Iuka Redux

As promised, here’s the AAR of the second take of Iuka scenario, this time with IABSM turn sequence and a bunch of other rules applied correctly. For the background information about the scenario and home rules in play I refer to the first report, since I haven’t changed anything in that department. It is however worth repeating that I planned for the game to run for fifteen rounds, with random extension of of between one and six rounds just to keep everyone on their toes.

This time around it would be a one on one affair, with L. yet again taking the role of Confederate commander, while yours truly would take over the Union troops. Poor bastards…

The plans

It became obvious rather quickly that L. intention was repeat his shock and awe aproach and run over the Union troops to his front with a bold frontal charge with one of his brigades, while the other one kept my flanking force at bay.

I must admit that I did spend a bit of thought on my initial deployment in the time that passed since the first game. I finally came to the conclusion that the original plan of Hå. was a pretty good one considering the initial deployment of troops and restrictions on movement imposed by terrain. I did however decide to make one major change – the first brigade of my ‘front’ force would take position at the edge of the woods at the left edge of the road. The second brigade would however not march up the road, but move quickly over the open field on my right flank, then turn left, traverse the woods and smash into the flank of Rebel forces which I suspected would attempt to repeat the events of previous game. The flanking column on the far side would at the same time try to push as hard as they could manage against L.’s blocking force.

The game

Right, let’s move over to the pictures.

We start the game somewhere around turn six or seven. L.’s first brigade has been spotted while still deploying for their intended frontal charge. My own troops are by now safely tucked away in the woods. The attached medium artillery battery is deployed from its blind at the road fork, since its unable to enter difficult terrain As it turned out, this prompt deployment played siginficant role in the events that followed, since this battery took rather severe toll on two of the Confederate regiments in its front and delayed their advance for a crucial round or two.

Couple of rounds later… With L’s assault on its way, I took the opportunity and unmasked my first brigade. Its position on the edge of the woods and supports to the rear would give them a bit of a bonus if Rebels managed to get that far. The effect of the fire of my artillery is already visible, with Confederate left flank starting to drag a bit. Also, it seemed like a good idea to move my skirmishers into a position that would enfilade approaching rebels.

The arrow illustrates my ‘cunning plan’ and the path I intended for my second brigade in its approach toward the enemy.

A bit more complete picture of the situation somewhere in the middle of the engagement. As can be seen, the situation on the flank is quite similar to that which developed in the first game, with both sides having difficulty deploying troops effectively. The major difference was that use of blinds in this game allowed me to freely deploy the artillery attached to that column where I needed it the most, in this case on the road. Once deployed, it started blasting away at the rebels in front of it, with considerable effect I may add. It actually managed pushing L’s blocking force back a bit all on its own.

 

There was however never any doubt that the main engagement would once again take place at the crossroads which were the target of Confederate charge. Despite suffering serious casualties on their way in, once in contact, the rebels had no problems mauling the green Union regiments trying to oppose them. Initial contact was made on my left flank, due to my artillery battery making the rebels to pay dearly for every step they took and temporarily halting their advance. However, where the contact was made, the rebels threw the Union regiment that took brunt of the charge back into the woods, pulling their supports in second line with them.

On the positive note my second brigade has now reached jumpoff position for its own assault. Also, the fire of my skirmishers on extreme left flank of my defensive line was surprisingly effective.

Whatever optimism I was able to muster from the butcher’s bill payed by the rebels during their advance was sapped away over next couple of turns. L’s seemingly unstoppable grey steamroller smashed into my line across the entire front, with disastrous consequences. My entire brigade was prompty routed, while the artillery battery which punished Confederates so severly was overrun and captured. It seemed like a repeat of L.’s charge in the first game. And indeed it was – once routed, my broken brigade got an unexplainable break and a chance to recover due to lucky unit activation sequence. This was helped by a quirk in TCHAE rules set, which I believe we run into for the very first time - routing troops move fifty percent quicker than troops which are in order. This allowed for my broken brigade to get away from their tormentors for a little while. Next a lucky/unlucky draw of activation chips allowed me to recover most of the regiments (one regiment and crews of the overrun battery run off the table edge and, I presume, of the face of the earth as is custom in tabletop wargames! ).

Also, the casualties that L. suffered in his brave, but perhaps a bit reckless advance did start to have tangible consequences -his best regiment having suffered more than 50 percent casualties became permanently defeated, while another was just two casualties from reaching same state. In plain language, two out of L.’s regiments had quite enough excitment for the day.

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the battlefield, things took remarkably similar shape as in the first game. The activiation chips for forces involved here were few and far between, making any decisive action impossible.

By now we have reached round fourteen out of ‘regular’ fifteen and L. decided to call it a day. Somewhat exhausted after over four hours of gaming time, I readily agreed.

I was however a bit curious about how things would turn out if we continued and decided to play the game to its conclusion on my own. It took me a week to find the time and energy, but today I finally run the last couple of rounds.

The situation at the time L. and I decided to call it a day was rather peculiar. Union brigade on the receiving end of L.’s bold but costly charge was decidedly shaken, but still useable. At the same time my second brigade was finally in the position for its own assault into the rear of L.’s decidedly bloodied assault force. Aware of that fact, he switched the orders of his second brigade, calling upon it for support. Also, his artillery was in perfect position to blast into the backs of my ‘rescue force’ as soon as it came out into open. So the situation on the battlefield looked like a blue-grey-blue-grey-blue sandwich, with each layer posed to attack somebody.

Before taking on the role of CinC for both sides, I decided that Confederate artillery on the high ground could not be ignored by Union side. I therefore split my second brigade into two parts – two regiments were to advance against Rebels to the left, while the remaining regiment and skirmishers would engage the artillery batteries to the right.

The first two rounds (final one of ‘ordinary time’ and first bonus turn) went pretty well for boys in blue. Rebel guns weren’t silenced, but I did manage to mask them and cause some casualties among the crews. Also, my ‘assault force’ of two regiments seemed to gain upper hand against the single Rebel regiment that opposed them. Then second bonus round started and ended abruptly with first activation chip drawn being a ‘Coffee break’. This was followed by a roll of six on a check for next bonus round, bringing a rather anticlimactic finalé to this game.

