usiandrew
Rating: 10
The best game of the Valley campaign to date. This game exceeded all my expectations.
vmi1983
Rating: 10
Latest update.. Wow!
..... deep asymmetrical play, every move is critical..

It is easier to lose than to win. Each player has an objective that is difficult to accomplish.

The USA is weaker and must avoid destruction, yet retain control of the Lower Valley hopefully, without the aid of Shields division. The Union player cannot afford a head-to-head battle against the Valley Army, rather he needs to buy for time by slowing Jackson, and cause the CSA to stretch his lines, then he must look for an opportunity to administer a blow, and threaten Jackson's line of supply. Jackson however is able to respond to any incursion rapidly. To win as the USA player is not an easy task.

Jackson is powerful, but he does not have enough troops to control both the Lower and Upper Valley. He must shatter enemy brigades, control the Valley Pike, and force the Union player to bring Shields into play, protect his line of supply and respond to Union threats, not an easy task.


The game is a tightly woven masterpiece of cat-and-mouse!

Well researched, gutsy,fast playing, low Block count, exciting, Shenandoah is my favorite American Civil War game! PERIOD.






Shaynerichards72
Rating: 10
Enjoyable game that plays quick and makes you think hard, good changing strategy. Lacks just that little something to make it great, but certainly one for people who like to have to ponder over strategy before evey turn.

Update, have now upgraded this game as it just keeps calling you back and some tweaks (becoming official) and presumed further tweaks will take this great game into brilliant territory. A lot to like about this game.

2nd update...rule set 1.1 out and I like the changes. Early reports is that it opens the game up a lot more and puts more pressure on the US. There was a lot of input and forum debates from some of this games fanatics and the updated rules play testing by a number of people and I think it's got the nod...I'll give it a 10,

Get a damned micro badge for this and give it to me baby aha aha
vmi1983
Rating: 10
Latest update..
..... deep asymmetrical play, every move is critical..

It is easier to lose than to win. Each player has an objective that is difficult to accomplish.

The USA is weaker and must avoid destruction, yet retain control of the Lower Valley hopefully, without the aid of Shields division. The Union player cannot afford a head-to-head battle against the Valley Army, rather he needs to buy for time by slowing Jackson, and cause the CSA to stretch his lines, then he must look for an opportunity to administer a blow, and threaten Jackson's line of supply. Jackson however is able to respond to any incursion rapidly. To win as the USA player is not an easy task.

Jackson is powerful, but he does not have enough troops to control both the Lower and Upper Valley. He must shatter enemy brigades, control the Valley Pike, and force the Union player to bring Shields into play, protect his line of supply and respond to Union threats, not an easy task.


The game is a tightly woven masterpiece of cat-and-mouse!

Well researched, gutsy,fast playing, low Block count, exciting, Shenandoah is my favorite American Civil War game! PERIOD.






ForestRunner
Rating: 9.5
First Comments: I find this a funny one. There's something "addictive" about this particular game that I just can't nail. One of Columbia Games' rules light publications, so the game plays quite quickly and multiple games can be accommodated in an evening.

Very enjoyable, makes you think hard, and potentially deeper than you initially think. One mistake can cost you the campaign. My only issue is I believe there is a Victory Point imbalance which favours the Union player.

Rating of 8 is preliminary.

Revised Comments: v1.1 ruleset is just what this game needed. Bravo to those community members who made this happen. Makes you think harder and deeper than the original ruleset, with mobility and manoeuvre opening up many more options. The Union player has a considerably more to do and think about as well, taking away the auto-Union win for en mass withdrawal.

Games remain close providing neither player does anything suicidal. The trade off between attack, move, timing and consideration for supply is truly fascinating presenting endless conundrums for both players. This is what block gaming is all about.

Revised Rating 9.5.

Only gripe from a rules perspective, is the ability for mauled Shields to flee/retreat for Union VP. I don't believe it's historical representation of Shields redeployment, nor is it in the spirit of the game. Would be a 10 otherwise.
lmjarl
Rating: 8.5
I worked on play-testing ver. 1.1 rule set. I believe that adding the CR2 to Jackson command range helps balance the game away from the "auto-win" Union rep that the game had with ver 1.0. Also, now Union Cavalry screen must roll a straggler roll to retreat in 1st round of battle if CSA Cavalry is present. Our play-testing with new rules gives CSA more edge to victory, although all the games seem to have been close nail-biters coming down to last turns with just one or two point victories to either sides. Much better play!
petegs
Rating: 8.5
Shenandoah: Jackson’s Valley Campaign was released by Columbia Games and is an attempt to simulate Stonewall Jackson’s famous campaign in the Shenandoah Valley, during which Jackson managed to outfox a larger Union force, threaten Washington and eventually return to defend Richmond. It is considered one of the great military feats of the American Civil War, and is still studied in military colleges.

