Joe Wagle
United States
New Jersey
-
I played Columbia Games' Shenandoah for the first time with a friend last night, and I wanted to share my initial thoughts on the game.
First Impressions:
* The gameboard was spacious and very attractive- it seemed simple enough to speed gameplay, and had a style like maps of that period, which helped us get into the theme. One negative side effect of the design is the routes (roads, pikes, gaps and railroads) are quite small, and the features on these (namely fords & bridges,which are critical to movement and attack) can be hard to identify. Not a huge problem, but I would have made these features and perhaps the roads themselves about 2x larger for easy identification during heated gameplay.
* The blocks were excellent. It was easy to read all the information on these, and the colors were easy to differentiate, as well as attractive. The leader pictures were excellent. It was great to see Jackson, Johnson and Ewell actually pictured on the block. This was another piece that contributed to us embracing the theme.
* The rules were simple and smooth.
The terrain presented interesting movement and supply puzzles to both the USA and CSA forces. I'm not sure it captures the uncertainty and chaos of maneuver during the campaign, but the movement rules are logical, clear and interesting.
Combat was fun and very tense at times with clever differentiation between unit types in combat performance.
For example:
- the unique advantage of cavalry in this game is being able to retreat before combat, and that was very useful in probing attacks and setting up screens around your major formations.
- Attacking artillery performs at -1 in the 1st round of combat because its presumably either setting up or ranging in, while defending artillery can fire at full effect during round 1.
These are simple rules that make the differences between units meaningful.
I also liked the concept that if you over-commit to your attack and wait until round 4 (the last round of combat) to retreat, you stand a good chance of taking severe casualies from the surviving defenders. These kinds of rules added to the theme.
The sides seemed balanced, with the US having bigger, more durable units, and the CS having fewer fragile but more deadly units and better leaders.
In the rulebook there were helpful gameplay examples and fluff on the far right margin of every page. This provided very interesting reading that helped us get the rules right,and gave us some important history and background on the campaign.
I did keep finding myself looking up the rules for terrain (Pikes, Bridges, Fords, Roads and Ferries) as well as for Supply Bases for the different divisions (they are different from one division to the next) to make sure we were in "Good Supply". I think these listings could be replicated on the board or on the cover or back of the rules for easier reference.
Also, before you play, make sure you have the latest (color!) ruleset at www.columbiagames.com/shenandoah.
Not surprisingly, this game played quickly- our first game finished in about 1 hr & 45 min of actual playtime. I found this an excellent pace for a light but surprisingly tense game.
* One small point: My understanding of the Shenandoah campaign was that because of Jackson's troops' intimate knowlege of the area, their skill and high motivation, Jackson's "Foot Cavalry" had a history of showing up where the US forces least expected at the most inopportune times (for the US). In Shenandoah, the road and map features treat all divisions the same, which kind of misses this dynamic. The system captures the motivated and skilled CSA formations by offering better combat ratings and better commanders, but Jackson has no ability to, say, show up with 4 blocks to attack through a mountain gap when my opponent least expects it. I think a special rule could have made this kind of thing happen once or twice per game.
* Overall I applaud the simple design and quick gameplay that captures the dynamic feel of the Shenandoah Valley campaign. Its a little above beer and pretzels in complexity, with a compelling level of dynamic feel and theme reflected in the rules. There arent enough options for good but light Civil War games, so this is a welcome addition to our lineup. We will be playing again soon.
Grade: Recommended - 8 out of 10 Minie Balls.
-
jeff miller
United States
West Jefferson
North Carolina
-
Very nice review. Thanks for posting it. I had been on the fence with this one, but your write up had convinced me to get it. I think your idea about the surprise attacks sounds like a house rule everyone should consider implementing.
-
James Boyd
United States
Abilene
Texas
I Play With Toy Soldiers.
-
Excellent review, thank you!