Musings after the battle 
Right… let’s start with a quick explanation regarding the reason for me and L. wanting to replay this scenario. As already stated, first time around I bungled several crucial sections of the ruleset, such as sequence of play and what ‘mandatory’ effects close combat had on participants. I also managed to ‘forget’ the fact that units can move multiple times under certain circumstances and refrained from using the ‘blinds’, which theoretically at least allowed for more rapid movement. L. and I suspected that if the ruleset was applied correctly and with the blinds in play, we’d be able to move more often, providing a more rapid game.

It is safe to say that our expectations were not met – the contact between L.’s first brigade and Hå.’s defening troops in first game took place in round eleven, in our game in round ten. The action on the flank was as inconclusive as in the first attempt. My flanking force arrived to its jump-off position about the same time as it arrived to Hå.’s rescue in previous game. In other words, correct use of movement rules and taking advantage of supposed advantages of ‘blinds’ had no effect in this particular game. On the other hand, applying correct turn sequence certainly did make some of the rules more logical, but without influencing the ‘feel’ or course of the game in any significant manner. L.’s assault was in most respects a repetition of what happened in our first game, main difference being that he took much more severe casualties while charging my line. This was due to my deployment of troops, not because of the ‘corrections’ to the rules we used this time around.

The ironic thing is that paying careful attention to the rules in TCHAE led me to a couple of new insights about this ruleset and none of them is very positive. The ‘blinds’ mechanism, while providing intended fog of war, is also in my opinion something of a can of worms as soon as partial deployment of units is attempted. It is also the only the ruleset I know of where line of sight rules are not clearly defined. This omission forces players to make their own judgement calls when trying to comply with restrictions applied to multiple unit moves in same round. Also, both L. and I were a bit dumbfounded by realization that movement rates between line and column formations (for units deployed on the table) are exactly the same. I’m sure that the rules designer has good reasons for this decision, but the explanation for this rather odd choice would be welcomed.

I’ll be frank and admit that all the ambivalencies and question marks that pop up every time I play a TCHAE game are starting to bother me more and more. At the same time it is without a question a tabletop games ruleset I am most familiar with and therefore most comfortable with. The dilema I find myself with is  therefore somewhat peculiar – do I stick with TCHAE despite all of its annoyances or do I, for lack of better word, dump it and start hunting for a replacement ruleset?

Now, where did I stash that copy of ‘Guns at Gettysburg’…

Playing Iuka Scenario or how to bungle a perfectly good game

First 'home turf' game of the year took place previous Saturday. And indeed 'home turf' it was in double meaning of the word, since we run yet antoher ACW scenario from Partizan Press 'Hearthland' scenario book and with 'They couldn't hit an elephant' ruleset. The well-trodden path one could easily believe... which makes the events that took place so much more peculiar. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

The scenario I picked for our game is one of the most interesting in the 'Heartland' scenario book. It's based on first battle of Iuka and it’s actually something so rare as a true meeting engagement. A smaller, but qualitatively much better Southern force of eight regiments and assorted artillery tries to escape the clutches of a numerically superior, but rather green Northern force divided in two columns. Also, the terrain is something of a challenge in this one with all woods being difficult terrain, thus limiting possible advance avenues, but at the same time creating some opportunities for more 'adventurous' players.

The game objective of Rebels is to secure at least two thirds of the road stretch starting with their entry point and ending with the entry point the Union force meeting them head on. I marked the spot which I decided would be the ‘watershed mark’ with the red X on the topmost picture.

I run the game with my usual modifications to the rules – poker chits activated the leaders instead of cards and there was equal number of chits for both sides in the bag, with dummy chits balancing the number for the side with fewer number of leaders (in this case a single dummy chit was added for the Confederate side). As usual, I started the game with three coffee chits. That number was reduced to two coffee chits once first casualty was suffered by muskeet fire and finally to one coffee chit after first rout. This modification increases the friction slowly as the action heats up. Also, for some unexplainable reason I decided this time around to run the game without any blinds – all units would deploy in march columns from the start. Finally I decided we would run the game for 15 rounds with a possibility of extending the game based on a D6 dice throw before each round above 15. A 6 would end the game on round 15, 6 and 5 on round 16, and so on…

The game

Well, let’s move on to the pictures and see what we can make of them.

The initial eight or nine rounds were spent on sluggish march to contact – a consequence of me deciding not to use blinds and made worse by further mixups regarding the rules. More about that in final analysis of the game. Here we see the situation around round 5. The Northern force that is deployed on the board actually did start the game deployed in column of march on the road, with foremost unit standing close to the red ‘x’. Hå., acting cautiously and waiting for appearance of his second brigade, started deploying his regiments almost immediately into line. L., commanding the Confederates acted a bit more agressively, moving his foremost brigade quickly toward the enemy present on the battlefield. It became obvious rather quickly that he intended to use his second brigade to hold flanking Union column at bay. As things turned out, that brigade was severly delayed by bad chip draws.

More of the same. Hå. throws his skirmishers forward as L. deploys his front brigade into line. On the side road we can see avangarde troops of Union flanking force, a small cavalry regiment. Main force of that column is still to appear on the field.

L. is almost ready to strike, Federal brigade sets up to receive the expected assault.

Meanwhile, Hå’s reinforcements make their way forward, although they’re in no rush.

L.s frontal assault goes in and manages to push back entire Union brigade. Actually it was a pretty even fight, with superior numbers of Union regiments and well-ordered formation almost halting the Rebel advance. But in the end experience carried the day. L. had to repeat his agressive charges three times, final assault being carried out by a single regiment before…

…this happened. The final chage of a single Confederate regiment routed its Union opponents, and quite badly so. This sudden collapse of morale spread like a virus throughout the entire brigade, which promply skedaddled in total panic to the rear. I’ve never seen something like that in a TCHAE game and to be honest, it was quite fascinating to see how rout rules triggered one regimental collapse after another. For precious moment the road to escape was free for the Rebels.

In the meantime, to the rear of this intense action, the terrain made things very difficult for both sides. He.’s regiments moved very slowly toward the Confederate blocking force. When contact was finally made, everyone was hindered by miserable terrain, making effective troop deployment very difficult. The result was a typical, inconclusive engagement where both sides suffered casualties, but noone could achieve the upper hand.