The game uses blue and grey blocks to represent the Union and Confederate forces that fought in the campaign. While the map is a sturdy mounted number with an elegant look, be aware that the stickers can be difficult to get off the backing sheet due to extra strong glue. The game was designed by Gary Selkirk and uses concepts familiar to anyone who has played some of Columbia’s other block games.

Each turn is broken down into 4 phases. First players roll a die to see who has initiative for the turn with the Confederate player holding it in the first turn. Having the initiative means you get to move before your opponent.

Next comes the movement phase. Players reveal the HQs they wish to use to order troops and then move their units. All HQs can only order troops from their own divisions except for Jackson who can command any Confederate troops. HQs can only command troops in the same town they are in or any adjacent town and troops can move two towns without fighting or one if they are moving into battle. Units outside command range can move one town at the risk of losing a step in strength. Movement is point-to-point or in this case town-to-town. After the initiative holder has moved then it is the turn of the second player.

After movement is finished the combat phase begins and involves rolling dice and allocating hits, if any. Units that lose all their steps of strength are eliminated. After combat it is the supply phase where each side receives a set number of supply points which can be used to build up units if they can trace a liner of supply to their supply point.

There are also rules to deal with detachments and special rules for Shields’ division to try and reflect the historical role it played in the campaign. The game is won by having more victory points than your opponent. Victory points are awarded for eliminating enemy units and capturing certain important towns. The Union player also gets victory points for keeping Shields’ division off map. The rules are very easy to grasp and are also easy to explain to an opponent, then it’s simply a case of setting up the blocks and getting underway.

The gameplay of Shenandoah is a lot of fun, though at first it seems like an uphill slog for the Confederates especially if Shields’ division begins the game on the map. These seven units can make it very hard for the Confederates to push up the middle of the valley, but leaving them on the map means the Union player is missing seven victory points. The game quickly becomes a battle for position as forces manoeuvre to try and catch enemy forces unawares. Neither side has enough troops to completely cover the whole valley so it becomes a game of cut and thrust as opposing forces try and interdict supply lines.

In the end you might want to ask if you can actually recreate Jackson’s campaign. All I can say is I was not able to. Maybe because Jackson was such a unique military commander unless you are him you should not be able to do what he did. I don’t know, but having said that Shenandoah is fun to play. There are plenty of tense decisions for both sides that keep you on the edge of your seat. Overall this is a game I’m happy to own and have in my collection.
Niko Ruf
Rating: 8
I really like the game system employed here, another variation of Columbia's A-B-C combat system, this time with headquarters. The rules are simple but do a lot of things right, at least for me. The different troops types are nicely differentiated with a minimum of rules. Headquarter and supply rules are simple but shape the game, as divisions have to stay together and protect their supply lines. There is a lot of room for maneuvering, as the threat of an attack or a cut supply line is usually enough to force a reaction. Battles can be bloody, but I believe experienced player will learn to avoid that.

The rating is still preliminary, as it is far too early to decide whether the victory conditions are reasonably fair. IME, the Confederates have a hard time winning, but this may only be due to lack of experience. It certainly took me a while to figure out how to win as the Scots in Hammer, too.
gittes
Rating: 8
The new 1.1 rules are step in the right direction. Yet, I must confess that Columbia's recent "cut & paste" mentality is starting to get the better of them. If you don't believe me, note how the game rules refer to neutral towns, which are a fixture in other games but are nowhere to be seen here. Also, Selkirk wanted Jackson to be more powerful, more able to do hard marching (admittedly he learned this from Richard Taylor) and wily attacks. Jackson still needs to be improved.

Beyond that the game is a solid one of maneuver and bloody encounters that can be played by veteran Columbia fans in a hour. It is not a classic design, but good enough for me to keep the faith so to speak.

As a side note, the Columbia hit mechanic is starting to bore me too. I found Hammer of the Scots was more fun if all hits went onto one block. It creates a good narrative and is more realistic than an even distribution of hits. At least here the even distribution makes more sense within the warfare of the era but Prussia's Defiant Stand has it all beat to hell.
cfarrell
Rating: 8
Interesting game. I like that Columbia doesn't fall for the Civil War cult of personality surrounding some Confederate leaders; Jackson is tough and crucial but doesn't get stratospheric ratings because, historically, he was lucky as well as good (as much as I love GCACW, his ratings in those games are crazy).

