Scene from behind the Russian Center, mid game.
Greetings, dear readers. Recently, we here at Meanderer Central had another first. Mark D came over with his newly completed CBW Union Army and we had a game. Unlike previous games, he had put together an army list from the army building scheme and I had done the same. We then went through the "quick game" set up procedure and had at it. I guess that would be two firsts, come to think of it. This was the first time that we had asymmetrical OOBS AND it was the first time that we had armies belonging to two different players meeting on the table. It was (and is) completely a-historical given that I picked to my 1870ish Russians to put on the table, but the actual representation doesn't impact game play. Given that Mark started with a Union Army and my armies are all European, in order to see Mark's army on the table something had to give. I picked my Russians since they provide a nice contrast and there were several options I picked that went nicely with the army...
Back to "lessons learned": we had proofed the deployment process during playtests, but this was the first time we had done the full "tournament" process together: OOB construction, terrain placement, and unit deployment. And we found that the process worked just fine. So we now know that we can do these kinds of matches going forward.
Out on my right flank, I had composed a strike force composed of a line infantry battalion with two companies of dismounted cossacks (an Aux Volunteer Light Battalion deployed in two stands). I placed the chief of staff with this group to allow it to continue to operate independently. In hindsight, I probably should have added one more infantry battalion to the force--as it was, it didn't have the combat power to influence the overall outcome, and so wound up taking away from the decisive action elsewhere. But it certainly looked smart at the start (and it did give Mark some headaches)...
A shot indicative of the hammering being dished out and delivered in center, where things were decided. In the foreground, you can see that the Union zouve is reduced to one stand, but the two lead Russian infantry battalions are also reduced (with hits--the black squares--as well). The Bulgarian legion and another Russian line battalion are coming up to plug the gap, while the Iron Brigade is coming up to support the Union line. Eventually, Mark would retire and recover the battered Zouves out of danger and the Iron Brigade would arrive fresh to control the situation (against the blooded Russian line battalions and the Bulgarians, who by then had also taken a few pops).
Switching to the Russian Left, I think it can be said that it was events here, off on the periphery, that tipped the balance overall. Above, my Caucasion Cossacks, operating in Squardon, facing off against the U.S. 2nd Dragoons. I decided to get frisky with my light cavalry, and wound up paying the price. I knew better, but I sent one squadron forward to try and do a bit of shooting and dancing in front of the U.S. Cavalry. I got impatient, and did so when the opposing unit(s) had unspent activation markers and also fairly early in the turn, meaning that the Army had APs to use as well to get units moving, if needed. Predictably, the U.S. Cavalry was able to react (handily) and in the ensuing action took out my cossack squardon (being light, it only took three hits to make it go "poof"). Lesson learned (that I already knew)--on the post-Napoleonic battlefield, you don't send cavalry into action until later in the battle and against units that are reduced and/or will be hampered in their ability to react. Not a new lesson, really, that cavalry action is problematic in the face of fresh, well ordered units. (sidenote: back before the earth cooled, Mark and I had both served in the 2nd US Cavalry, so of course he did up this outfit for his US Cav: I can't say I was too disappointed to get whacked by this sentimental favorite).
Out on the Russian left, the other maneuver that fell into the "stupid move" category was to take my infantry battalion on the hill (above left) and move it out to try and take down the U.S. cavalry (seen in the distance; which had just clocked my cossacks). I moved it off the hill without really thinking about the Union infantry unit sitting in line on the other side. Yep, I happened to move it into range. And so Mark, being no slouch and seeing that I had just sent a Russian battalion out into the open right in front of his lines waving a big "kick me" sign, did so. The Union infantry opened up and delivered several devastating volleys (sometimes General Dice doesn't save you) and even advanced a bit to close the range before I could counter the counter; I managed to rally off a hit or two in response, but that battalion was caught in a bad situation and was reduced in short order (above right). I can't complain about that outcome, though: this is the age of the rifle, after all, and the results are not outside of what would be expected. Again, a move like that would be better done against units that would not be able to react. Aside from not paying attention in the first place, my larger mistake was tunnel vision--taking a local focus disconnected from the larger operation.The bottom line was that I had gained an advantage on the Russian right where Mark was expending command resources in his fixation with my light company, which I then squandered on my left flank by my fixation on his U.S. Cavalry Regiment. The Russian left/Union right was basically a stand off. Trying to force a result here may not have lost the battle for the Russians by itself, but the consequences of failure here crtainly did push things past the balancing point.
