Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Shiloh: April 1862 is a Columbia block game I have long awaited. Shiloh is the battle I know the most about, and since getting into wargames I've been searching for the best game in the subject. I've even kept up this geeklist updated with all the latest Shiloh games: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/23729/the-battle-of-sh....
Shiloh: April 1862 looked like a winner and I preordered it in 2005 shortly after Katrina. The wait has been long and overall worth it. However, if being in love with such a horrible contest as Shiloh can get one excited, it can also lead one to see the myriad ways that a game can disappoint. More on that later, but I must add that this is a review especially for those who are experienced with Gettysburg: Badges of Courage.
Gameplay (28 out of 28): Shiloh: April 1862 was supposed to be a game in the system pioneered by the flawed, but venerable Gettysburg: Badges of Courage (my review: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/298788/almost-great). Shiloh: April 1862 is different. It keeps the command activation system in which leader blocks must lose steps in order to safely move units in command range. However, whereas Gettysburg: Badges of Courage relied upon commanders to replenish units, here each player receives three step at the end of a turn, and six on the night turn. In return commanding generals can simply move any three blocks. This is a simpler way to do things which models the chaos of the fighting, just as Gettysburg: Badges of Courage's command system worked with the professional staffs of Lee and Meade.
Union Division Commanders are the Ones with a Flag Icon:
The two biggest differences though are the map, which is not hex, and the unit's firing ratings. In Gettysburg: Badges of Courage unit quality varied tremendously. With Shiloh: April 1862 all artillery, save Myers' unlucky gunners, is class A. Cavalry are a B, and infantry are a C. Those rankings decide when a unit fires, with a number deciding their chance of hitting. Most artillery is a 1-2, and all cavalry except for the mighty Forrest is a 1. The most variance is among the infantry, with ratings going from 1-3, although Sweeny of William Wallace's division hits on a 1-4.
The result is that actual battles are a bit more chaotic. In Gettysburg: Badges of Courage the varied charging times meant that a few elite units could easily chew up mediocre formations, such as the Union XI Corps, so long as they braved the first volley. At first I was not sure if I liked the more standardized ratings, but now I find that I do. While elite units were important in the war, I think Gettysburg: Badges of Courage played up this factor far too much. After all, the men of the mighty Irish Brigade still fell before the wall at Marye's Heights, and I'm not sure they would have done much better if they reached the stone wall. A bullet in the brain is a bullet no matter your skill.
Tactical (5 out of 5): Within a solid package, Shiloh: April 1862 captures some tactical nuances of the battle nicely. For one the limits on replacements means that while attacks can be maintained, there does come a point of exhaustion due to the low number of these points. Indeed, where to put your meager and precious replacement points might be the toughest decision in the entire game. Also the Union starts out of command. Only slowly can they rise and react. The Confederate conundrum is quite different, with every leader starting fresh and ready, only to be slowly and agonizingly depleted by the raw friction of war.
Confederate Exhaustion:
Accessibility (4 out of 5): Like most Columbia Games, Shiloh: April 1862 is not too hard to grasp, however the rules governing stacking and border limits are draconian, and each unit outside of infantry (they always seem to get the shaft) has special rules. A player aid chart would have helped tremendously.
Components (4 out of 5): The pieces are your typical Columbia fare, with brigades showing which states troops were predominantly in each brigade. This is a nice touch, even if a bit unfair to some states, since most brigades in this battle had a mix of volunteer regiments (Sam Wood's brigade included troops from Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Georgia). The map is of good quality, although the errors on it for Hardee's Corps are annoying.
The Map:
Originality (0 out of 2): You've seen it before if you've played Gettysburg: Badges of Courage or Hammer of the Scots or any number of their games. It works and has become their signature, so what do you expect?