Having lived at New Market when I was ten and my interest in the ACW made this an instant buy for me, now to get the time to play ...
-
Tom Dalgliesh
United States
Washington
-
The really important command advantage for the CSA may not be readily apparent. Jackson can command any/all CSA units whereas the USA have their command divided among three leaders. Hence, for one activation, Jackson can get a lot of action happening if his troops are deployed to exploit this advantage. Also, Jackson is the only 3-step leader, and this rewards aggressive play.
CSA "plodders" may have some difficulty winning this game.
-
Joe Wagle
United States
New Jersey
-
scotia61 wrote: Jackson can command any/all CSA units whereas the USA have their command divided among three leaders.
Excellent point about Jackson's leadership flexibility (managing all/any CSA units). I didnt mention that- and I should have.
It played a big part in last nights game - Jackson used this ability lead an attack on Staunton to take it back from the Union general Shield's force. That was the turning point in our game.
-
Mark Kwasny
United States
New Albany
Ohio
-
Unfortunately, due to stacking and road limits, as well as attacking limits on those roads, it will rarely help to have all the Confederate units together because they will simply be in each other's way! It is very difficult to gang up on the enemy in this game.
-
Doug Adams
Australia
Oakleigh
Victoria
Boink
-
Got mine 10 minutes ago, still in the shipping box. Thanks for the review.
-
Tom Dalgliesh
United States
Washington
-
Mark is right. The road limits are tight. No point in having them if they were not.
The real issue remains aggressive Jackson play. If Jackson allows the Union enough time to collect their forces together, he will be outnumbered and is probably doomed.
Historically, Jackson won every battle in this campaign. What is not always remembered, is that he also outnumbered the USA in every battle, sometimes by 2-1. He lost at Kernstown (before this game actually starts) mainly because it was Jackson who was outnumbered.
One other thing. Jackson cannot afford to leave Fremont alone. We have seen several games where Jackson charged down the valley and mauled Shields and Banks, only to have Fremond cut off supply at New Market, or Harrisburg, or Staunton. Jackson himself was well aware of this danger which explains his initial McDowell campaign. Fremont needs to be taken out, or at least well-screened.
-
Rob Tokarz
United States
Trenton
New Jersey
-
Great review. Just got my copy and I can't wait to give it a go.
-
Mark Kwasny
United States
New Albany
Ohio
-
scotia61 wrote: Mark is right. The road limits are tight. No point in having them if they were not.
Perhaps too tight? These are small forces and could easily all move down the roads in the valley at least over a 3 day period. But no matter how many blocks are stacked up on the road next to Front Royal or Strasburg, the Confederate can still only attack with 4 or 6 blocks and the Union can have an equal number. Thus the overly tight road limits reduce careful maneuvering into 1 on 1 attacks anyway.
-
Gary Selkirk
Canada
Truro
Nova Scotia
-
One of the issues we attempted to avoid was a mass gathering of both sides' forces opposite each other and either forced to fight a giant battle or sit staring at each others forces til the game ended.
When I first started the design I was using 2 day turns. This made the game too long. 3 day turns works out better for the timeline. SHENANDOAH is essentially an operational game, touching on strategic. As veteran game players, you'll note that a game conisting of one hour long turns is fairly easy to simulate the arrival of units and how many, so the 3 day turns in this game necessarily fudges the difference between operational movement and tactical battles.
-
Mark Kwasny
United States
New Albany
Ohio
-
LINCSANDWINKS wrote: One of the issues we attempted to avoid was a mass gathering of both sides' forces opposite each other and either forced to fight a giant battle or sit staring at each others forces til the game ended.
When I first started the design I was using 2 day turns. This made the game too long. 3 day turns works out better for the timeline. SHENANDOAH is essentially an operational game, touching on strategic. As veteran game players, you'll note that a game conisting of one hour long turns is fairly easy to simulate the arrival of units and how many, so the 3 day turns in this game necessarily fudges the difference between operational movement and tactical battles.