The game does seem hard on the Confederates; then again, the game doesn't force the Union to make the crucial mistakes that allowed Jackson to win the historical campaign so decisively, so what can you do? A little more fog of war might have been helpful, to keep the Union in a historical level of confusion about what exactly Jackson was doing. The Confederates desperately need to avoid slugfests, which the Union will win even if they lose. You need to maneuver carefully and preserve Jackson's steps when possible, fighting only when they have a significant force advantage. Without the historical option, it's going to be a tough row to hoe; you can't win this one the same way Jackson did, because the Union player isn't going to mess around. Your advantages are better units and more flexible and better command; you really need to use them.

Anyway, I like this one. It's got really interesting twists on the classic Columbia mechanisms, and is pretty playable without being trivial. Whether it will hold up to repeat play, I'm not sure, but this may be as much about the hard-to-game situation as the game system. There might be more interesting campaigns to apply it to.
gittes
Rating: 8
The new 1.1 rules are step in the right direction. Yet, I must confess that Columbia's recent "cut & paste" mentality is starting to get the better of them. If you don't believe me, note how the game rules refer to neutral towns, which are a fixture in other games but are nowhere to be seen here. Also, Selkirk wanted Jackson to be more powerful, more able to do hard marching (admittedly he learned this from Richard Taylor) and wily attacks. Jackson still needs to be improved.

Beyond that the game is a solid one of maneuver and bloody encounters that can be played by veteran Columbia fans in a hour. It is not a classic design, but good enough for me to keep the faith so to speak.

As a side note, the Columbia hit mechanic is starting to bore me too. I found Hammer of the Scots was more fun if all hits went onto one block. It creatives a good narrative and is more realistic than an even distribution of hits. At least here the even distribution makes more sense within the warfare of the era.
Walt Mulder
Rating: 7.8
Short rules and fast play can get this one to the table more often. A very good one to use as an introductory game to the system.
mrivera
Rating: 7.5
Overall I really like Shenandoah: Jackson’s Valley Campaign very much, primarily because I can get into it very quickly and get it played. This is a casual player’s game as opposed to a heavy war gamer’s game. If you want heavy detail and painstaking simulation, look somewhere else. If you a sleek, clean system which focuses on fire and movement/positioning, then this is a great game for that. I would have liked a bit more meat say for Jackson’s foot cavalry and perhaps specific Jackson benefits in the core game as I think its tough for the Confederates to win. Perhaps cards with events, extra benefits as in Julius Caesar but otherwise, I am very pleased with this game.

My review is here - http://rivcoach.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/review-shenandoah-jacksons-valley-campaign/
randywilburn
Rating: 7
I enjoyed this Columbia Block Game. There is a lot of good maneuvering during the game.
mlriley
Rating: 7
Very playable look at the campaign. 1-3 hours to play, both sides can win. Fog of war allows for multiple strategy options.
Painless
Rating: 7
Rating after 5 plays, 3 as Confederate and 2 as Union. Rebs won only 1 game and drew another. Seems tough for Jackson's campaign to be duplicated, although I have yet to play with the option of Shields deploying off-board. Perhaps some dummy units for the Confederates would help? Also, I am concerned about replay value - I think Confederate strategy is somewhat limited, so the first few turns will be much the same in every game unless the Union player does something silly.

Rating may change after more plays.
srugge
Rating: 7
Good playable game on the Valley Campaign. Can finish in a couple of hours. A tough game for Confeds to win without the historical removal of Shields division. Not impossible though as Confeds did win two out of five playings with some good die rolling and an over cautious Union commander. Makes a good four player with the three individual Union divisions each commanded by one player and one player on the Confed side. I also suggest trying it without using the detachment counters as we found this can free things up for more maneuver and a quicker simpler game.
wargamer55
Rating: 7
Blocks
brandysta
Rating: 6.75
After being away from the game for a couple of years, We gave it a try with the version 1.1 rules. A much better game ensued, hence my rating went up almost 3 points. The game was won easily by Jackson, but we both felt this was due to a bad spread of die rolls (the CSA couldn't miss, the USA couldn't hit the broad side of a barn). Will be playing again and I hope to revise my rating upward even more, as I really want to like this game!
anemaat
Rating: 6.5
I've played only one game, but I haven't seen much of Jackon and his so called foot cavalery in this single game.

