Shenandoah
"Defenders of the Right"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another plea for allowing only units to melee that their higher command, brigade on up, is in command range, and "in command." (Yellow leadership indicator should mean units won't melee.)
The easy, at will, at any time allowance of melee attacks has set up this tactic for some players as their primary strategy. Melee was generally seldom done, whether because troops were reluctant, or for some reason that it was out of desperation, or because it was obvious that the defenders could be overwhelmed. The unrealistic tactic of massive melees in column as though they are tank columns,(which has spoiled the opportunity fire mode of play) won't be sustainable and after dark, won't happen due to lack of command control. The better commanders will be able to command more units to melee. A regimental commander still may lead the melee, while the brigade or higher commander status requirement allows it, without a requirement to participate in it.
Possible compromise: Any yellow indicated brigade or higher commander in the chain of command can lead a melee, if they personally accompany the assaulting units. I don't like it, but I can live with it. I would prefer to have much less liklihood of melee combat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm thinking General McDaniel and I must not have the same conception of
what constitutes melee. To my way of thinking, melee is the means to take a piece of real estate from the enemy by whatever means necessary, be it by fire, maneuver, or hand to hand combat. I think the changes in the system have weighted melee in favor of the defender to the point that an attacker would have to have a huge numerical advantage to be able to depend on melee for victory. How do they handicap the attacker? Let me count the ways.

1. You have to have a 5:3 manpower advantage to have an even chance of winning the melee with no other modifiers.
2. Terrain advantages almost always go to the defender.
3. Units disrupted by fire are prohibited from attacking, but they defend at full strength.
4. Defending units can build breastworks to enhance their defense.
5. Attackers in a night melee suffer extra fatigue based on parameter data.

Except for the first and maybe the last, I believe these to be valid handicaps, but handicaps they are nonetheless. The end result is a proper balance of shock versus firepower for Civil War combat, IMHO. Shock doesn't necessarily mean closing with the enemy for hand to hand combat but it explains how the wheatfield at Gettysburg changed hands so many times in the course of Longstreet's attack.

I also disagree that massive melees by columns are what ruined single phase, but rather allowing movement after melee. If you changed the engine so that melees were preplotted to be carried out after you hit the end of turn button, it wouldn't be so unrealistic. The other problem with single phase is the anemic opportunity fire. Maybe if every defensive unit fired one time at half strength when the turn ended in addition to opportunity fire during the turn, it would balance things up. I don't know. Hopefully we will one day move to preplotted simultaneous turns like the Punic Wars.

With General McDaniel's other suggestions I heartily concur.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<b>Pre-plotted melees resolved at the end of the turn</b> sounds a good idea (at least until the game engine gets preplotted simultaneous turns). In addition, it seems logical to allow any defending units that haven't already fired to do so <i>automatically and at 100% effectiveness</i> just before any melees are resolved.

I also very much like the <b>individual ammo system </b>that's been suggested in this post, both for small arms and guns too - perhaps the precise level might be hidden if playing with full FOW, with the player just informed that the unit's level is "good", "fair", "low" or "out" of ammo. There'd still need to be supply wagons and of course artillery would need these as well.

<b>Straggler recover </b>(handled like fatigue recovery) - with say 50% (preferably modifiable in the pdt) of all casualties counted as <i>stragglers</i> and able to return to the ranks once the unit's pulled out of the firing line and resting. This should reduce the casualties to more historical levels and allow players to continue fighting (if they rest their troops) during a lengthy scenario.


