Pages

Saturday, January 25, 2020

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.

20 comments:

  1. Great review. Many thanks. I have tried some of the AWI versions of same ruleset, and there are some very unique systems at work, as you say. Not sure whether they all work, but the games seem worth the attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed the review, Darren! I am not sold on the system. Perhaps it will grow on me with time?

      Delete
  2. Hi Jonathan, thanks for the mention and glad you got this to the table. It is a mixed bag, but ideal for the player recuperating from an injury because it is a small format game that can play right under your nose at the table.

    The rules raise an eyebrow, as this series was deliberately written as a ‘light’ version of the bigger ruleset that comes with the bigger folios, yet you can find yourself dipping back into the full set to answer questions that crop up in the annoyingly less than tight light set, as the bigger set can give a sense of designer intent. DG should have made a bigger effort to get more support out for these rules, some of the CRT results have changed in the errata.

    My own playing had an odd ending, but the play itself was entertaining.

    With the system fresh in your mind, there are other ACW games in the series, but the Saratoga and particularly the Germantown games from the AWI group in the series might give interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm. Thanks for the recommendation of this title. You are correct in that Salem Church is perfect for an invalid sitting at a dining room table for a few hours of pleasant distraction. I time for more such undertakings in the weeks to come.

      The rules seemed sloppy. I wonder how much playtesting went into this? For me, questions arose frequently and I had to dig through the rules in an attempt to find an answer. Luckily, the rules are very short.

      I used all of the published errata and clarifications for this review. Thanks for pointing me to the errata and clarifications in your review.

      I am undecided if I will pick up another in the series but I may if the price is right.

      Thanks for your comments!

      Delete
  3. Hi Jonathan, I have the Chatilly battle from DG but haven't played it yet. I actually bought it due to the small size and solitaire playability. My plan was to bring it on vacation with me and play it while down at the shore if we had a rainy day.

    Very much looking forward to you getting this on the table!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, I look forward to your thoughts on the system with Chantilly. These mini-games are perfect travel companions but when you are on the holiday at the beach, you should enjoy the beach!

      Delete
  4. I am not a board game fan at all but I'm glad you are able to get some solo entertainment from this medium during your incapacity Jonathan!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Keith! For Wargaming, I leave no stone unturned.

      Delete
  5. I'm always tempted by boardgames, but simply don't have the time (nor energy) to learn varying rulesets from some very tempting games. For these bigger battles, I much prefer to play Bloody Big battles. Anyway, an enjoyable review of the game, but not for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No worries, Steve! I really appreciate your effort to read through a topic of no interest and commenting. Your continued support is gratifying.

      Delete
  6. Is this the kind of thing that could be adapted to miniature play?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scenario, itself, could certainly be the basis for miniatures play. If your miniatures rules use a hex grid then it would be a straight forward conversion. If played on a non-grid then some adjustments would be needed.

      Delete
  7. I’ve recently read up on the battle of Chancellorsville and to be honest, this game doesn’t really remind me of the Salem church chapters. But all is well having a pleasant evening playing games, even if to determine that this particular game probably won’t be played again. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I need to return to the battle accounts and refresh my memory on the action at Salem Church. Salem Church boardgame may not see frequent replays but one never knows. It was inexpensive and I certainly got an evenings-worth of entertainment out of it.

      Thanks for your comments, Stew!

      Delete
  8. Thanks for an interesting review Jonathan. If I understood correctly it is almost impossible to eliminate an enemy brigade as casualties are recoverable and strength builds up again in a short while. Seems a bit steep to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome, Mike!

      Eliminating a brigade is difficult. Most brigades have two steps before elimination and two steps can be replaced each turn. One-step units on map can be rebuild and units in the Dead Pile can be rebuild and brought back on map. In the two games I played, brigade elimination was difficult. In many turns I had surplus replacements with no reduced units to rebuild.

      Delete
  9. A nice balanced review Jonathan. Perhaps it is the small size of the scenario, but being able to so readily reinforce units such that they are so difficult to remove seems a little unbalanced, and the lack of some terrain effects seems a little odd. I find that if you have to look for a reason to explain why a particular mechanic seems a bit odd, then it is probably the rule that is at fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Lawrence. I try to provide a balanced and even-handed review and assessment of the game.

      Your points are all well taken. The small number of brigades large movement allowances, gentle CRT, and high replacement rates all make for a game of maneuver and pushing rather than head-to-head confrontation. This is not how I envision ACW tactical combat.

      I appreciate your insights.

      Delete
  10. Thanks for sharing I just don’t think I can see me having time to board game ? Although what I need is a bigger scale game to use as a campaign background for then fighting on the table ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many operational-level board games that are well suited as campaign engines for miniature gaming. If you want some options, let me know.

      Delete