Tracing supply through passes is too expensive which is also very limited. It discourages an aggressive strategy. Besides the main part of your supply is spent on upgrading your headquartes, which make me wonder whether a game with cards would have been better instead of the activation of HQs.
odd_texan
Rating: 6
Would like to try it with the updated rules.
jheaney
Rating: 5
Maneuver and bluffing game. Doesn't jump out at me like other block games that I've played.
Nappy
Rating: 4
I really wanted to like this game, as I love the Valley Campaign. This game has several flaws in it, which really hinders it having a feel for the campaign.
agripa
Rating: 4
A true disappointment.
A pity because IMO The block system was ideal to simulate the Valley campaign.
The HQ activation seems fine at strategic scale but totaly wrong in this "fast paced" operational campaign.
This game would be fantastic with the use of ops-cards as used in HoS, JC or CR, and Jackson block - like Wallace, Edward, Saladin or Richard - a true and terrible threat .... but for incomprehensible reasons, the desiger chose another approach (?!)
Whenever Jackson activate for orders, he denounces his position and lose figting power! Better let him in the rear and send the "true" fighting blocks to do battle(!!)
In this title Stonewal was promoted to a "desk" general!

Another thing that annoys more and more is a conscious lack of playtesting of several Columbia games, putting the customers as forced playtesters in order to save the investment made with the buy of the game.

Components: Blocks are fine with good graphics but the bland map is another disillusion.

Playing time: around 2h




wkover
Rating: 3
After giving them a fair shake, I've discovered that I have a tough time enjoying block games (e.g., Shenandoah, Shiloh) where attacking units are limited to moving a single space. For me, there aren't enough surprises with a one-space limit. Upcoming battle locations are always obvious, and planned attacks are always telegraphed.

I'm also learning that it's difficult for me to get excited about block games that don't have unique quirks to enliven the experience. Though clearly a personal preference, I suspect that long-time Columbia fans will determine that Shenandoah needs something in terms of mechanical invention. You can see, though, how Shenandoah could play the role of an introductory appetizer, and it may even be successful in that role. That wasn't what I expected for a game that was in development (off and on) for five years, though I do appreciate the effort to release straightforward games that may have crossover appeal to the non-wargaming crowd.

Getting down to details, compared to Shiloh (which uses the same HQ activation system), the number of units in Shenandoah is eminently manageable - almost to the point of being problematic. Movement phases in Shiloh take forever due to the sheer number of HQs and blocks involved. The case in Shenandoah is just the opposite: There are so few available SPs and so few units per side in Shenandoah that sometimes there isn't much to do, especially when units have been battle-scarred and seriously reduced in strength.

More generally, I find the attack limits to be overly restrictive, especially since there are a LOT of trails on the board. Gap-based Bad Supply is brutal for the CSA, as is the fact that an overextended CSA can have its supply cut rather easily - at least in the default (non-historical) scenario.

The one-space command range can have wacky/gamey effects, especially for an attacker. The command problem: if a player attacks with a group of non-HQ blocks, and then moves the commanding HQ (and possibly other units) into the space formerly occupied by the attack group, there may be hell to pay. If the attack fails, the defeated units will be forced to fall back into their original space, and that space will consequently be overstacked - causing additional hits (harsh penalty!) for the defeated attacker.

Another Shenandoah game-ism is that units can be kept in supply via extended, circuitous supply routes that jerk, jump, and jive across the length of the board. I'm not sure that's what the designers had in mind, but it does happen on more than one occasion.

Having tried the default (non-historical) scenario a few times, I think the historical set-up may be the way that the game was meant to be played. It seems too easy in the non-historical game for the Union to leave Shields in the center of the board and play defensively for the auto-win. The real killer is that CSA units are forced to play aggressively because the US forces begin with a VP advantage - despite the less-than-desirable CSA starting position.

As an analogy, imagine a block game where there are only two spaces on the board. Both spaces are filled with blocks, but only one space is worth victory points. So the non-VP player is forced to become the attacker at insurmountable odds just because the other player starts on the VP spot. The situation in Shenandoah isn't entirely equivalent, but for me the analogy is too close for comfort.

Finally, there is a new idea that makes an appearance in Shenandoah: detachments. What isn't clear is whether the detachments add much to the game. They're occasionally nice to have around, but mostly they're undersized playmates (I imagine them as Oz-like munchkins) that gum up the road and stacking limits. Though I haven't tried the optional merge rules yet; they might help.

