Back in July, I posted here on my first thoughts about Mark Herman's much discussed ACW game, Rebel Fury, published earlier this year by GMT. It's a fairly simple, divisional level game that covers six battles: Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, The Wilderness and Spotsylvania. The mechanics are very similar to Dan Fournie's ancients game, Baetis Campaign, published in C3i magazine earlier this year and reviewed here.
Chancellorsville (henceforth referred to as Cville) uses the same map as the solo introductory game, Fredericksburg, which frankly was not a lot of fun. Cville promises more sport for the Union as half the federal forces begin on the south side of the map, at Fredericksburg, under Sedgewick, while the other half enter from the north map edge under Hooker. The Union has the initiative for two turns, as per the game's Turning Movement rules, but after that the Confederates inevitably get to move first because of their superior generals, Lee and Jackson.
Playing solo, I found it posed an interesting challenge for the rebs: how many divisions should I pull out of the entrenchments across the Rappahannock from Fredericksburg to send north to try and stop Hooker? In my solo game, the answer was just enough to slow the Union forces on either end of the map. As you can see below, the Union came close to their victory conditions, establishing a road route from south to north that is entirely more than two hexes removed form any Confederate unit, while likewise clearing the rail line south from Fredericksburg from Confederate influence. I got close, but not close enough.
However, if you look at the little red cross "Casualty" markers in the photo below, that is history repeating itself with a vengeance, as both Jackson and Lee became casualties, or at least enough of their HQ staffs to render them hors de combat. Herman has a clever rule whereby one can use a commander's combat rating, called "battle stars", to influence a fight, but there is a good chance that the commander will become a casualty. As the Confederate player, one has to resist the temptation to use the commanders in combat roles. For the Union player, at least in this scenario, Sedgewick and Hooker have less ability to influence a combat outcome, so it's best leaving them in maneuver mode so they can enable their units to cover more ground, and for the Union, maneuver, as I learned, is the key to success.
Nice looking game board and pieces, but I don't know the game system. Chancellorsville has been on my list of ACW candidates for one of my 'Map Games' - the operation over a large enough area to give the idea some scope. The others are the Seven Days' Battles (or the Peninsular Campaign as a whole, perhaps), the Tullahoma Campaign, and possibly the September 1863 operations that led to Chickamauga.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Ion
Hello Archduke and thank you for your comment: Yes, it's a good campaign for grand movement. In the GMT game, there are multiple entry points on the north (?) side of the map, and the Union player has an off-map movement display to choose which of these entry points to use to bring Hooker's part of the army onto the map. There are thus sufficient options for an operational aspect to the game. Of course, the confederate player knows that something is up, and has to decide how many resources to use to check the Union. It's an interesting campaign.
DeleteMichael -
DeleteHooker's plan - actually Burnside's plan - was a good one - a Napoleonic 'manoeuvre sur les derrieres' - and it ought to have succeeded. Against just about anyone but Lee and Jackson working in tandem, it probably would have done. That rather suggests that solo play is likely to lead to a different outcome. Mind you, the second 'Gettysburg' I did was a totally unexpected Confederate victory - and then JEB Stuart compounded it by a comprehensive victory over Pleasonton. The dice simply ran for the Confederacy.
Cheers,
Ion