For a short while, things hang in the balance at the focal point of the battle. Funnily, it was the rules that decided that no breakthrough would be achieved by the Rebels – at a critical moment in the game a situation occured where if the first leader to be activated was the commander of the Union brigade that routed, it would trigger mandatory rout move for all broken regiments.  That would remove entire brigade from the battlefield. On the other hand, if Union Commander in Chief were to be activated, the rout movement would not be triggered and he’d have time to restore order among his routed troops. Luckily for Hå., his commander in chief’s chit was the first to be drawn, followed promptly by chit activating commander of his second brigade. This gave him chance to not only recover his routed brigade but also to set up a stabilizing line of blue-clad troops between his broken brigade and the Rebels.

At that time we reached the end of round 15. With everyone somewhat exhausted and realizing that we would not be able to achieve conclusive result in remaining time (up to six extra rounds), we halted the game and called it a draw.

Musings after the battle

The fact is that the outcome of our game was pretty close to the historical events – Confederates pushed back Union line (which in the real battle took up position on the heights where Confederate artillery is set up in the final picture), but then run out of steam. However, the battle was then aborted by approach of the evening and in the darkness, the Union troops apparently panicked and abandoned their position, leaving the field and open escape route to the rebels.

This however is a very small and unimportant side note. The really important thing consists of a disclosure of a very significant aspect of this game - for some unexplainable reason, I managed to completely scramble ‘They Couldn’t Hit An Elephant’ in this game into something that can only be described as Frankensteinian hodgepodge of at least two, possibly three different rulesets. To begin with, I completely re-arranged the turn sequence, allowing troops to shoot when they shouldn’t have, move when they shoudn’t be allowed to and executed assaults at incorrect time. I also incorrectly limited allowed movement of troops by at least two thirds, slowing the events of the game to snail pace. Finally, I’ve gotten into my head that all troops that participate in an assault are automatically disrupted. This, I’m pretty sure was a ‘crossover’ from rules of a board game (‘This Accursed Civil War’ by GMT) which I haven’t played in ages!!! The result of this particular shortwiring of my brain resulted in L.’s charge never gaining the momentum it could have gained. Go figure…

Here’s the funny thing though! Despite me totally bungling my role as game master, we still managed to have a pretty good fun. Once I discovered my multiple fumbles somewhere in the middle of the game, the lads were totally understanding and we simply agreed to continue the game to its conclusion with all my unintentional ammendments ‘in play’. And this brings me to perhaps the only really important conclusion one can draw from this particular game – it’s not the rules applied with military precision, masterly painted miniatures or diorama quality terrain that make for a good game, but the friends you play it with.

That being said, the Iuka scenario has so much potential for an interesting and challenging game that L. and I decided to run it again this Saturday, this time around with correct rules. So stay tuned for Iuka Redux.

Refighting assault on Battery Robinett

Time for another after action report for an ACW game we played earlier today. I’m still stuck on Caliver Books’ “Heartland” scenario booklet and now it’s time for Corinth. “Battery Robinett” depicts the Confederate assault on battery Robinett, so called after its commander Leutenant Henry Robinett and which was one of key Union positions in this battle.

For this game, we used yet again ‘They Couldn’t Hit an Elephant’ with the modifications I described in my AAR for ‘Shiloh’s Church’ scenario – card deck is replaced with chips drawn from a bag, number of chips is equal for both sides regardless of number of units on each side, with dummies making up the balance for the side with fewer number of chips in the bag. All chips are present in the bag from the start of the game, even before the tactical deployment to offset any mathematical advantages gained by unequal deployment of units/blinds on the table.

For those interested about the ruleset, I’ve reviewed and analysed it in my previous posts. There, you’ll also find descriptions of my modifications and reasoning behind them.

The scenario

As already mentioned, “Battery Robinett” is an attempt to depict one of key actions in battle of Corinth. The scenario itself is a surprisingly small affair – eight Confederate regiments with some artillery need to carry an extremely well-fortified Union position manned by a brigade consisting of five green Union regiments, a bunch of artillery batteries, two of which are heavy 20-pounder Parrots. Two small unattached Union regiments, short on ammunition, are also present on the battlefield, but they hardly played any role in our game. Union commander may get an additional large regiment in reinforcements during course of the game.

The game

I’m rather liking the picture-heavy format I used in AAR for the Shiloh game, so why not use it also on this occasion?

The game starts with Confederate brigades formed in a wood facing federal field works, preparing for the assault. L. took command of Rebel right wing, while T. took control over the brigade to the left. Yours truly is peaking over the parapet of Union breastworks, feeling the tension in the air… The rebs are coming!

The picture shows the left and central section of Union line. Breastworks are stretching across the line, manned by the five regiments under command of certain Colonel Fuller. The ‘battery Robinett’ is the gun in the middle. Two lines of abatis cover the field works. Since there are no rules for abatis in TCHAE, I applied my own – either move to the breasworks and spend entire movement allotment to cross in ordered formation or spend half a move on breaching it and become ‘Disordered’.

Nothing to do with the game, just T. making his own field adjustments for gaming purposes.

Confederate dispositions were uncovered instantly once the rebel regiments step out into open field, revealing their concentration of force on the centre of Union position.

“In my campaigning I had never seen anything so hard to stand as that slow, steady tramp. Not a sound was heard but they looked as if they intended to walk over us.” – Captain O. Jackson 63rd Ohio Infantry .

L. chose a tight formation two regiments wide, his Napoleonic inclinations clearly showing. T. choose to throw one of his regiments into a skirmish line, with the remainder advancing in single line close behind.

