Gettysburg: Badges of Courage
Will the experimental rules do the previously
impossible - allow an outright Union win on Day 1?
Gettysburg: Badges of Courage is a game that
although I like, I've developed a few reservations about. On the one hand, it's
an absolutely great system, simple, yet it does a good job of emphasizing
command and control, and it produces a lot of excitement. On the other hand,
there were always a few details that didn't seem to work quite right - the way
the Confederacy could get hung up in Gettysburg, but once they broke through the
Union had a heck of a time setting up a viable defense line on the hills which
provided so little cover. Or the unrealistic way artillery was always being
brought up to the front lines for point-blank
fire.
Fortunately, Columbia has tried
to address these issues with a simple set of "experimental" rules, rules that
slightly increase the defensive value of hills, make artillery a little more
vulnerable at close range, and weaken the defensive value of Gettysburg by
weakening the streams. It all works very cleanly and it seems like just the
level of change required to bring the game into
line.
In our game, I played the Union,
Charles the Confederates.
Buford had
his usual bad luck defending Seminary Ridge, with lucky shots shattering both
cavalry brigades at only a minimal slowdown to the Confederates. The Iron
Brigade deployed into Gettysburg, but as expected the terrain was much less
favorable and their flank was quickly turned and they were forced to retreat to
Cemetery Ridge. A Union counterattack on the Confederate right flank threatened
to annihilate a couple isolated brigades and artillery, but was stalled out not
so much due to resistance as to sheer incompetence - of the 24 dice thrown over
three turns of action needing a 1 or a 2 to hit, only one hit was scored. 6
precious command steps down the drain. One of the big changes in the new rules
is that artillery that is too close to enemy infantry can be directly targeted
by fire, which is extremely dangerous, but only if you occasionally roll
hits.
On balance, the first day
progressed much as it always does - the Union getting disorganized and driven
back, while Confederate units drive hard and take only incremental casualties -
but it did so in a more satisfying manner. The Union is still hard-pressed, but
they have a substantially more viable defense line at the ridge. The
Confederates can still drive hard, but they can't wheel their plentiful and
powerful artillery up to point-blank range with impunity as they could before.
The Union will still be hard-pressed to actually win (as will the Confederates -
the game was really designed to be played for two full game-days), but they have
an outside shot - I was sitting on 4VPs as late as
7PM.
As I say, I have always liked
Gettysburg, even if it couldn't quite deliver on the outstanding early
impression, and it seems like the rules tweaks might really help with a few of
the technical issues. Assuming they do, the main remaining obstacle is just how
long it takes to play, 6-8 hours probably for the two days to get a really
satisfying game, which to me means two sessions. I still wish Columbia could
provide some sensible victory conditions for the one-day game so you aren't more
or less forced to continue to the second day. I'd suggest that if you split the
difference (7VP is a draw, more or less is a Confederate or Union victory), that
feels about right with the new rules. Previously, the Union was desperate just
to keep the VP count below 10 on the first day; now it seems like things are a
bit more reasonable.
Posted: Monday - January 24, 2005 at 08:03 PM