Shiloh -- a Lesson in Second Chances

The Battle of Shiloh, which began on this day in 1862, is a fascinating battle, not only for what did happen, but for what did not happen.

What did not happen was Grant and Sherman being cashiered out of the service. Grant was largely saved by two things. First, and most importantly, he managed to eke out a narrow win despite the disaster on the first day. Secondly, and nearly as importantly, his stock was still high because of his stunning victories at Fort Donelson and Fort Henry. Absent both of these facts he would have joined the long list of failed Union generals. Sherman's fate was tied to Grant's and without Grant there's little chance he'd have gotten his high commands.

Given how important Grant was for the successful outcome of the war, it's a reasonable question to ask if the Union would have been saved without him. It wasn't just Grant's field leadership, which resulted in the capture of THREE rebel field armies, but his strategic vision which coordinated ALL the Union armies in 1864 and 1865 to achieve ultimate victory.

Yet it all could have come to a sorry and quick end that April day at Pittsburgh Landing. The survival of Grant's reputation wasn't the only thing at risk. Grant's personal survival was also an open question. Quite a few generals fell on that field, including the opposing army commander.

One can play the what-if game with any battle of course, but there are some battles that seem to have turned on the twists of fate in a particularly profound way. Suppose a French cannon ball had taken Wellington's leg at on the field of Waterloo instead of Lord Uxbridge? Suppose the Enterprise's dive bombers had missed finding the Japanese carriers at Midway like the Hornet's? Suppose the HMS Hood had lasted another 15 minutes in its battle with the Bismarck?

And so I think Shiloh's real story is the second chance that it gave Grant. He lived through the first day -- which he screwed up royally -- and barely held the field. He was then able to drive the worn-out CSA army away. This is not to disparage Grant's personal qualities. Almost alone among top Federal commanders he had the moral strength to recover from a disaster -- but it was a disaster.

I don't have too many games on the battle. There's a scenario in Battle Cry depicting the fight around The Hornet's Nest, I have the Dixie: Shiloh collectible card game and the Blue & Gray quad game on Shiloh. While none are definitive simulations, they do provide some flavor of the drama around the battle and all have hit the table.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargamer's perspective: Dixie Gettysburg

Dixie Gettysburg ended up being the final entry in Columbia's Dixie series of collectible card wargames based on American Civil War battles. There were apparently plans to do the Battle of Antietam, as well, but sales evidently didn't support the project. Indeed, first run cards are still available from Columbia, so the game is technically still in print.

Like the earlier games, Dixie Gettysburg is less a card game than an abstract tactical battle game that uses cards for units.

Cards representing units of infantry, cavalry and artillery and the generals leading them maneuver on an abstract battlefield divided into left, center and right sectors plus a reserve position for each army.

Units battle by rolling as many dice as their "combat value" (CV)scoring hits depending upon the type of unit firing and the range. Infantry units, for example, normally fire at "F2" at enemy units they are "engaged" with, inflicting hits on a die roll of "1" or "2."

Units that have been hit make a morale check at the beginning of their next turn, rolling a die for every hit. If any rolls exceed the CV of the target unit it routs out of play. Gettysburg adds a twist to this basic Dixie system by modifying the CV according to the unit's "morale rating" which is a letter rating from A (best) through D (worst).

Unlike the earlier games, in Dixie Gettysburg the cards generally represent brigades rather than regiments, so the regimental illustrations on the cards are selected examples of the uniforms worn during the battle. By this stage of the war both armies were more or less clothed in regulation attire (at least as far as the Confederate supply system allowed) for the most part, so there's less need to get into the regimental variations that made Bull Run and Shiloh so colorful. That said, the federal army has at least a few uniquely uniformed units, so it's not entirely a sea of blue.

Like the other Dixie series games there is no rarity between the cards. so those who purchase decks have an equal chance of getting each card. I skipped that phase entirely by buying the one-with-everything complete set of 250 cards as I found the process of collecting the cards individually rather tiresome, especially after the 400-card Shiloh set.

Like the other Dixie games, Dixie Gettysburg is much more geared for wargamers than the usual collectible game crowd. There's relatively little interaction between cards and no scope for killer combos and the like. It's a straightforward battle game.

Personally I like the game. Like many wargamers I'm somewhat of an OB nerd, so I like having the whole order of battle laid out in front of me. The illustrations by Eric Hotz are well-done and the game is really worth getting for those alone.

Compared to the other Dixie games Dixie Gettysburg adds a few more twists to the game. Besides the morale levels referenced earlier, there's also a rule for corps integrity and for fighting the battle over three "days," giving the game some of the epic feel of the namesake battle. Like Bull Run there are rules for fighting over five columns instead of the standard three, which will also make the game longer and more involved by card game standards, although still pretty light fare by wargame standards.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargamer's perspective: Dixie Shiloh

Dixie: Shiloh is the biggest set of cards in the Columbia Games stable of collectible card games. For the larger battles of Gettysburg and Waterloo the basic unit size represented by the cards was changed from regiment to brigade, although the illustrations still picked one regiment to represent the unit.

In Shiloh, though, the basic units are still infantry regiments, providing an illustrated order of battle that will definitely appeal to wargamers, although from a game player's point of view most of the units are functionally identical.

