From: Chuck Lietz Subject: Re: AH Reviews E-F Fury in the West One easy trick we tried and it seemed to work was that we used the loss marker and the straggler marker *both* from the right. That way, you only had to glance at the chart and look at box to the left of the straggler marker to determine the unit's strength instead of counting the boxes between the two markers. The loss marker always stayed to the right of or in the same box as the straggler marker. The big catch was that you just had to remember that whenever you took a loss of a strength point, you had to move *both* the loss marker and the straggler marker one box to the left. It took awhile to get used to but once you got the hang of it, it really made playing this game more enjoyable in that you could concentrate more on the map situation and not on the strength charts. As far as the game was concerned, I thought this was a particularly playable and enjoyable design. The straggler and loss point combination was a particularly unique and simple method that showed how tough it was to get green troops in position and still be an effective combat unit. Combine this with the facing rules and the horrible initial attack deployment of the Confederate position and you have at least as tough of time getting units where you want them as Johnston. I shudder to think how I would write orders in the Gamers CWB format and get commands straightened out and going in the right direction. Shiloh also was interesting in that both sides got their chance to attack and defend, something only a couple other ACW battles share. The only problem, we had was that even after at least six playings, the confederates could never seem to duplicate their historical counterparts. The Union reaction in the game while hindered was still probably better than their historical counterpart and the sunken road seemed to be too difficult to breach and there was not enough time or map to flank this position to the east and still reach Pittsburgh Landing by nightfall of the first day. This left advancing around the western side of the map and right into a gaggle of advancing Union reinforcements. I'm going from memory but it seems to me that the problem was that the the Union was allowed to have too many units just stand and die in place like Prentiss/Peabody? (Can't remember which) It would be interesting to hear how if the problem of getting the Rebels close to Pittsburg Landing crops up in other Shiloh games, particularly the Games CWB version whose title escapes me at the moment. Chuck From: "David S. Bieksza" Subject: Re: AH Reviews E-F (Fury in the West) On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Chuck Lietz wrote: > Fury in the West (excellent suggestion snipped) > Shiloh also was interesting in that both sides got their chance to > attack and defend, something only a couple other ACW battles share. The > only problem, we had was that even after at least six playings, the > confederates could never seem to duplicate their historical counterparts. > The Union reaction in the game while hindered was still probably better than > their historical counterpart and the sunken road seemed to be too difficult > to breach and there was not enough time or map to flank this position to the > east and still reach Pittsburgh Landing by nightfall of the first day. This > left advancing around the western side of the map and right into a gaggle of > advancing Union reinforcements. I'm going from memory but it seems to me > that the problem was that the the Union was allowed to have too many units > just stand and die in place like Prentiss/Peabody? (Can't remember which) This made me curious as to how close the Confederates came to the landing in my own games. Checking my solitaire notebooks, I found that in the very first playing of the first day scenario a Rebel unit reached the adjacent hex but was immediately eliminated in a counterattack. In the two following games, the South never came close to the landing, *by choice* -- I learned that the South could win on the basis of attrition and captured camps without risking overextending themselves trying to reach the landing. OTOH, in the full battle scenario, this strategy wasn't viable because it gave the Union more scope for their counteroffensive on the second day. In my one playing, the Confederates maintained the pressure throughout the first day, and thanks to blistering hot die rolling managed to advance their right flank as far as the hex adjacent to the landing (and was pushed back during the second day). ------- Dave Bieksza bieksza@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu ------- Where monsters rampage, I'm there to take them down ... Where treasure glitters, I'm there to claim it ... Where an enemy rises to face me, victory will be mine! - Lina Inverse, "Slayers" From: Chuck Lietz Subject: RE: Fury in the West I've only played the full battle scenario and what seemed to be the problem was that straggler and casualty losses seemed to be just too great by the time you got up close to the landing, even when using the "leap-frog" technique to minimize the stragglers. On the few occasions we got close, as you indicated, it was fairly easy for the Union to mount some local counter-attacks and push you aside. Still, maybe we just weren't aggressive enough to really push as hard as is necessary. Probably comes from knowing you have to be prepared to get pasted a bit on the next day, a luxury Johnston/Beauregard didn't probably have. Still, the design is relatively simple, unique, and I think worth the at least a playing ot two. I played Objective Atlanta thinking it was going to be more of the same but quite frankly, I was disappointed with it. More on that when we get to the "O's". Chuck