The mid-game "dead pile" (Russians closest to the bottom, Union to the top). Despite the mutual hammering that was being dished out in the center, which was (truth be told) working against the Russians, it was still a near run thing. However, as can be seen in the above, those two stands that got whacked out on the Russian left in that badly coordinated, ill thought out action, really made a difference. Although the loss of combat power on the table was certainly being tipped, the loss in operational agility added to the downward slide--each stand eliminated also meant the loss of an AP. Without losing those stands, the AP loss deficit would have been virtually even, 3 Russian to 2 Union. But being down 5 to 2 was a different magnitude. The deficit meant that the Russians couldn't take advantage of opportunities to the fullest; they were limited in their ability to react to Union moves--and at the unit level, they were increasingly less able to recover via rally, so punishment was adding up. In short, the Russians began to fray. Eventually, Mark and the Union would put the last hurt on the Russians and push them beyond their exhaustion point.
Excelsior!
Mark (U.S. Grant) has seen plenty of action, so is unperturbed as the entire Russians line advances, flags flying and bands playing (oh, the grand spectacle and the optimism of the early turns in CBW, so characteristic of the era...).
A few shots of the opening turns. Above, the Russian center and right moving ahead. The Veteran Bulgarian Legion (left rear unit) follows up in support of the forward line infantry battlions. The dismounted cossacks have jumped into the smal town and the woods on their way forward.
The Union counters, moving up the guns and taking position on the hill in their sector.
A side shot as the mid game develops, just before the lines get into firing range and start hammering each other. Union (Mark) to the left and Russian (Your Humble Correspondent) to the right. The situation on the Russian Right/Union Left is in stasis, with the two light cavalry squadrons facing the single cavalry regiment, and a battalion of infantry on the end of the line keeping an eye on things for each side.
Meanwhile, out on the Russian right, I rallied one of the companies of the volunteer light battalion (dismounted cossacks)--as a volunteer, the morale rating is unknown (and variable) until it rallies, when you roll to find out. Well, I happened to roll a 12, meaning that this was an elite volunteer company (!). Oh, another first--this was first time we put a variable morale unit on the table: that scheme worked as designed, too. Back to the game...so I pushed it ahead into the rough right in the face of the Union left. Being a light company, it couldn't dish out tons of damage, but being an elite, and in a bit of cover, I was able to keep rallying off hits and keeping it alive to continue to harass the Union left. Mark wound up expending a good amount of operational effort to mask and then (finally) get rid of this unit--as long as this went on, I was spending less to keep it there than he was to counter it. Problem was that I wasn't able to leverage that on this wing--that one line battalion I had out there wasn't enough to deliver a punch; that plus it just plain wound up doing badly (I won't blame the dice; but the battalion commander has since been posted to a garrison in a center stretch of the newly finished Trans-Siberia Rail Line).
Well done to Mark and his brand new Union CBW Army--victorious in the first ever Chocolate Box Wars "match" game!
A few lessons and observations. As has been mentioned, this game proofed the entire system, basically. From army building to game set up and play. And it all worked (whether someone likes it or not is another thing). We also liked the asymmetrical OOBs. Although I had not taken an elite, my side did have other things going for it (that I didn't leverage)--so it wasn't like one side walked all over the other. So far, the army list building seems to not be out of whack. As far as the game flow, this one had a very see-saw feel. In the early going, I really hammered the Union center, and it looked as if the game might be over early. However, when the Union became the active player, things swung back in the other direction and things balanced out. So if you're playing the game, you have to keep a level head and have a strong stomach to endure a beating or two as things develop. Manuevering into range, the only way to achieve results, means that you're going to take losses, so you must have a certain bloody minded attitude and not get rattled when you start to lose a few units. Once again, though, it seems to me that bloody advances and drastic casualty swings are not out of the norm for warfare in the age of the rifle.