Not much of a prelude in this engagement. Confederates took some casualties while closing on Federal entrenchments, but close quarter combat was the name of today’s game. First to reach Union positions were the front regiments of L.s brigade. One of them broke under small arms fire as soon as it crossed the abatis, while another thrown back after savage point blank fight. That gave L. a pause. But by then T.s Texans reached the section of the Union line without the additional protection of abatis…

…and it was all over but the crying. Both 63rd Ohio and 11th Missouri, manning the breastworks to the right of the road ignominiously run away before the Confederate charge. Even though I managed to stop their rout shortly after, their initial collapse turned them into a useless mob, just waiting to continue their flight. Even 27th Ohio, which I moved over from the left to the right just in time to plug the hole made by the fleeing regiments wasn’t of much use…

…as L. figured out that a commander in chief shouldn’t have any problems giving move order to all of his brigades with single order if they were close enough… which in this case they were! And so, a general onrush of rebels smashed into the blue-clad regiments. T.’s Texans brushed away the already shaken 63rd Ohio and 11th Missouri and then charged 27th Ohio and an artillery battery, which now was all that stood in their way. Neither of Union units took much convincing before joining their already routing comrades in the rush to the rear.

To the right of unstoppable Texans, L.s brigade reached the breastworks yet again, slamming into and routing another Union regiment. Once the turn was done, the crew of guns of Battery Robinett and a regiment immediately to its left was all that was left of Union line.

And so, it was done and the day belonged to the Rebels. T. and L. were courteous enough not to glee too much before heading for home, leaving me to clean up the mess while wondering what went wrong.

Usual musings after the battle

OK, so first a couple of words about the game in general. By now I’m quite familiar with TCHAE and it’s paying its dividends – today’s game flowed smoothly and we were done in under three hours. Questions still arose now and then, but with a bit of common sense, they could be resolved without too much pain or searches in the rules.

As for the outcome of the game… well, by now it is very clear that with TCHAE, raw troops don’t stand much chance in close combat against a side of significantly better quality. This is the explanation for the sudden collapse of my right flank; my regiments were raw and assaulted by veterans with ‘aggressive’ attribute, which is pretty much the best you can have in this system if you’re charging into a defensive position. I may very well have ‘overcooked’ T.s brigade while adjusting the scenario to TCHAE, but with only three troop quality levels and four attributes to play with, it is almost impossible to model subtle qualities of individual regiments.

Still, even with ‘aggressive’ veterans, things can go sideways also against raw troops, as L.s almost stalled assault clearly showed. TCHAE gives enough playroom for ‘fortunes of war’ that on a different day even T’s seemingly irresistible charge could have been thrown in disarray with a bit of luck.

It is also worth observing that the Union reinforcements in form of one large regiment never showed up – I may have been too restrictive with the conditions of its appearance and it could have played important role in stemming the confederate advance.

Historically, the Confederate troops were nowhere close to being as successful as T. and L. were. J.C. Moore’s brigade (L’s command) was apparently formed in assault columns, an unusual formation in Civil War; THAE doesn’t even provide rules for assault columns! Perhaps their unusual tight formation was the reason for them suffering terrible losses before being repulsed, their commander being one of those killed in action. Phifer’s brigade was also shot to pieces, with Texan regiments so effective and horrible in our game being especially severely mauled. However, the Arkansas regiment of that brigade did manage to punch straight through Union line, only to be ambushed in Corinth itself by 5th Minnesota regiment, which also happens to be the reinforcement that failed to materialize in this scenario. So, maybe the outcome of our game isn’t as far from historical result as one would think!

Picture of real Battery Robinette after the assault depicted in this scenario.

Finally, couple more words about TCHAE itself. If I am to be perfectly honest, after all those years and several games with it under my belt, I am for variety or reasons still of split mind about it. And that’s why I have now decided to run this very scenario with two other ACW rulesets I own at this moment – ‘Black Powder’ and ‘Guns at Gettysburg’. AAR’s and comparisons will of course show up here in due course.

Shiloh Church 1862 with “They Couldn’t Hit An Elephant”

All right… let’s start the new year in right tone with a post that is actually about a game? And never mind that it’s been played more than five weeks ago!

The scenario

I continue to work my way through the excellent “Heartland” scenario book from Caliver Books and this time around it was time to re-play initial Confederate assault in Battle at Shiloh, or more specifically the part of that assault that took place in the area around Shiloh Church (on extreme Union right, if I recall correctly).

Initial setup in this scenario isn’t very encouraging for the Union side and to be honest, even before start of the game I doubted that it would be a very exciting game. Basically, the defensive position that Union troops are deployed in is compromised by the fact that its both flanks are wide open and begging for exploitation. In theory at least, the Federals should be able to hang on to the original position, but only until Confederates figure out the situation on the flanks, at which time their superior numbers should allow them to outflank Union boys on both sides, effectively ending the game.

But, as we all know, strange things can happen in wargames…

Originally, I wanted for H. and L. to play against each other with me acting as GM. At the last minute I decided that leading the massive Confederate force could be overwhelming for a single player. Therefore I took upon myself to lead the largely static Union troops and let my friends take control of the Rebels.

OK, I admit freely that my motives weren’t altogether altruistic. I did hope that this change would also lead to increased lack of coordination on Confederate side, thus at least to certain extent reflecting what seemed to have occurred in real battle.

Tweaking and tinkering with the ruleset

We are now arriving to the reason why this AAR is delayed by over a month – I had to post the two previous posts before this one, thus laying the foundation for the significant changes that I have done to ‘They Couldn’t Hit An Elephant’ for this game.

A short re-cap of previous posts is now in order. In them, I presented my reservations against card driven game turn engine in its original form. My objections consist of of two main arguments:

• A card deck of even moderate size (around 10-14 cards), provides far too many combinations to be able to provide expected ‘average’ statistical outcome within number of turns of a normal game (in my personal opinion, a game is usually finished between 20 to 40 rounds). This point of critique is especially directed toward the ‘Tea Break’ card mechanism, which I claim is far to random within the scope of a single game of average length.
• Unequal number of cards in the deck introduces a purely mathematical advantage for the player with larger number of cards. Such advantage is in my opinion, unintended alt. unrecognized by the ruleset design and creates games where one side is unintentionally handicapped by a factor outside the scope of the ruleset.

I took several ‘dramatic’ steps to adjust TCHAE in an attempt to alleviate the issues described above:

1. Instead of cards, I decided to use game markers as activation tools for units, leaders and special events such as ‘Coffee Break’. Game sequence was to be decided by random draw of one marker at a time.
   