Historical Quality (2 out of 5): This is the weakest part of the game by far, made weaker by that insufferable amount of knowledge I have for the subject. Essentially, the historical deployment of the battle is IMPOSSIBLE. Stuart's brigade starts near Sherman, not on the far left flank. Prentiss' unattached brigade, signifying regiments that were not yet organized into a unit, starts ready for the brawl. Also, by allowing the Confederate a free deployment, command chaos is pretty much not going to happen. Hell, they even put Gladden under Hardee's command! With a little bit of work I corrected this with a variant ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/607631/historical-deploy...). However, what makes all of this frustrating is that the designers knew enough history to include a special rule for Pond's brigade, where they suffer from friendly fire because the 18th Louisiana and Orleans Guard battalion wore blue coats.
Overall (43 out of 50): The Battle of Shiloh was my original choice for best game on Shiloh, and in many ways it is the opposite of Shiloh: April 1862. It is sort of ugly and has more rules, but also it is better with history. Nevertheless, I must favor Shiloh: April 1862 as the new champion. While it has problems with history, it is fun, looks good, offers a great command system, and has bugs that can easily be fixed. Not true with the venerable The Battle of Shiloh (my review for more: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/434896/bergs-second-stab...). I would have preferred a game without the bugs, but you can't have it all, which is certainly the rule with games simulating Shiloh.
-
Bob
United States
Nebraska
Don't squat with your spurs on.
Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction.
-
Nice job Sean! Was happy to mod this review.
-
C Sandifer
United States
Lutherville
Maryland
-
However, whereas Gettysburg: Badges of Courage relied upon commanders to replenish units, here each player receives three step at the end of a turn, and six on the night turn. In return commanding generals can simply move any three blocks.
Army HQs (Grant, etc.) can command any 3 blocks. Division/Corps HQs can command any number of blocks (from their division/corps) within command range.
Anyway, nice review. I need a few more plays before I can make my own assessment of Shiloh. I'm looking forward to those plays...
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Quote: Army HQs (Grant, etc.) can command any 3 blocks. Division/Corps HQs can command any number of blocks (from their division/corps) within command range.
Same was true of division commanders in Gettysburg. The point of Army commanders was their ability to replenish corps and division commanders.
Quote: Anyway, nice review. I need a few more plays before I can make my own assessment of Shiloh. I'm looking forward to those plays...
I hope it goes well. Considering this was a major release, the forums have been much more silent than they were for Richard III, so post a session report if you can.
-
C Sandifer
United States
Lutherville
Maryland
-
I posted a short session report on CSW of my first game. Here's a recap:
Our first game went much longer than expected. We only went through three-quarters of day 1 (called on account of a clear winner), and it took us 3 hours.
I was the USA, and was therefore on the defensive. The CSA started out slow. We were dead even in terms of units eliminated for a few turns. At one point, the CSA landed a successful blow and eliminated 2-3 units in Thomil Field and surrounding areas. Soon after, however, I was able to consolidate my line and concentrate all of my units at their maximimum stacking limit.
My opponent wanted to break the stalemate, so he threw six bloodthirsty rebel units at my six defending units (stacking limit = 6) in Spain Field. I crushed him without taking any real damage. He sent another wave the next turn, and I wiped them out again. I was now up 10 kills to 6 (or something similar), which meant that I was guaranteed to auto-win at the end of day 1 if I could maintain the status quo.
I got lucky at that point and rolled well for initiative, and since my opponent left me a clear road exit (mistake!), I pulled completely out of Spain Field so that my troops didn't get throttled by a 3rd attacking wave. My hasty retreat made it effectively impossible for the USA to do any further damage before the end of day 1.
So, I won. The game could have gone differently, since two turns earlier my opponent almost made it behind my lines to capture Pittsburgh Landing and Cloud Field. Capturing these two Union camps would have given him extra supply points to strengthen his attack. Once again, though, I got lucky on the initiative roll and stopped him in his tracks.
Afterthoughts:
In my next game, I want to try the optional rule that makes it tougher for troops to move away from the front lines. Using this rule would have prevented my complete retreat away from Spain Field in my first session, for example.
Quick impressions:
Shiloh is slow-going and deliberate, which I don't mind. However, I don't like the possibility of Shiloh (or any game, really) ending in a draw - an outcome that is also allowed in War of 1812 and Athens and Sparta (updated version).
