We played Chris’s draft scenario of the Petersburg campaign, 8 months in a fairly short game. It was quite a dust-up, with both sides quite worried about enemy threats. We spent an hour before the game discussing the special scenario rules. They are unusual, for this most unusual subject. Bill played Grant, ably seconded by his son Mathew (a grown man. Bill and I are old guys.).
On the first strategic phase they cut the Weldon RR immediately and kept it by the second turn, earning 2 objectives. They also stormed one fort southeast of Petersburg, trying unsuccessfully for another on the third turn before declaring an end to the phase. I think they would have done better to declare an end to the phase right after the 2nd turn, although that is moot. I should keep an online record of Union activations, objectives taken and turns played. My paper one got messed around some. I also forgot to count Hancock’s first retreat as one more US activation, little though that would matter.
After the first phase I pushed my rifle pits aggressively forward, placing Bushrod Johnson and Hoke’s divisions out on my right to threaten the Union left. As it turned out, that was an error. One look at my right convinced the Yankees to try their luck directly against Petersburg. On the second strategic phase, after taking several perimeter forts, they stormed the town on turn 6. I made the mistake of including a spent unit on the final defense. That -2 insured the town fell. One of those divisions off on my right would really have helped. My attempt at a counterattack foundered when a series of crappy movement rolls saw disrupted units rally in place and those in good order refuse to move. Mahone’s division was the sole exception. It made a long march from my right, and made a long-shot solo counterattack on Petersburg. Burnside’s IX Corps repelled the attack. The ignominy, defeated by Ambrose Burnside!
The game lasted 2 hours and 33 minutes, 6 turns, about 25
minutes per turn, including photo time.
The Union used up 22 activations of the possible 30. I think the ability of the US to make coordinated assaults due to good movement rolls was more important than good combat rolls, though they had some of those too.
With firing so reduced in this scenario, we weren’t sure how to handle going low on ammo. We decided that any infantry unit that passed an offensive fire phase without being in an assault recovered.
Mathew said: I was wondering if the rule ignoring zones of
control for the purposes of threatening LOC in the union lines might skew the
game in this particular scenario towards the union siege lines, and away from
the flanking maneuver because they need to keep so many units to guard the line
of communication. Certainly, it might not work out that way. I just thought it
was something to keep an eye on if I were going to continue to play it.
I wonder about it too. The LOC issue has been resolved. See below.
Truly minor stuff from me: perhaps Sheridan should always be in command. He was one active fellow. Though we didn’t get to see him in this test. Burnside might be passive. But that’s likely too much chrome. Perhaps I’m just miffed to have been beaten by him.
The game was a blast. I hope to run it again in a few weeks, hopefully with emeritus Fencible Dennis and Fencible Andrew.
Edit: there were some crossed wires about scenario rules. That's why it is called testing. Clearing up the LOC issue should open the game up considerably. Having testers and designer separated by the pond also makes for friction, as Clausewitz would have said if he were a gamer.