   This change has two consequences: the activation sequence is ‘fluid’ throughout a turn, as any marker has equal chance to be drawn at each draw during the turn (opposed to  a card deck, where turn sequence is ‘locked’ after cards have been shuffled). Also, this system is ‘self-levelling’ – if multiple markers for one side are drawn for one side, the chance for drawing the other side’s marker is increased.
   
2. Regardless of number of markers needed for the game, the number of markers for both sides was to be equal in ‘marker pool’ at all times throughout the game. Dummy markers would be added to the marker pool to even out the numbers, if necessary.
   
   In this particular game, this change was especially significant – eleven Confederate markers, five Union markers and four ‘neutral’ markers were needed for all purposes in the game. If I stuck with those numbers, I’m pretty sure that Union side would be hardly able to act at all in this game, making it a very dull game indeed. By adding additional six dummy markers for the Union side, the ‘probability’ issue was neatly removed.
   
3. All markers were in the play from first round. This has two effects: balance is kept the same throughout the game, regardless of losses. Also, chance for ‘Blind’ markers being drawn is equal for both sides regardless of number of deployed units on the table.
   
4. The game started with three(!!!) ‘Coffee Break’ markers in ‘marker pool’. This allows for rather free initial movement (although surprises still occurred).
   
5. One ‘Coffee Break’ card was to be removed once first small arms salvo has been fired. Second ‘Coffee Break’ card was to be removed after first unit rout in the game. This alteration was based purely on ‘gut feeling’ in an attempt to provide increasing friction as the battle progresses.
   

The game

The game developed in expected manner, with Confederate troops approaching the Union position on wide front, successive waves of Rebel troops smashing against the Blue line, initially bouncing back on most occasions. As the loses mounted on both sides and with Federal line being slowly outflanked, I tried to retreat to alternative defensive position, while feeding in the reinforcements into the gaps in my line as they appeared. This tactic proved to be successful, until a series of determined Confederate charges against my left flank brigade resulted in what can only be described as its complete disintegration.

A single picture is, as they say, worth thousand words. Therefore I invite the readers to take a look at the series of pictures below for a more detailed analysis of the game.

Confederates approach the Union position. Original defensive line of the Union troops is marked with blue line, Confederate objectives are marked in red. According to the scenario, two Rebel brigades were deployed on the table at the start of the game, the rest was to enter the battlefield on 5+ roll on a D6 for infantry brigades and roll of 6 on a D6 for artillery batteries. H. and L. managed to roll 5 or higher for all of their infantry brigades in first turn of the game.

As Union dummy blinds are ‘spotted’ and removed from the game, the harsh truth about weakness of Union position is revealed. Already after a couple of turns, the Confederate troops started to overlap Federal line, forcing it to bend in an attempt to cover the flanks. However, fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on point of view) marker draws stopped Confederates from moving decisively and exploiting the situation to their full advantage. In this picture, Buckland’s brigade on Union right flank is adjusting position of one of its regiments in an attempt to meet the threat of being outflanked by rebels of Colonel Pond.

Cleburne’s brigade throws itself against Union centre early in the battle. Raw troops of Hildebrand’s brigade meet this charge with a hailstorm of fire from small arms and artillery, throwing it back in disarray and permanently breaking the rebel regiment leading the attack.

As battle progresses, more Confederate troops come into close contact with the Federals. Here, Russel’s brigade is clashing with Union troops defending strong position at the bank of Shiloh’s Branch, trying to push their way across the stream. This particular attack didn’t succeed, but it pinned Union forces in place and did cause considerable casualties.

Situation in the middle of the game. Union centre thrown into disarray, with one artillery battery taken by the rebels, the other one trying (unsuccessfully, as it would turn out) to retreat toward second Union line. Hildebrand’s brigade on Union right is buckling under mounting weight of Confederate pressure. In Union rear, McDowell’s brigade is trying to establish second defensive position, blocking the road.

At this time, L. and H. went home and I proceeded with the final phase of the game on my own.

Situation on right Union flank at the same time. Confederate attempts at outflanking the Union position continue to be thwarted by bad luck in activation marker draws – that’s the main reason why the blue line is still relatively intact.

‘Agressive’ characteristic of many of Confederate regiments decide the battle on Union left flank. Units with this characteristic move forward on their own if activation marker for their brigade isn’t drawn and the brigade has ‘Assault’ orders. Furthermore they have significant positive modifiers in close combat. In this battle, individual ‘agressive’ regiments from Cleburne’s and Anderson’s brigades smashed repeatedly into Hildebrant’s raw Union regiments, first throwing them back in disarray and then routing them from the field. Brigadier Hildebrand was killed in the course of this rather confused melee.

Right flank of Union line at the end of the game, still in pretty good shape.

Situation at the end of the game, seen from Confederate perspective. With Union left disintegrated and two Rebel brigades ready to enfilade second defensive line of Federal troops, the final outcome is just a question of time.

Overall situation at the end of the game. Notice the large Confederate formation at the rear of rebel lines. Johnson’s brigade, second strongest brigade in Confederate OOB never managed to get into the fight. Something to ponder about for rebel commanders.

Musings after the battle

I don’t think much more needs to be said about the scenario itself – as I suspected beforehand, there can only be one outcome here. Scenario designer does recognize this fact and makes this scenario playable by setting sensible victory conditions for federal side –the game is to be limited to about 15 turns, at which time rebels are to be in control of their objectives. If they’re not, the Union side can claim victory. With the ‘Coffee Break’ card used as end of turn marker, this condition needed to be modified – I choose to give Confederate side 40 ‘Coffee Break’ cards to achieve their objectives. I’ll let the reader figure out the intricacies of this condition.

If you insist on asking who won the game, I’d say that Confederates did, despite failing to reaching the objectives – the Union position was compromised by the time I decided to call it quits (I believe that about 35 ‘Coffee Break’ cards were played by that time). Further resistance would at that time only mean more meaningless slaughter and I am quite sure that a sensible Union commander would recognize that fact and call for a retreat. On the other hand, the ‘real world’ Union CinC on that occasion was no one else  but William T. Sherman, so who knows, maybe he’d fight to the last man regardless of his hopeless situation.