The game's stacking limits seem to be extremely biased towards the USA (the initial defender), which is something that has been notoriously troublesome in other Columbia games (Victory: The Blocks of War, early versions of Wizard Kings).
Still, like I said, I definitely look forward to playing again.
[I haven't played Gettysburg: Badges of Courage, so I can't compare the two.]
-
Steve Duke
United States
Georgetown
Texas
-
Nice review. I will read it and compare it with the other one recently posted that says the game does not know if it wants to be good or bad...
My copy, received as a gift, is still in the shrink pending a little more analysis. Thanks for sharing your views!
-
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
-
I was at my local hobby shop today and had the game in hand, contemplating a purchase. I held back because I was disappointed with G:BoC, then someone pointed out that A.S. Johnston's name is spelled wrong ("Johnson") on the back of the box, while noting the game's weak history too (which your comments confirmed).
So it's a "pass" for me, but I can certainly appreciate a well-written review - you did a nice job, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
-
Mark Kwasny
United States
New Albany
Ohio
-
Steve Carey wrote: then someone pointed out that A.S. Johnston's name is spelled wrong ("Johnson") on the back of the box, while noting the game's weak history too (which your comments confirmed).
There are probably plenty of good reasons why someone might not want to buy this game, but a simple typo on the back of the box doesn't seem like it should be one of them. Editing and publishing are extremely difficult, and the designers are not necessarily responsible for the final editing. More importantly, the name is spelled correctly on its piece and on the board and on the OBs. So I think they know his name is Johnston.
Also, the game is totally different from Gettsyburg: Badges of Courage. There is almost nothing in common between the two. Now, that doesn't mean Shiloh is a good purchase for you or anyone, just that a comparison to Gettysburg will tell you nothing about the game Shiloh.
As for the history, I think the review may be overstating the lack of history, but again, everyone interprets how a game handles history differently. What seems historical and just the right amount of accuracy for one, may not suit another's tastes.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Quote: As for the history, I think the review may be overstating the lack of history, but again, everyone interprets how a game handles history differently. What seems historical and just the right amount of accuracy for one, may not suit another's tastes.
I agree, that why I indicated in the review that I know a lot about the battle, and therefore it is often really easy for me to see the flaw in any Shiloh game. This one does work well enough and it is easy to tweak it.
-
C Sandifer
United States
Lutherville
Maryland
-
wkover wrote: Afterthoughts:
In my next game, I want to try the optional rule that makes it tougher for troops to move away from the front lines.
I tried another game of Shiloh - this time with the "Frontline Limits" optional rule (sidebar p. 4) - and I found that it dramatically improved the game. I intend to use this optional rule from now on.
-
Jan van der Laan
Netherlands
Leeuwarden
Friesland
-
wkover wrote: [I tried another game of Shiloh - this time with the "Frontline Limits" optional rule (sidebar p. 4) - and I found that it dramatically improved the game.....
I fully agree, this optional rule really enhances this allready good game.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Quote: I tried another game of Shiloh - this time with the "Frontline Limits" optional rule (sidebar p. 4) - and I found that it dramatically improved the game. I intend to use this optional rule from now on.
I used it after my first session. The game took a leap forward.
-
Michael Gustavsson
Sweden
Hofors
-
A good review of a game always makes me happy, especially if I love the game myself
We have been busy here moving to our new home so I have not played the game for over a week now, getting pretty desperate now.
-
James Miller
United States
Richmond
Virginia
-
Quote: In Gettysburg: Badges of Courage the varied firing times meant that a few elite units could easily chew up mediocre formations, such as the Union XI Corps.
Just piped in to note that in GBoC, combat ratings have no effect on fire combat, only on Melee.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
Quote: Just piped in to note that in GBoC, combat ratings have no effect on fire combat, only on Melee.
Thanks for clarifying that point. I have not played Gettysburg since 2008. That being said, I remember those letter ratings being extremely important. I saw the entire XI Corps melt in three turns. It seemed extreme considering that they were not in an awful position.
-
|
|
Posted Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:55 pm