Like the other games in the Dixie series, the interaction between players and cards is minimal and the game is actually an abstract tactical battle game. The vast majority of cards represent units of infantry, artillery and cavalry or the generals leading them. Combat is resolved by units "firing" or "meleeing" against each other, with the number of dice rolled being equal to the card's combat value and the effectiveness of that fire depending upon the type of unit and the range of the fire. For example, a 3CV field artillery unit firing at "F1" rolls three dice with each roll of "1" inflicting a hit.

At the beginning of their own turn units that have suffered hits make a morale check, routing out of play if they roll higher than their CV, modified for terrain and leadership.

Dixie: Shiloh is different from the other games in the series because of the unusual nature of the battle. First off, instead of both sides setting up opposite each other in their own left-center-right sectors as in the other games, in Dixie: Shiloh the federal player sets up in all six sectors to start, which are labeled front left-center-right and back left-center-right respectively. All the Confederate units start in the CSA reserve position and have to fight their way onto the battlefield. The CSA wins by occupying the center back sector by the end of the first day (which ends when all CSA reinforcements have been drawn). If they fail, then a second day's battle is fought with the USDA winning if it captures the front center sector, making Dixie: Shiloh the one Dixie/Eagles series game where a draw is possible.

One new rule introduced in Dixie: Shiloh is a "stacking bonus" for leaders, which makes these gentlemen even more useful than before.

There are also some special cards adding some historical flavor such as "Johnny Shiloh" and the gunboats USS Lexington and USS Tyler.

Some sample cards:

The other Dixie games offer an option for playing a larger, 5-position battle but Shiloh is restricted to just the 3-position, 2-day battle. This is unfortunate because it means that only a small fraction of the available cards will be used in any game. With 400-500 build points and decks of just 200-250 cards, players can use the majority of their cards in Dixie: Bull Run and Dixie: Gettysburg, but Dixie: Shiloh, while having 400 cards, only has a 225-300 build point version. One way around this would be to simply double the build points and the stacking limits (including leaders stacking bonus) in order to sue more cards.

Like the other Dixie series games, Dixie: Shiloh is definitely recommended for wargamers. The OB alone is a pretty neat feature. Like the other Dixie games there is no artificial "rarity" factor to complicate collectibility. Also, like the other Dixie games, Columbia offers a one-with-everything set for those who don't want to bother with the random booster collectible scene.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargamer's perspective: Dixie Bull Run

Columbia Games was actually one of the first companies to jump on the Collectible Game bandwagon, publishing Dixie" Shiloh in 1994.

On the other hand, Dixie wasn't a whole-hearted CCG in the form we've become accustomed to over the years.

For one thing, the game eschews the whole rarity thing. While randomly sorted for packaging, all the cards are equally rare (or common). This made collecting a full set somewhat less daunting. In addition, there aren't really a lot of different kinds of cards. The vast majority of the cards are infantry with "combat values" of 1 to 4. Most of the balance of the cards are leaders and artillery, with a handful of cavalry units. There are a few terrain cards and 23 "special" cards, which are the only ones "played" to affect various game functions. All the generals, infantry, artillery and cavalry cards are used to maneuver and fight on a notional battlefield divided into left, center and right sectors for each army.

Indeed, the combat system is basically a copy of the tactical battle board system used in Bobby Lee and similar to the tactical system of Napoleon.

As such this game is very familiar territory for wargamers. Deck construction is fairly straightforward. There are no killer card combos or any such considerations. Instead the player uses the available battle points to select a mix of cards. Both sides deploy their initial "muster" on the board with any additional cards arriving as reinforcements.

Players can "fire" their guns cross the "middle ground at the op[posing array and send infantry and cavalry units across the "middle ground" in an attempt to seize the enemy's home sectors. If an army captures two out of the three enemy home sectors they win.

Combat in all cases involves rolling as many dice as the unit;s combat value, with the effectiveness of that fire depending upon the type of unit. For example, infantry units fire at "F2" which means a die roll of 1 or 2 hits. For every hit a unit has taken it has to make a morale check at the beginning of its next turn If it rolls more than its CV, modified for any leadership, then it "routs" and is removed from play.

As one can see, larger CV units are doubly powerful, rolling more dice and having a greater chance of passing a morale check. On the other hand, they are also somewhat fragile, in a case of having all ones eggs in a single basket. A single hit followed by a bad die roll can make a 4CV unit run away, wheres it would take 4 hits to clear out four 1 CV units (with a chance that a lucky roll may save one.) Leaders tend to benefit poorer units more. A single 0/1 leader can double the chances that 1CV units will hold their ground defending a position.

Compared to most card games there is very little card interaction between players. Only a couple of special cards can be played to directly affect the opponent's cards (Uniform Confusion, Rebel Yell). No, this is very definitely a wargame, albeit on the abstract side.

One of the more interesting things from a wargamers point of view is the OB and uniform information contained in the game. The entire order of battle of both armies is included in the game, with illustrations of all the regimental uniforms. Bull Run was the first battle of the war and both armies were much more colorful than they would be later on.



Some examples:

There are federal units in gray, rebels in blue and other combinations galore.

Dixie is definitely a wargamers kind of collectible game. It's got the kind of collectibility that should appeal to wargamers -- uniforms and OB while avoiding the kind of annoying collectibility found in many other CCGs such as promo cards, ultra rares and the like.

And if you don't want to do it the hard way, Columbia also offers a one-with-everything set that skips the whole random box scene.

The basic game is a good, introductory level tactical battle game that may appeal to the non-wargaming friends. The large cards highlight the kind of visual attractiveness usually seen in miniatures game and it avoid hexes and other wargamey conventions in favor of a very intuitive right-center-left battlefield.