Salem Church: East of Chancellorsville

The wargame, Salem Church: East of Chancellorsville (2013) is one of Decision Games' (DG) entries into the Quick Play Musket & Saber series.  The battle is fought over an 11" x 7" map using only 40 counters.  Scale is 352 yards per hex with 90 minute turns.  Units represent brigades.  With many units having either five or six movement points, this is really a battle of maneuver.  Although locking EZOCs exist, flanking maneuvers are easily accomplished unless great care is taken in building a cordon of interlocking EZOCs.

After reading Norm's replay and review of Salem Church (see Salem Church 1863), I was intrigued and ordered myself a copy of the game.  I encourage a diversion to Norm's blog to read his battle report and thoughts on Salem Church.  A longtime fan of The Gamers' Civil War Brigade (CWB) series, I looked forward to giving this DG brigade series a try.  Having a small footprint and only a few pages of rules, Salem Church seemed a good entry point.  The CWB has a different time and ground scale with 30 minute turns and 200 yards/hex.

The game follows an IGO-UGO sequence with,

1. First Player Movement
2. First Player Combat
3. Second Player Movement
4. Second Player Combat

Within this sequence, there is no interaction between players with the exception that a non-phasing player's unit that was adjacent to a phasing player's unit, not attacked during combat, may launch a counterattack at double its printed strength. This is an interesting rule! Not attacking all adjacent enemy units can carry heavy retribution. Norm makes the comment in his review linked to above as, "it prevents a player making ‘silly attacks, just because they can'." I say it does the opposite in that the counterattack rule encourages silly attacks from the attacker to prevent a possible devastating counterattack!  Norm reinforces this notion of encouraging silly attacks when he retells the account of Wilson at Salem Church launching an attack to pre-empt such a counterattack. There are a number of similarly interesting rules in both the System Rules and Scenario rules.

To attain a Major Victory, the Federal player must exit the Federal train and hold either Banks' Ford or the entry to Fredericksburg.  For the Confederate player, he must hold Bank's Ford and the entrances to Fredericksburg or capture the Federal train.  For any other outcome, the decision is decided on points.  As for tallying Victory Points for lost steps, the rules do not state if points are tallied at game end or accrued throughout the game as steps are lost.  As lost steps can be returned as reinforcement later, this can have an impact on the Victory Conditions. 

Another interesting rule is the functioning of the Federal Army.  On the morning of the second day of battle (May 4) and all subsequent turns, the Federal player must roll for initiative.  This is a Draconian measure for the Federal commander and does much to snuff out the offensive capability of Federal forces on Day 2 of the battle.  Each turn, the Federal player rolls for initiative.  On a 1-2, Federal forces operate under Full Initiative.  On 3-6, Federal forces operate under Low Initiative.  When under Low Initiative, only a Federal stack with a leader may enter into an EZOC.  To do so, the leader must pass a morale check.  If he passes, he may enter the EZOC.  If not, well, he cannot.  To even further stall Federal attacks, once in an EZOC, the primary attacking unit must make a morale check.  If failed, the attack is called off.  Harsh!  If the Federal Army wants to win the battle, it better get moving and try to make good progress on Day 1.  On Day 2, a sustained effort is much more difficult if not impossible.  

Leaders are important in Salem Church. Leaders may increase movement of units stacked with him and disrupted units may enter EZOCs when stacked with a leader.  A leader's Morale Rating can aid one unit to which he is stacked.  A leader may add his Combat Factor to a unit to which he is stacked and disrupted units are not halved in combat.  Leaders are very useful pieces! 

Artillery is important in this system as well.  Artillery is the only ranged weapon.  Artillery has the ability to fire at a four hex range without worry of retribution.  Artillery bombardments, alone, or in combined arms attacks with infantry offer opportunities to soften the enemy and perhaps drive it from its position without much effort.  

Combat is based upon a Combat Factor differential between the attacker(s) and defender.  The CRT ranges from '-5 or less' to '+10 or more' with seven gradients in between.  The CRT is relatively bloodless.  Results rarely result in a loss although exchanges are possible but rare.  Some results carry a secondary result.  If the loser takes a morale check and fails, the primary result is in effect.  If the morale check is passed then the secondary result is in effect.  The secondary result often requires a second morale check.  The construction of the CRT does not lend itself to easy memorization.  A little clumsy, I think.  Even after two games, I still needed to carefully consult the CRT and results' description to resolve the combat.

The loser of a combat often has the choice to either become disrupted or retreat (for less severe results) to taking a loss or retreating disrupted for more severe results.  Losses are taken in steps.  Most infantry units have two steps.  Artillery and a few detachments have one step only.  With the ability to replace two steps  per turn, each side will be able to replace most attrition suffered during a turn.  Replacements can return to their parent if outside of an EZOC or at one of the designated board edges.

Moving and fighting in woods is interesting.  Movement through light woods is one Movement Point the same cost as open terrain.  Units and entire divisions can pass through woods with little difficulty.  An attacker is halved in value when attacking into light woods from across a clear hexside but no penalty when attacking from light woods to light woods.  My interpretation of this is that firefights, wholly in woods, are undertaken at much closer range.  Therefore, neither combatant holds any tactical advantage.  Now, the halving for attacks across clear hexside into woods could be debated.   

Even with the most current Errata and Clarifications in hand, the rules left several holes to plug.  In addition to gaps, many of the rules could use a careful rewording to bring clarity from confusion.  For example, in Disruption Recovery, a unit may recover from disruption "if not in an EZOC and not eligible for march movement."  How about "if it remains at least two hexes from an enemy unit"  as a simplification? 

Given the large movement values and no hindrance to movement through woods, Salem Church is a game of maneuver and flanking.  If interlocking EZOCs do not extend across the map, outflanking an enemy position is not a difficult task to accomplish.  Given that enemy replacements may return behind your lines, no position is ever unassailable or secure.

Does this system feel like one is fighting an ACW battle?  Not to me at Salem Church.  Seems more akin to a small unit tactical game rather than BMUs of brigades.  Perhaps, I need to reread the historical account?  After that reading, I may change my tune.  With low loss rates and generous replacements, Salem Church offers a surprisingly balanced game.  

Having fought through two playings of Salem Church, I will recap one of those replays next time.