Fair enough, and well put.
Thanks for the analysis!
-
Don Cooper
United States
Syracuse
New York
-
I think you forgot the sticker problem, which is extremely disturbing considering that Columbia Games is a block-game company. It would be as if Coca-Cola changed bottlers and created bottles that could only be opened with a monkey wrench. To rate the blocks as you did undermines your review in my opinion.
-
Doug Adams
Australia
Oakleigh
Victoria
Boink
-
I didn't have a sticker problem. I was expecting one after reading the "Columbia changed glue" thread. But it was fine, a little trickier, but nothing approaching a problem.
-
Pavel Hammerschmidt
United States
Federal Way
Washington
-
jwagle wrote:
It has a new ruleset? Didn't this game just come out? It usually takes Colombia games at least 6 months before they fix the rules.
-
Gary Selkirk
Canada
Truro
Nova Scotia
-
The game just came out, to be sure. Please note that with the availability of updated rules on the Columbia website, it allows us the opportunity to provide answers to clarification questions and put them in print for owners of the game.
-
Bill Eldard
United States
Burke
Virginia
-
scotia61 wrote: Mark is right. The road limits are tight. No point in having them if they were not.
The real issue remains aggressive Jackson play. If Jackson allows the Union enough time to collect their forces together, he will be outnumbered and is probably doomed.
Historically, Jackson won every battle in this campaign. What is not always remembered, is that he also outnumbered the USA in every battle, sometimes by 2-1. He lost at Kernstown (before this game actually starts) mainly because it was Jackson who was outnumbered.
One other thing. Jackson cannot afford to leave Fremont alone. We have seen several games where Jackson charged down the valley and mauled Shields and Banks, only to have Fremond cut off supply at New Market, or Harrisburg, or Staunton. Jackson himself was well aware of this danger which explains his initial McDowell campaign. Fremont needs to be taken out, or at least well-screened.
In fact, in our first complete game (won by the CSA 12 VP - 9 VP), the CSA never did capture Strasburg, Front Royal, Winchester, or any of the blue VP towns, and Jackson had to double back to recapture Staunton and Harrisonburg from elements of Fremont's division that had cut his LOC.
Despite that, the CSA had substantially smacked the USA and the CSA blocks-eliminated advantage overcame the 5 VPs the USA had for holding Winchester, Front Royal, and Strasburg.
I'm very enthusiastic about this game. In many games, the defender merely reacts to the attacker's developments. But in Shenandoah, each side has several options and must decide which one to employ in the first couple of turns, because of the time/distance challenges in affecting them.
-
Kirk Allton
United States
Lewis Center
Ohio
-
After playing this for the first time, I was left luke warm with it. It has a nice map and stickers, but some things were off a bit. I didnt see the Union player having any problems with command since he had 3 supply at the end of each turn, and I only had 2. Also missing was the fluid movement which was certainly the hallmark of this campaign on the Confederate side. I tried to advance with Johnson up the left side of the map and quickly got bogged down in the mountains due to the gaps being the only supply line back to Staunton and the cost of 2 supply to resupply the HQ. This felt historical, except for the fact that Fremont has solid roads all the way back to his supply so the Union has no supply problems in the mountains.
Also, the Union player simply jammed the pike at Strasburg and Front Royal. To get around this, Early tried to go to Salem, but again ran into supply problems like Johnson did. The result was these divisions simply didnt move due to supply limitations. The only recourse at that point was to pull Early back and try to hammer through the Union wall, which didn't work, and is not exactly the right feel for the campaign.
With all that being said, my opponent was much more familiar with the game than I was, and I probably would not try to send Johnson through Moorefield again due to supply. But that leaves only a headlong charge into Strasburg, which didnt work at all.
I think if Jackson was allowed to move 2 and attack while the Union could only move 1 and attack, the game would have a much different feel, but I am not sure.
-
|
|
