79thPA | 14 Jan 2019 7:34 a.m. PST |
How would you game Shiloh? I just read a book chapter about the battle, and it seems pretty difficult to replicate for gaming the almost complete absence of visibility. Units are stumbling around in the woods, not even seeing units that are 50 yards away until they receive a volley out of nowhere. I think even the use of dummy counters gives the troops much more information than they had in the battle. This is a battle that would be best run by a GM who does not play. The GM knows all unit locations and, as units stumble around, he lets the players know when they are in contact. Thoughts? |
HMS Exeter | 14 Jan 2019 7:53 a.m. PST |
It would be helpful to know your intended scope for this. Are you thinking someone's basement, or at a con? How many players? There are a number of ways to try to organize this, but they are dependent on the parameters of the event. What were you thinking? While not really responsive to the question, I was at a con once where a guy ran a Stalingrad factory fight. He had 16 1'x1'x4" shallow boxes. Most of them had lids on them. Only 2 were open. One for the Germans. One for the Russkies. Each box was set up as a room with interior walls and furnishings and doors. You could move from one room to another, which triggered one of the covered boxes to be placed next to the start box, and the lid was removed. Needless to say, we had no idea how these all fit together, so we were groping toward one another, bat blind. It was pretty intense. |
KeithRK | 14 Jan 2019 7:54 a.m. PST |
I really don't know how you could come up with a system that accurately simulates the Fog Of War in a Civil War battle, without winding up with a 500 page rulebook. |
DisasterWargamer | 14 Jan 2019 8:11 a.m. PST |
The only way I have done it that worked was that players are given a small tactical map with a lot of geographic details and a larger more strategic map with very few. They turn in their first moves before coming to the game night. One room has the game table and the second where players are until contact is made. Players marching to the sound of the guns still had to go through the tactical terrain to get to where the combat was or wasnt. The Battle we tried it with was Perryville. Ideally 2 refs to make it work well. |
rustymusket | 14 Jan 2019 9:07 a.m. PST |
I like DW's ideas. I was thinking 3 tables, 1 for each army and a third for where opposing units meet. It would get quite cumbersome, though. Might need 3 or 4 refs. PLease let us know how you work it out. |
donlowry | 14 Jan 2019 9:33 a.m. PST |
This is a battle that would be best run by a GM who does not play. The GM knows all unit locations and, as units stumble around, he lets the players know when they are in contact. You answered your own question. |
darthfozzywig | 14 Jan 2019 10:17 a.m. PST |
Greg Wagman posted these double blind rules for his (really great!) ACW game "Altar of Freedom", but obviously would work for many periods: PDF link |
Dennis | 14 Jan 2019 4:15 p.m. PST |
Didn't the Perfect Captain at one time on his web site have some sort of double-blind contact system using a framework that held various lengths of dowel rods. As I recall, the non-moving player would secretly insert dowel rods in the slots representing the areas occupied by his troops. The moving player would then insert a dowel rod(s) in the slots where he was scouting. If the scouted slot had a dowel representing occupation by the non-moving player, then the dowel inserted in that slot by the moving player would be visible above the top of the slot-that is, the contents of the slot would be hidden but its depth would be just less than the length of the dowels used by the non-moving player and the moving player so if you saw a dowel then the slot held dowels from both players. As I recall, the PC used some sort of compound German name to describe the device. |
Scum1234 | 14 Jan 2019 5:38 p.m. PST |
This came from an article by Andy Callan (I think) in an early issue of Miniature Wargames or an Annual called Wargames!! for FIW skirmishes-but it can scale up for this sort of battle. You need a grid either marked on the table, of terrain tiles or carpet squares. Each square has a number and each corner of a square has little colored dots. Layout out a heavily wooded terrain. The key is the master map. Those squares are connected to each other the way they look on the table top. The master map, which could be drawn but is most easily usable if it is a big LEGO plate and as many 2x2 square bricks. Each is number and the pegs colored to correspond to each square/tile on the table. The bricks are arranged on the LEGO plate. It can be done randomly, or too a design. The layout doesn't even have to be rectangular. If the GM is sneaky, some of them might be oriented the same way as the tiles on the table. Units cannot fire between squares; when they move from one square to the next, the GM tells them which square and which side (from consulting the master map) they enter from. A unit moving off the table/map will suffer a penalty of a turn or two before they realize they've moved away from the battle and can return via the side of a square they left from. Heads up players will record their own map from scouting and eventually figure out the quickest way there from here. Y'know, scouting. |
79thPA | 15 Jan 2019 6:36 a.m. PST |
|
HMS Exeter | 15 Jan 2019 9:02 a.m. PST |
I think a good starting point would be developing a special map dividing the battlefield into irregularly shaped sectors that interconnect disjointedly, a la the "Risk" game board. Only the GM gets to see that map. Players never know how many sectors adjoin the one they are in, so threats can come from anywhere at any moment. |
ChrisBBB2 | 16 Jan 2019 1:11 p.m. PST |
The Corlears Hook Fencibles evidently enjoyed fighting Shiloh enough that they played it 5 times in 2 years. See here: link And here: TMP link The rules they use, BBB, have the simple device that it is more difficult to activate units to move when they are in difficult terrain such as the woods at Shiloh. This doesn't exactly "replicate the complete absence of visibility", but it does mean that quite often the troops on the ground will fail to respond to what the 200' general can see on the table. It's a pretty satisfactory way of introducing the right degree of uncertainty into maneuver, without needing GMs or map movement or special paraphernalia. Maybe you lose some of the glee/dismay that might be generated by hidden movement surprises; on the other hand, you do get to see all the pretty toys on the table, which is why we paint them, right? Good luck with finding the right mechanism for the kind of game experience you want. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com |