Never mind the battle/game though, what about the massive ‘surgery’ I made to the ruleset? Well… obviously, I’m not objective, but I must say that things flowed rather smoothly from the start and there weren’t too many objections from H. and L. neither (both of them played TCHAE in original format).

Personally, I was mostly concerned that the additional markers would slow down the game, especially at the start of the game, when only few of the markers would actually activate units. Fortunately my worries were completely unfounded. My activation markers were made of numbered poker chips and we just drew them one of them after the other until playable marker was activated. Took no time at all.

If I am to be completely honest, I’d go as far as saying that without the modifications I applied, this scenario would be an unplayable cake-walk for Confederates and a very sad, maybe even frustrating affair for Union players. As it was, both sides had fair chance to act and manoeuvre. Remarkably, if there was any frustration during the game, then it was caused by the fact that a couple of Confederate brigades consistently failed to be activated at crucial moments in the game, causing certain people to voice completely unfounded accusations of me playing with ‘marked’ game markers.

On a more negative note, I have to confess that I am growing slowly disillusioned with TCHAE as a ruleset. One thing that bothers me more and more is its order system, which consists of four order types – hold, advance, engage, manoeuvre. The ‘Hold’ order is the only one intended for defensive purposes and its nature is quite rigid – units under this order are pretty much to fight until they break or die. This makes flexible defence pretty much impossible and renders artillery especially vulnerable to frontal assaults, since it’s not allowed to evade while ‘Holding’. By now I’ve lost artillery batteries on several occasions because of the rigidity of this order. While I’m fully aware that this opinion can be debated, I’m starting to feel that there is something missing in this part of the ruleset and I’m growing a tad weary of having to ‘fix’ yet another issue in TCHAE.

At the same time, I have to be fair and admit that even with its ‘flaws’, it does give a decent ACW game. It’s slow, ponderous and requires a lot of ‘grinding’ before any decisive results can be achieved. Any real victory can only be achieved by decisions on higher level of command, by proper deployment and hammering at right spots with elements of at least brigade size. That’s American Civil War for you, like it or not. Also, there is something to be said about familiarity with a particular ruleset and by now I do know TCHAE inside out.

Still, I think that the time to give ‘Guns at Gettysburg’ and ‘Black Powder’ a shot is slowly approaching….

One part history and one part math

This post is something I’ve been both wanting to get of my chest for quite some time. At the same time, I’ve been hesitating to write it, because its content will quite probably be received as “heretical” by some Lardies. Also, I’m afraid that the end result of my efforts will be a mix of a rant and seemingly pointless ramblings. Rest easy though, I will try to get to the point I’m trying to make… eventually.

The history part
By history, I mean my personal wargaming history. If you take a closer look at this blog, it will rather quickly become clear to you that my wargaming revolves to a large degree around rulesets from Too Fat Lardies. ‘I Ain’t Been Shot Mom’, ‘Dux Britanniarum’ and ‘They Couldn’t Hit an Elephant’ are the rulesets I use most frequently and enjoy tremendously. The reason for me liking products from Too Fat Lardies is simple – basics of these rulesets are intuitive and easy to learn while the games they provide are usually quite eventful and unpredictable.

At the same time, I must say that I can’t help but feel that the controversy surrounding the game mechanics routinely used by Two Fat Lardies that ensures the unpredictably I’ve just expressed me liking so much isn’t completely unfounded. Those who are ‘in the know zone’ know of course that I am talking about the ‘staple’ components of most TFL-s rulesets – the card driven game engine and the dreaded ‘Tea Break’ card.

For those unfamiliar with TFL-s rulesets a quick explanation may be in order. Most of TFL-s rulesets share same central game design component  - sequence of the game turn is controlled by a deck of cards. This deck is usually prepared before the game and its content can vary between the games depending on opposing sides or special conditions. It is used to decide the sequence of a game turn – each card, when turned, usually activates a unit or a leader. A card can also trigger an event, give bonus actions, grant temporary advantages and so on. Since the deck is being shuffled at the start of each turn, the sequence of activations is always random and provides a rather ‘chaotic’ game.

The ‘Tea Break’ card (it has different names in different rulesets, but works same way in all of them) adds additional twist to the inherent chaos of card-driven game turn engine described above. When it’s drawn, it signals end of on-going game turn. Oh, your card for that unit posed to charge across the field wasn’t drawn yet? Well, sorry about that, but you’re shit out of luck, let’s hope Lady Fortuna will treat you better in next turn! OK, things aren’t that bad most of the time, units that hadn’t been activated can usually still perform limited set of actions (for example shoot at close range), but the ‘Tea Break’ card usually puts an end to any movement during the turn.

I’ve actually written about these two game mechanisms and their effects on the gameplay before, both in my reviews of TFL-s rulesets and in after action reports for games in which TFL rulesets were used. It is actually hard not to at least mention them whenever TFL-s rulesets are discussed, simply because they are such central part of the whole package. Also, it is hard not to mention them at least once or twice , because they tend to evoke emotions among players… at times those emotions are very strong indeed!

When is “fog of war” fog of war and when is it just plain chaos?
The discussion about pros and cons of turn sequence engine consisting of a card deck and randomized end of turn had been at its height in my small wargaming group few years ago, at the time when we used second edition of ‘I Ain’t Been Shot, Mom’ as our primary WWII ruleset. As my review once indicated, I was quite fond of that ruleset and was willing to accept fair amount of ‘glitches’ as long as we got to use it, but my buddies grew steadily fed up with its unpredictably. The thing is that even I had to agree with the main argument against the game mechanism – it did feel far to random and made any sort of planning nearly impossible.

Now, I am fully familiar with the argument of the Lardies. Lad, dust off your Clausewitz and von Moltke and see for yourself -  the ‘elders’ clearly state that friction of war will make even easiest tasks very hard to accomplish and that no plan survives the contact with the enemy. QED, case closed, who are you to object this ancient wisdom?!

Well… let me start by saying that I completely agree with the above statements. At the same time, I can’t help but point out that a surprising amount of plans in “real” wars did actually work out as planned, at least to a certain degree! Or, if seen from a different perspective, the number of occasions where real world plans turned into a complete FUBAR-s, while always memorable, is surprisingly small in military history when all things are considered.