Update:

Rating severely downgraded after further plays. Not having tried Gettysburg or Athens & Sparta, my conclusion is that Shenandoah is the least enjoyable block game (for me) in Columbia's line.

To be fair, there are a number of block game fans who enjoy Shenandoah - including some of my recent opponents. The players who fall into this category tend to be wargamers who favor historical modeling over gameplay. I plant my feet firmly into the "wargames as games" category, however, and in that sense Shenandoah comes up short for me.

Since they use similar movement and combat systems, it isn't a shock to discover that Shenandoah shares some of Shiloh's shortcomings: (a) the game is too long for what it is, (b) the Union player can win by staying on the defensive and never attacking, and (c) solitary cavalry units can be used to endlessly delay the CSA advance.

What makes Shenandoah worse than Shiloh is the fact that the attacker (the CSA) is penalized at every turn due to the countless number of bridges and trails on the map, and Bad Supply/Out-of-Supply issues make an already hopeless situation even worse.

CSA's only real chance of winning seems to be based on (1) the CSA rolling poorly on initiative rolls, since that allows the CSA - as player 2 - to strike without the fear of defensive reinforcements (assuming the targeted Union forces stay put), and (2) the Union rolling significantly below average in early- and mid-game battles. Since both of these caveats are completely luck-dependent, Shenandoah becomes a game that I won't play again without extensive rules revision.

Finally, the cavalry detachments in Shenandoah are fundamentally broken. The Union's initial detachments should always be cavalry units, as they can be used to slow the CSA advance time and time again - often without fear of reprisal. Due to bridge/artillery attack penalties, it can be literally impossible for the CSA to inflict damage on fleeing cavalry.

I was recently surprised to hear that the detachments were meant to mimic decoy units, and if true Shenandoah would be better served with blank decoys that are placed during initial set-up and vanish when revealed. Decoys placed mid-game don't work, since the opponent knows their placement locations, and 1-strength cavalry decoys are doubly bad when they damage the game mechanically.

Variants that might help: Trail and ferry limits are increased to 6/3 and 4/2, cavalry units that retreat during round 1 of combat have a 50% chance of taking a 1-SP hit, detachments are chosen randomly from a face-down pool, and units under Jackson's command receive +1 movement (move 3 spaces and attack 2 spaces).

[Note: I will try the 'new and improved' v1.1 rules eventually! I'm hoping that causes a radical upswing in my rating.]
ratbulogg
Rating: 3
unbalanced and uninteresting. many improvements have been suggested inthreads, something is badly needed. columbia needs new playtesters or something. too bad cuz this game could have been really good.
wkover
Rating: 3
After giving them a fair shake, I've discovered that I have a tough time enjoying block games (e.g., Shenandoah, Shiloh) where attacking units are limited to moving a single space. For me, there aren't enough surprises with a one-space limit. Upcoming battle locations are always obvious, and planned attacks are always telegraphed.

I'm also learning that it's difficult for me to get excited about block games that don't have unique quirks to enliven the experience. Though clearly a personal preference, I suspect that long-time Columbia fans will determine that Shenandoah needs something in terms of mechanical invention. You can see, though, how Shenandoah could play the role of an introductory appetizer, and it may even be successful in that role. That wasn't what I expected for a game that was in development (off and on) for five years, though I do appreciate the effort to release straightforward games that may have crossover appeal to the non-wargaming crowd.

Getting down to details, compared to Shiloh (which uses the same HQ activation system), the number of units in Shenandoah is eminently manageable - almost to the point of being problematic. Movement phases in Shiloh take forever due to the sheer number of HQs and blocks involved. The case in Shenandoah is just the opposite: There are so few available SPs and so few units per side in Shenandoah that sometimes there isn't much to do, especially when units have been battle-scarred and seriously reduced in strength.

More generally, I find the attack limits to be overly restrictive, especially since there are a LOT of trails on the board. Gap-based Bad Supply is brutal for the CSA, as is the fact that an overextended CSA can have its supply cut rather easily - at least in the default (non-historical) scenario.

The one-space command range can have wacky/gamey effects, especially for an attacker. The command problem: if a player attacks with a group of non-HQ blocks, and then moves the commanding HQ (and possibly other units) into the space formerly occupied by the attack group, there may be hell to pay. If the attack fails, the defeated units will be forced to fall back into their original space, and that space will consequently be overstacked - causing additional hits (harsh penalty!) for the defeated attacker.

Another Shenandoah game-ism is that units can be kept in supply via extended, circuitous supply routes that jerk, jump, and jive across the length of the board. I'm not sure that's what the designers had in mind, but it does happen on more than one occasion.