Brig. Gen. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

bump

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

Rich, I would like something as simple as a hot key for viewing command range. It is an extremely useful tool but it is a pain in the butt to have to go up to the menu bar, select views, select command range, check what you want to see, then unselect it, move some more, then go through it again, etc. A simple hot key as in the Panzer Campaigns would be great.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"

I'll mention it to the big man!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nelmsm</i>
<br />Rich, I would like something as simple as a hot key for viewing command range. It is an extremely useful tool but it is a pain in the butt to have to go up to the menu bar, select views, select command range, check what you want to see, then unselect it, move some more, then go through it again, etc. A simple hot key as in the Panzer Campaigns would be great.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

by MG Mihalik
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm thinking General McDaniel and I must not have the same conception of
what constitutes melee. To my way of thinking, melee is the means to take a piece of real estate from the enemy by whatever means necessary, be it by fire, maneuver, or hand to hand combat.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
online dictionary
<font color="yellow">melee- Confused, hand-to-hand fighting in a pitched battle.
A violent free-for-all. See synonyms at brawl.
A confused tumultuous mingling, as of a crowd: the rush-hour melee.
[French mêlée, from Old French meslee, past participle of mesler, to mix.</font id="yellow">

I'm going by the French origin of the word, melee. It's a hand to hand brawl where unit coordination tends to get lost in a mixed up mess of fighting individuals. If defenders are leaving by the back door or other side of the woods because they see that you intend to fight hand to hand if necessary to take the position,... they are avoiding melee. It might be worth it to program it as an option that units may retreat a hex to avoid melee, if it is not worth it to hold the position. Not a big item on my want list, [|)] as we have done fairly well without it.

However, <font color="yellow">Rout Routes are a Problem</font id="yellow">

The routes that routed units take could be improved. Sometimes it seems that they go out of their way to run over stacks of artillery or units in good order to disrupt them too. I recently had an infantry go 16 movement points so that it could climb a hill into a wooded hex with 4 2-gun batteries. It would have made more sense had it continued to run towards its arrival road at minimal movement cost and away from the enemy. I would recommend that unsurrounded routed units should retreat:
1. first hex out of contact with the enemy unit...
2. second hex further away from any sighted enemy unit(s), with a tendency to go toward its own army's rear using the least MPs necessary to cover as much distance as possible away from the enemy.
3. Other considerations after those initial two hexes are met:

1) get out of enemy LOS, such as deep into woods
2) toward supply
3) toward a commander or its higher HQ unit
4) along a road away from their departed battle line
5) behind a friendly unit that is still in good order.

This would tend to make rout routes more predictable and reasonable.
I am okay with routed units having more movement capability, such as half again the maximum rate of that unit when in good form. Scared guys running for their lives cover more distance than a disciplined unit moving in formation.

Beyond that, it could be programmed in that a routed unit is sometimes just looking for a place and chance to reform its ranks. Consider the green Union troops at 1st Bull Run who did not stop until they reached Washington D.C., as opposed to veterans later in the war whose junior officers and sergeants would be able to get most of their broken unit to form up behind a steady unit. As the war progressed, that was more the case when troops had confidence in their commander. Consider the Army of Tennessee under Joe Johnston as to how they behaved under Braxton Bragg, and later Hood, after he had wasted them in several badly conceived attacks.

BG Ross McDaniel
2nd Bde, 3rd Div, III Corps, AoG

It looks like the game is getting closer to the TSS system. A long time coming. Can anyone say BCE.

One thing that bothers me is why the artillery disrupts so much in the ACW and virtually does not in the Napoleonic. I would know that both eras had the best men for the crews, the ACW guns were lighter I believe, and would have been easier to move.

The reasoning is perhaps that the Napoleonic artillery was used at a closer range to the enemy, musket fire was not as accurate, and therefore would need to be moved often and disruption would not allow this or make it suicidal. Although the movement rate and melee makes this less then ideal to do so.

I think that artillery is relatively weak in the game system and disruption just makes them weaker still.

Retreat by prolonge is a great addition but the fact that they are disrupted means they are dead meat since they virtually cannot move.

I also think that they should be able to move and fire to enhance their firepower and usefulness.

And let’s allow them to be combined to 4-6 gun batteries. I really hate the 2 gun, because of the number of units it adds to the game. Since the addition of 2 gun crews my enjoyment of the game has reduced dramatically. A personal preference is all.

