"The Shenandoah Valley on the map??" Topic

I'm starting to finalize my map for my ACW game. For those that don't know, the game covers the whole war so the map represents all the south, parts of the north. I am using area movement instead of hex or point to point. The reason for this is because one of my design goals is to make a game that has a medium level of detail in the basic game, includes all the important historical factors but is not as detailed as say an old school Avlon Hill game from the 80's.
Regarding the Shenandoah Valley, based on my research I decided not to include the eastern mountain ridge in northern Virginia because the battles took place in the valley, in relatively open ground and there are a good number or roads leading through it east to west, based on my research and reading.
It was brought to my attention by a couple of play testers that felt like I still needed to include it in the game even if the terrain the fighting would be done in is basically the same as the rest of northern Virginia. I can do this by taking the two northern areas and dividing them into three. I would represent the eastern side of the valley with mountainous terrain that would be a special feature area border, not a separate area and there would be a small penalty for a force attempting to fight through it….moving either east or west.
I feel the down side of this is by having three smaller areas it would create some map economic problems vs the rest of the map in regards to space if there are alot of counters on them, which is certainly possible and make it difficult to see them, move them, etc and thus take away from the fun and flow of the game without adding much in return.
So………this is my question, should I include the eastern side or not?? Is the extra tight, small spaces worth it or not? I can see both sides and am not sure which way to go so input on what you would expect or prefer is welcome. Thanks, happy gaming!!!! I am willing to talk further back channel with a designer that is willing to help if needed.

As a gamer I would expect to see the hills running down the east side of the valley. The passes through those hills need to be controlled to provide security and/or flexibility to either army.

Travis,

The passes through the eastern ridges of the Valley are very important to the movement of troops to and from the Valley. I suggest you should find a way to include the ridges.

Jim

It seems to me that the right way to represent the Eastern side of the valley would be as a border feature of the areas east of the valley and then restrict the points where it could be crossed with a penalty to an attacked crossing into an area in the valley. That would avoid having fights in mountainous terrain per se but restrict movement as the eastern mountains did in the campaigns in Virginia.

Chris

Are you dividing the Valley by Massanutten Mountain? That played a very important role in Jackson's campaign.

Thanks for all the input guys, sound like I need to include it. Yes batesmotel34, because of the room restrictions on the map I mentioned that is what I had in mind, not so much a sperate area but a border between areas that has effects on combat if attempting to move through.

The terrain in your idea is only a background; it should have nothing to do with the game and should only be decoration. Looking down on the continent from 60 miles up, the dominant concerns are food production for all the armies. The regions idea is correct. Put the major terrain features as the edges of each region so they have no bearing on anything. Everything else for conducting turns and such is almost entirely railroads and politics. Lemme put it this way: terrain has nothing to do with Conquest of the Empire. Make a Civil War game like THAT game and you'll get my vote. Good luck and keep me/us updated. Post an image of your stuff somewhere send out the links. imagineimage@comcast.net

Do give them the opportunity to utilise the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Terrain has a lot to do with movement (speed or even feasibility), and logistics.

Companycmd I am going for something a little more in detail then what you are talking about, like I tried to explain in the opening post. I actually had an original 80s copy of Conquest of the Empire along with Fortress America and the others in the series, lots of memories:) If you haven't you should check out the ACW board game by the now gone Eagle Games "The American Civil War" it has plastic mini's, and is on the level you are talking about, a great game for what it was trying to be IMHO:) I am going for something more inbetween.
IF, you or anyone else seeing this is interested in my test map I have been using for play testing I am happy to share it for input and suggestions. Its rough, but works for playtesting.
I wanted to include alot of the historically important factors but when ever possible put them "under the hood" of the rules so to speak so they are there but the players don't have to do a bunch of extra steps and die rolling every round.
For example each turn has a variable number of land impulses so no player knows just how much moving and fighting will take place that turn…..with in some limits, so you have to consider that and plan ahead. Shorter turns can be because of weather, logistics, politics, etc, so its there, but "under the hood" so the players don't have to deal with it but still "feel" its influence in the game. That sort of thing. Anyway, thanks, anyone interested let me know…happy gaming all!!!

I disagree with what companycmd said. The mountain chains in Virginia helped define the campaigns. They both screened and limited troop movements. They could in theory help protect or cut off access to the resources of the Valley of Virginia. The mountains west of the Valley in turn limit routes of approach into Virginia from the Ohio. The Cumberland Plateau would serve the same function in Tennessee.