Over the time, my opinion of the card deck driven turn/random turn end-system crystalized into this - it does the the right thing, but is far too random in its original form. Once I arrived to that conclusion, I couldn’t help but ask the follow-up questions – how random is this system and can anything be done to tweak it into something more manageable?

One part math
Let’s quickly recapitulate how the game turn mechanism works in majority of the rules from TFL. Each side has a set of cards activating a unit or triggering an event. For sake of simplicity let’s call the opposing sides A and B. In addition, the card deck contains at least one ‘neutral’ card (end of turn card), but usually there are other cards that can influence either of the sides (for example ‘Cautions or political leader’ which in ‘They Couldn’t Hit An Elephant’ hamstrings next leader with either of these characteristics that is activated). Let’s call these cards N. So the deck consists of A+B+N. Let’s call that total for T.

Now that we have terms in place, let’s take a look at how the infamous ‘Tea Break’ card works. It’s a
single card in a set of T cards. What are the chances for it being in a specific position once the deck is shuffled? Simple – it’s 1/T.

Simple… and quite devastating. This simple realization shows clearly the volatility of this game mechanism – since the chance of ‘Tea break’ card landing in a specific place in the deck is exactly equal for all locations, there is no ‘average’ for where it will land. Thus, the end of turn is totally random for every single turn in a game.

All right, so why is it so important and ‘grave’ news? To figure that out, we need to move to the subset of mathematics called combinatorics. Among other things, it can answer the question that is quite interesting for us – in how many ways can our deck be ordered. The quick answer to that is yet again quite simple – it’s T!, where ‘!’ stands for factorial. Factorial is a ‘short’ for multiplication of a series of numbers, each of them one less than preceding. So a factorial of 5 (written 5!) is 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 120.

T! gives us a total number of so called permutations for our card deck – that’s number of unique ‘sorts’ where actual order of cards does matter. The idea is this – if we have T number of cards then there are T possible cards for first position in a permutation. Next, we only have T – 1 cards, so only T –1 possibilities remains. Next T –2, T – 3, and so on. We multiply these values with each other to see in how many possible ways they can ‘mix’.

In this particular scenario a simple permutation gives us something slightly different than what we’re really after. Permutations give a number of all possible orderings of the cards, with consideration taken to the order of a specific card. But that’s not really all that interesting to us – what is of real interest to us is in how many different ways card subsets A, B and N can be mixed.

Clarification – look at this like that: if we have x of blue cards, y of yellow cards and z of red cards, how many combinations can we order them in. Since one blue card activates same side as another blue card, we don’t care about where specific cards are placed, only in number of possible colour arrangements.

I will skip a number of ‘maths’ steps required to arrive to the formula below and simply say that as long as we’re considering the whole of a deck, then the number of such selections (as opposed to permutations) is:

T! / (A! * B! * N!)

What’ we’re doing above is really quite simple and logical. First we calculate the total number of possible ‘sorts’ (that’s T!). Next we calculate a total number of possible ‘sorts’ for A, B and N, multiply them with each other to get a total number of combinations between those sorts. Last, we divide the two totals with each other and get a total number of combinations between A, B and N, regardless of how individual cards are placed.

I know that it’s a weird and very un-mathematical explanation, but you’ll just have to take my word for it – this is the formula we’re after. Or, better yet, look into basics of combinatorics. It’s actually quite fun… and somewhat mind-boggling.

Right, so we now have this formula, what’s so interesting about it. Let’s put in some real numbers into it and see what comes out. For example, in the game that I’ve run yesterday (after action report coming soon) I had ten cards for side A, ten cards for side B and finally four cards that could influence either side. This gives us following total number of selections or in wargame terms, number of ways in which opposing sides could be activated and events triggered:

T = 10 + 10 + 4
A = 10
B = 10
N = 4

24! / (10! * 10! * 4!) = 1963217256

A bit larger number than expected, isn’t it? Now, keep this number in mind and recall that the chance for ‘Tea Break’ card being in a specific ‘slot’ is 1/T or in this specific case 1/24. This means that my card deck provides 81800719 possible combinations for every single position for ‘Tea Break’ card.

Finally… yes, we’re getting to the end now… Consider how many turns are usually played in a single game. 30, maybe 40? It doesn’t take much afterthought to realise that these facts, when put together, clearly illustrate that the card deck driven game turn sequence mechanism is completely unpredictable in the scope of a single game.

Calm Before the Storm

I don’t know about you, but I find looking at the terrain setup and troops arrayed in their OOBs to be a very soothing and fulfilling experience, especially if we’re talking about a big game and tomorrow’s Southern assault at Shiloh’s Church area is certainly a big game for me.

Return to Logan’s Cross Roads

I am slowly but methodically working my way through “Heartland” scenario book from Partizan Press and this time around it was time to re-play battle at Logan’s Cross Roads. It’s one of those early battles where both sides were challenged in all possible manners - inexperienced troops, hopeless leaders and sub-standard weapons. In one respect, those early engagements are a lot of fun, but they also present some rather unique challenges for a wargamer.

Scenario setup and initial deployment
At first sight, battle at Logan’s Cross Roads isn’t hard to set up. The terrain is uncomplicated - single “largish” elevation, couple of houses, large wooded areas, usual bunch of fences and road network that perhaps is more complex than normally, but shouldn’t present much challenge in re-creating on the tabletop. The only unusual terrain feature is a ravine stretching through about half the width of the battlefield.

Background information about the of the battle itself is readily available on the net, so I won’t go into its details here. In game terms, a Confederate force consisting of eight regiments, supported by artillery and some cavalry, attempts a surprise attack on encamped Union force of similar size. The scenario starts with one Union brigade spread out all over the place, most of its troops in camp. Two Union brigades with artillery support arrive on the battlefield shortly after the battle is joined.

Despite equal numbers on both sides, this is an extremely hard scenario for the Confederate player. Not only is he hampered by the fact that his troops are using wet powder, he also has to contest with the fact that his alter ego on the tabletop as well as both of his brigade commanders are rather sorry excuses for officers.

This doesn’t mean however that the situation of the rebels is hopeless from the outset. As mentioned above, Union troops are spread out in camps and half of the Federal troops isn’t even on the table at the start of the game. Thus, if Confederate player acts decisively and perhaps more importantly, with speed, he may very well succeed in smashing the Union force piecemeal and gain an important victory for his cause.

