Whilst I was away I started rereading Shelby Foote's 'The Civil War: A Narrative', which is a thoroughly sensible book to pack when you have airline weight limits to consider. To be fair I only took the first volume; I reasoned that I wouldn't finish it before we came .
Anyway, it gave me a bit of an urge to do some ACW gaming when I got home. But rather than individual battles I fancied something with a broader sweep, so I got out my copy of GDW's 'A House Divided' to see if I could remember how to play it.
I worked my way slowly through a game during the course of Saturday, and gradually picked up the rules again. They aren't too complicated, although the game plays best with at least some of the optional and advanced rules applied (I'd marked the ones I'd used in the past with a pencil tick, so that was helpful - thanks Past Me). Here's the setup:
I wish I'd taken notes rather than just photos though, as I now have a collection of pictures of the board and only a dim memory of the course of events.
Here's the Union making a descent of the Mississippi River.
And the first battle of the game, fought in the Fort Donelson/Henry box.
In the east the Confederates attacked Harpers Ferry and were defeated.
The Union seized the initiative, and landed on the Peninsula.
The Confederates fell back to cover Richmond and Petersburg, but a furious assault in late 1861 saw both places fall.
Surprisingly despite this grievous loss so early in the game the Confederacy rallied, and led the Union a merry dance around Kentucky.
In the east the Union pushed into the Carolinas. There was much fighting around Wilmington and Charleston, with the Union making use of naval movement to give them an edge, but after over-stretching their lines the Confederacy rallied and drove them back.
The west was, quite simply, a mess, with armies marching around each other and grabbing what prizes they could. This was partially due to bad command rolls for both sides which saw most of the limited actions available being used in the Carolinas.
I abandoned the game midway through 1863. The Union had had a bit of a surge and captured a number of key cities, leaving the Confederates with just New Orleans, Memphis and Charleston as I recall. I decided that whilst a long delaying action could still give them a win it was unlikely and would just take time; I'd been playing for several hours already and my brain was tired.
As it was I found out afterwards I'd missed a key rule that allows units to participate in two moves per turn, which would have affected everything from the start. So the game was fun, but maybe would have played out a lot differently.
I have set up another game, which I am playing more slowly over several days. I have reached mid-1863. Richmond is under pressure from all sides, but holding, but obviously both sides have a lot of resources committed to the area. The Confederates came within a hairsbreadth of a win in 1862 when they pushed an elite cavalry unit into the north-east and threatened New York City itself. The plan was to grab a few resource centres in the west to even up the relative supply values, then grab New York with the cavalry to give the Confederacy a win by having their supply total exceed that of the Union's. It was foiled by the Union holding Memphis against all-comers, and eventually cornering and eliminating the rogue cavalry unit, but it was a tense few months. Elsewhere there is a lot of fighting in Kentucky, and up and down the Mississippi, but the Union have now gained an edge after taking Mobile and using it as a base from which to launch a massed cavalry sortie into Alabama and Mississippi, cutting supply lines and preparing for a second invasion of infantry to consolidate their gains. So a Confederate collapse might yet come.
'A House Divided' is a great game - very simple to play, but tactically quite complicated if you use the supply rules, as both sides are constantly forced to consolidate and protect their gains whilst hoping their opponent doesn't get time to build up strength to take them away. It certainly captures the feel of the conflict as I understand it. It's one downside is that it takes forever to play.
A game that has many fond memories, but I haven't played it in years. Great to see on the table.
ReplyDeleteI have "Soldier King" which is the same sort of system. Seemed quite revolutionary at the time, with such a simple and elegant combat system.
ReplyDeleteI think I've seen something like this before. Someone was using a copy of the map as the campaign basis whilst the battles were fought as war games.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, although Shelby Foote's Civil War narrative is very readable and engaging, I find his historiography just a little bit sus. My own recommendations would be D. Southall Freeman's 'Lee's Lieutenants' and Hattaway and Jones's 'How the North Won'. Both very readable. If you can find it, look up Col Henderson's 1898 biography of Stonewall Jackson. Excellent read.
Cheers,
Ion
Thanks for the recommendations.
DeleteI'm aware that Shelby Foote has shortcomings, but it is, as you say, an entertaining and engaging read, and something I like to come back to every few years simply for my own entertainment.