Having tried the default (non-historical) scenario a few times, I think the historical set-up may be the way that the game was meant to be played. It seems too easy in the non-historical game for the Union to leave Shields in the center of the board and play defensively for the auto-win. The real killer is that CSA units are forced to play aggressively because the US forces begin with a VP advantage - despite the less-than-desirable CSA starting position.

As an analogy, imagine a block game where there are only two spaces on the board. Both spaces are filled with blocks, but only one space is worth victory points. So the non-VP player is forced to become the attacker at insurmountable odds just because the other player starts on the VP spot. The situation in Shenandoah isn't entirely equivalent, but for me the analogy is too close for comfort.

Finally, there is a new idea that makes an appearance in Shenandoah: detachments. What isn't clear is whether the detachments add much to the game. They're occasionally nice to have around, but mostly they're undersized playmates (I imagine them as Oz-like munchkins) that gum up the road and stacking limits. Though I haven't tried the optional merge rules yet; they might help.

Update:

Rating severely downgraded after further plays. Not having tried Gettysburg or Athens & Sparta, my conclusion is that Shenandoah is the least enjoyable block game (for me) in Columbia's line.

To be fair, there are a number of block game fans who enjoy Shenandoah - including some of my recent opponents. The players who fall into this category tend to be wargamers who favor historical modeling over gameplay. I plant my feet firmly into the "wargames as games" category, however, and in that sense Shenandoah comes up short for me.

Since they use similar movement and combat systems, it isn't a shock to discover that Shenandoah shares some of Shiloh's shortcomings: (a) the game is too long for what it is, (b) the Union player can win by staying on the defensive and never attacking, and (c) solitary cavalry units can be used to endlessly delay the CSA advance.

What makes Shenandoah worse than Shiloh is the fact that the attacker (the CSA) is penalized at every turn due to the countless number of bridges and trails on the map, and Bad Supply/Out-of-Supply issues make an already hopeless situation even worse.

CSA's only real chance of winning seems to be based on (1) the CSA rolling poorly on initiative rolls, since that allows the CSA - as player 2 - to strike without the fear of defensive reinforcements (assuming the targeted Union forces stay put), and (2) the Union rolling significantly below average in early- and mid-game battles. Since both of these caveats are completely luck-dependent, Shenandoah becomes a game that I won't play again without extensive rules revision.

Finally, the cavalry detachments in Shenandoah are fundamentally broken. The Union's initial detachments should always be cavalry units, as they can be used to slow the CSA advance time and time again - often without fear of reprisal. Due to bridge/artillery attack penalties, it can be literally impossible for the CSA to inflict damage on fleeing cavalry.

I was recently surprised to hear that the detachments were meant to mimic decoy units, and if true Shenandoah would be better served with blank decoys that are placed during initial set-up and vanish when revealed. Decoys placed mid-game don't work, since the opponent knows their placement locations, and 1-strength cavalry decoys are doubly bad when they damage the game mechanically.

Variants that might help: Trail and ferry limits are increased to 6/3 and 4/2, cavalry units that retreat during round 1 of combat have a 50% chance of taking a 1-SP hit, detachments are chosen randomly from a face-down pool, and units under Jackson's command receive +1 movement (move 3 spaces and attack 2 spaces).
jeff miller
Rating: 1.75
Very disappointed in this one. First Columbia game I ever bought that is completely broken. May try to fix it with my own ruleset.
kiraly
Rating: -
Have not played.
peacmyer
Rating: -
Sold.
Jim Krohn
Rating: -
Have read extensively the comments on the Columbia Games forum about this game. It sounds great. If you have any interest in block games or just in that period, I suggest that you head over to CG and pre-order.
TomVeal
Rating: -
American Civil War > Eastern Theater > Campaigns
folalqui
Rating: -
Ma
deschubert
Rating: -
Game arrived and looks fantastic. Will rate once I've played it a few times. I've played the game many times (10+). Once the system is learned, it is very difficult for the USA to lose. Why? Well, the terrain effects may be a bit much. McDowell can't happen as it did historically (Jackson can't move his army through the gaps fast enough). There are some other oddities that detract from the game. Too bad, as the map and blocks are rather nice to look at. It is a near miss. But still a miss.
ScottH
Rating: -
Pre-ordered by voting for this.
jsetear
Rating: -
1st edition (with Kickstarter pimping?).
Stickered.
Bought from Dave Schubert, January 2015.
red_herring
Rating: -
Nice game with mounted map.