The game
The actual game turned out to be a rather short and straightforward affair. H. advanced his toward the height, Zolicoffer’s brigade in front, followed by Carroll and cavalry short distance behind. Union pickets consisting of skirmishers and small cavalry detachment contested possession of the high ground for a short while, but the result of that struggle was a foregone conclusion - it took H. but a couple of rounds to sweep Unionists away and take control of high ground.

Situation at start of the game

Zollicoffer’s troops gain control of the high ground

As my skirmishers did their best to delay confederate advance, I tried my best to gather together my scattered troops and form some sort of battle line. I decided that the most suitable point for concentration of my regiments was in the middle of the battlefield, where the ravine would offer pretty decent protection for troops on my left flank.
Next couple of turns was something of a race, or rather, it would have been a race if the fate didn’t turn against H. and stopped him cold in his tracks. In other words, H. suffered rather horribly from bad luck with the card deck, either being hindered by Coffee Break cards (I play with two of them in the deck) or being hit with the effects of Political/Cautious General card, or rolling low with activation dice. Thus, when he finally managed to get his troops moving again, I was more than ready to receive his assault. Not only did I manage to concentrate troops present on the table at the outset of the game, but my reinforcements have by then also arrived and were well on their way to their position on my left flank (from where I intended to launch my counter-attack). Needless to say, I was pretty confident at this stage of the game.

Situation before Confederate assault on main Union position

As it turned out, for once my confidence was well-founded. H.’s regiments advanced slowly toward my battle line... and stalled yet again, this time at the most inopportune moment, just as they came within close range of my artillery. Flailed mercilessly by grapeshot and musket fire, the rebels paid in full for their indecisiveness for a couple of rounds. Nonetheless, despite severe losses and their exposed position, only the rightmost of Zolicoffer’s regiments broke and run away, leaving a gap in the middle of confederate line. Remaining troops of his brigade drifted into rough terrain to their left, in search of cover, and continued to slowly advance toward my battleline.

Confederate advance stalls, while Union reinforcements arrive on the left flank

Meanwhile, on the other flank, Carroll provided the highlight of the day. Somewhat to my astonishment, his troops actually managed to close the distance and charged my position, with their brigade commander heroically leading one of his regiments in person. Unfortunately for the rebels, it was a gallant but vain effort. Weakened by losses suffered during their advance, the confederate regiments turned out to be too weak to make any impression on the blue-clad line and were decisively repulsed. To add insult to the injury, Carroll payed the ultimate price for his heroism.

Carroll’s valiant charge…

…and its results

Once we caught our breath after all this excitement, both H. and I were in agreement that there wasn’t much point in continuing the engagement. Three of rebel regiments were broken, one more was defeated and it was only a question of time before my counterattack force consisting of four regiments would smash into H.’s rather weak right flank. H. issued the order for general retreat and yet another Confederate defeat at Logan’s Cross Road was a fact.

Situation at the end of the game, seen from extreme Union left flank

Confederate perspective, seen from the high ground

Musings after the battle or wargamer’s dillema
Engagement at Logan’s Cross Road presented me with two distinct problems. The first of them is rather common to our hobby - the historical ‘setup’ provides a rather unbalanced game, in this case mainly because of disparity in quality of commanders. Union troops were commanded by George Henry Thomas, future ‘Rock of Chickamauga’ and green but competent brigade officers.. Confederates were under control of George B. Crittenden, who was incompetent to such a degree that he was cashiered shortly after the battle by Bragg on what seems to be trumped up charges of drunkenness. His sub-commanders had almost no military experience - Zollicoffer was a newspaper publisher, Carroll was a plantage owner. Zollicoffer was killed at Logan’s Crossroads, Carroll shared Crittenden’s fate and was never allowed to lead troops again.

Two ACW buildings I bought recently from Total Battle Miniatures.
Damn cute if you ask me.

It is easy to see that with commanders like that, the rebels are at severe disadvantage by default. Thus, this engagement is a good example for what can be called ‘a wargamer’s dilema’ - should one follow the historical parameters and play a potentially dull game or fiddle with the facts to even things out and end up with an scenario that doesn’t represent the historical situation in any shape or form?

Being a ‘historical’ wargamer, in this case I decided to take the ‘strict’ approach. I made Crittenden a cautious commander, while Zollicoffer and Carroll became ‘political’. To even things out, I kept Thomas at ‘human’ level and designated him as ‘professional’ (this being the beginning of the war and all that). Also, during the game, I allowed Crittenden to pass on his turn to one of the subordinates  when he was afflicted by ‘Political/Cautious’ card (which happened with unnerving regularity) as long as they were within his commad range and let them act without restrictions of that card. The ruleset doesn’t actually define whether it is allowed or not, but it does feel ‘fishy’. In this case however, I thought it would be a neat way to even things out. Also, if I didn’t make that concession, I don’t think the Confederate army would be able to move at all.

In the end it didn’t matter much, as the abysmal quality of Confederate commanders still managed to decide the outcome of our game all on their own. H. suffered greatly from shortcomings of his officers and never managed to gain the momentum necessary for Confederates to win this scenario. Luckily, he’s a very good-natured chap who enjoys the game for game’s sake and took all the reverses with good humor. Nevertheless, I doubt he will regard that game as one of the highlights of his wargaming ‘career’.

Somewhat odd setup of Logan’s Crossroads, with one of the Union brigades scattered all over the place and with weak detachments acting hopelessly outside of their commander’s range created another issue. The simple fact is that ‘They Couldn’t Hit an Elephant’, which assumes that elements of a brigade stay close to each other, doesn’t handle such situations very well at all. I was vaguely aware that this would present a complication, but didn’t make any plans for how to handle it. In the end, I had to ‘shoot from the hip’ as the game progressed and was probably too generous in allowing individual Union regiments to move too quickly and too freely. I will have to give this problem some thought before playing this scenario again. Adding some friction to movement ability of Union troops at the beginning of the game could go a long way to make it a much more balanced game, perhaps even turning Logan’s Crossroads into a real nailbiter.