I think that the non-disruption of artillery would greatly enhance the game play and historical use and firepower of the arm. At this time it is not very effective and the VP for their loss usually determines who wins.

Disrupted Cavalry should be able to have combat.

Melee is a combat abstraction in the game system and should not be literally translated. The action is an attempt by the attacker to take the enemy hex. Usually one side or the other fled before there were a large number of physical contacts. I think that the Hollywood image is prevalent when you use the word melee and adds to the confusion.




Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

Hello,

Please remember that arty disruption has been much reduced.

1) Routed units no longer cause arty disruption. So the only way to disrupt arty is in melee. Except now with retire by prolonge.
2) If disrupted, they recover much faster because their quality is used to determine rally, and most arty is "A" or "B" quality.


Also, remember that some games don't use just 2 gun sections. and that with the new arty capture rules, it is much more difficult to gain the VPs.

Also, only Gettysburg makes arty almost too valuable to risk. The VPs for arty is double the other games. So you must adjust your normal use of arty.

If you cavalry is disrupted and horses are confused and disjointed, I don't know how an effective attack could be organized.

I too would like to see arty have the ability to build up and break down. There was a good programming reason, and I think it had to do with the carry over feature of campaigns.

Perhaps that subject could be discussed at Tillercon.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />It looks like the game is getting closer to the TSS system. A long time coming. Can anyone say BCE.

One thing that bothers me is why the artillery disrupts so much in the ACW and virtually does not in the Napoleonic. I would know that both eras had the best men for the crews, the ACW guns were lighter I believe, and would have been easier to move.

The reasoning is perhaps that the Napoleonic artillery was used at a closer range to the enemy, musket fire was not as accurate, and therefore would need to be moved often and disruption would not allow this or make it suicidal. Although the movement rate and melee makes this less then ideal to do so.

I think that artillery is relatively weak in the game system and disruption just makes them weaker still.

Retreat by prolonge is a great addition but the fact that they are disrupted means they are dead meat since they virtually cannot move.

I also think that they should be able to move and fire to enhance their firepower and usefulness.

And let’s allow them to be combined to 4-6 gun batteries. I really hate the 2 gun, because of the number of units it adds to the game. Since the addition of 2 gun crews my enjoyment of the game has reduced dramatically. A personal preference is all.

I think that the non-disruption of artillery would greatly enhance the game play and historical use and firepower of the arm. At this time it is not very effective and the VP for their loss usually determines who wins.

Disrupted Cavalry should be able to have combat.

Melee is a combat abstraction in the game system and should not be literally translated. The action is an attempt by the attacker to take the enemy hex. Usually one side or the other fled before there were a large number of physical contacts. I think that the Hollywood image is prevalent when you use the word melee and adds to the confusion.




Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think that artillery is relatively weak in the game system and disruption just makes them weaker still.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sometimes I think I'm playing a different game than other folks in the club. To me, artillery is more powerful in the game than it was historically. But a lot of people have registered complaints about the "weakness" of artillery in the game.

This is what I have experienced. Say you want to capture artillery. You move your men forward. If the enemy knows what he is doing, he has infantry in front of the guns, which are an elevation above. His infantry shoot you. His guns shoot you at range 2, with devastating effect. If you have enough men left, you melee. Otherwise his infantry and artillery will shoot you again in the offensive fire phase. By that time your infantry is so anemic he can probably melee you out of the way. If you do manage to knock the infantry out of the way in sufficient force where he is not willing to counterattack, he simply limbers the guns up and retreats.

Here's what you can't do with any hope of success; try to pick off the crew, because there isn't any. It is an all or nothing deal, and if there is anybody who has had any success with the all, please speak up. You might inflict some fatigue, which disappears in the course of the night while your infantry casualties are gone for good. If you melee a limbered artillery unit, just hope you kill a gun. The melee result will tell you that you inflicted casualties, but you really haven't, except to yourself.

