I have run a few ACW scenarios lately for our gaming group and I am not entirely satisfied with the results. I find it difficult to strike a good balance in regards to game size (how many units per side) and victory objectives. My last two scenarios were lifted from historical situations; The Assault on Oak Ridge at Gettysburg and the opening hours of the first day at Chancellorsville, and in both cases there are very few possibilities (at least as I designed the scenario) for a CSA "win" unless there was a total Federal collapse. In both cases this led to an unsatisfying "tie game" sort of situation that indicated a Federal victory. Each was unsatisfying because the Federals didn't have to do much, other than survive, until it was time to pack up and go home. I say that not to belittle my Federal opponents but rather to indicate that I gave them very little to do really...
The first scenario (Oak Ridge) I worked on for a few evenings while researching accounts of the action and learning about some of the characters at that specific encounter. In the case of the Chancellorsville game, I only drew up the scenario late on the night before the game. Yet, in both battles I produced eerily similar scenarios with predictable results. Frustrating.
I am not sure how to overcome the common factor here, ME, to improve my scenario design. I think that the biggest problem I encounter is seeing a battle from only one side. I am going to try to develop my next scenario as two versions of the same battle so that I can "see" the contest from each side. Hopefully, by combining these two views together I may come up with a better scenario that will keep everyone more involved and make for a better game...
2 comments:
I've thought a lot about what you wrote. I'm not sure the problem is you, maybe the problem is History. I know these scenarios aren't 1864 but it seems like these are the same issues that in the real war cropped up by that point, namely extended firefights and and unwillingness to charge home. As deadly as fire is in G-a-G I still think you can't really set off that cascade that leads to Brigade failure without a well timed charge. Now in the Oak Ridge game there were lots of Charges against Gary, but his position was pretty unassailable, with Artillery crossfires and a real depth to the defense.
I think the other thing that would change things in the real war (that may not be possible in our games) is maneuver. Maybe you could introduce a system of pre-game "maneuvers" that allow for reinforcements to arrive on the oblique (a la Chancellorsville, Stones River, etc. ), or even for one side to be able to change heir set-up in a surprising manner at the last minute, forcing the defender to have to alter plans? Just some thoughts... maybe utter BS
SP
Your ideas are good ones. In the case of the two GaG scenarios I feel that there should have been some kind of task that the Union troops needed to accomplish in order to win - as opposed to winning by preventing the CSA troops from gaining their objectives. Maneuver is the "great bugaboo" in wargaming as far as I am concerned. We all want it but we don't have it because the table is piled high with all of our pretty little figures! My prior experiences with off board maneuver have been unsatisfying at best...
Post a Comment