Here are the tactics in the games I have played. Move the infantry and artillery up. Close with the infantry and unlimber the artillery right behind them, hopefully higher. If the enemy wants to hold the ground, he will feed in infantry and fire at range 2 or 3 and you will do the same. Make sure your stacks include eight artillery units or twenty guns so no routing infantry will inadvertently run over them, and they are practically invulnerable. Only now, you don't even have to do that. Historically, Civil War artillery did not usually move that close to the enemy. Here is a Paddy Griffith
excerpt:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Civil War gunners found it excruciatingly difficult even to incorporate the basic principles of mass and concentration into their tactics, let alone the more advanced (and risky) concept of deliberately placing guns within close musket range of a well-emplaced defender. The very idea was so paradoxical and unlikely that most artillery commanders preferred to fight their war without it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In fairness, the gist of the chapter, from Battle Tactics of the Civil War, was that Griffith thought it would work. In this, I respectfully disagree.

Some folks seem to have gotten the impression that Civil War artillery inflicted staggering casualties, but if you look at
the casualties of regiments that stormed batteries I don't think you will find this to be the case. I remember reading in the Champion's Hill book about a battery that literally fired to the last man at the force that went around Champion's Hill and cut the road. Only 50 casualties were inflicted on the attacking infantry, including those inflicted by Confederate infantry. The 21st Miss at Gettysburg, which attacked several batteries, lost only 103 men in the whole battle, including casualties inflicted by the infantry.

In the context of the game, I think the casualties inflicted by the guns at the different ranges are pretty accurate. What I disagree with is the relative invulnerability of the guns.

-You can't inflict crew casualties. You either kill the crew or you miss completely. Usually the latter. If you do manage to kill the crew, you get no points for it.

-Any infantry adjacent to a routing unit disrupts, no matter what its rating. Artillery never does, no matter what its rating.

-Now, apparently, even if infantry routs through guns they aren't disrupted; but everyone else is.

-Artillery batteries never run low on ammo until the ammo pool is gone or if they are isolated.

Pierre has weighed in with his opinion. Most folks who have posted seem to agree more with him than with me. Any other comments?



MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

The changes Rich, no disruption when routed units pass through and retreat by prolonge, should help considerably. I have not experienced them in a game yet but those were the two major issues which resulted in high artillery loss. Do the updates in Gettysburg and Peninsula include them?

The relative weakness of artillery that I mentioned was a combination of things in the game system. The two above address two important issues. If the artillery is not disrupted for no good reason then the firepower is much more effective. As well if it can retreat it will reduce the losses.

General Mihalik your tactics would be effective espescially with the new changes and would induce the re-evaluation of artillery effectiveness. The loss of Infantry might be worth it if the artillery could be eliminated. The changes reduce that outcome.

In a battle of movement the ideal situations are not always present for the artillery to be setup in their ideal defensive or attack formation. If they are then you do not attack there.

Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

Not all pdt files are the same. So arty my be more effective in some games and less in others. The "no" disruption rule should now apply to all games, the retire rule will be introduced as new updates are introduced.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />The changes Rich, no disruption when routed units pass through and retreat by prolonge, should help considerably. I have not experienced them in a game yet but those were the two major issues which resulted in high artillery loss. Do the updates in Gettysburg and Peninsula include them?

The relative weakness of artillery that I mentioned was a combination of things in the game system. The two above address two important issues. If the artillery is not disrupted for no good reason then the firepower is much more effective. As well if it can retreat it will reduce the losses.

General Mihalik your tactics would be effective espescially with the new changes and would induce the re-evaluation of artillery effectiveness. The loss of Infantry might be worth it if the artillery could be eliminated. The changes reduce that outcome.

In a battle of movement the ideal situations are not always present for the artillery to be setup in their ideal defensive or attack formation. If they are then you do not attack there.

Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1st Bde, 3rd Div,I Corps
Army of Georgia, CSA

ACWGC President
1997- Oct. 2006

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lt. Col. Richard Walker
I Corps
Army of the Mississippi
2nd Brigade, 3rd Division
"Defenders of Tennessee"