Campaign Shiloh

In early April 1862, the first true all-out-drag-down battle of the American Civil War was fought around a small country church deep in the woodlands of southern Tennessee. Until then there had been battles and skirmishes aplenty, but nothing to date matched the sheer ferocity and bloodiness of the Battle of Shiloh!

Southern forces under General Sydney Johnston carried out a surprise attack on General Ulysses S. Grant's army, and very nearly succeeded in pushing them into the Tennessee River. Hanging on through the 5 April, the Union forces gave ground and blood, but didn't break. By the following morning, reinforcements were flooding onto the field, and on the 6th the Rebels were pushed back and defeated. Of the approximately 100,000 men present on that field, nearly 24,000 lay dead, wounded or missing by the end of the second day.

Grant's presence at Shiloh, or Pittsburgh Landing as the dropping off point on the river was called, was the culmination of a steady advance from Illinois, through Kentucky and into Tennessee, and included fights at Belmont, Fort Henry, and Fort Donelson before arriving at Pittsburgh Landing. Had the South defeated this thrust the war in the West could have been entirely different, or at least more drawn out, and may have had an effect on the anti-war sentiments up North. Indeed, one historian (Kendall Gott) has argued that because of the loss of Fort Donelson, the South was doomed to lose the war.

This campaign forms the central theme of the new game from John Tiller and HPS Simulations, Civil War Battles: Campaign Shiloh. However, the game covers more than the one campaign in that it also includes Pope's advance down the Mississippi to New Madrid, the capture of Island No. 10, and General Thomas' campaign in Kentucky incorporating Mill Springs. The full campaign option includes all sub campaigns. In all there are a multiplicity of battles covered, most real, some fictional, including all of the following: Belmont Cairo Columbia Fort Donelson Fort Henry Franklin Jackson Mill Springs New Madrid (including Island No. 10) Nashville Shiloh

Many of you will already be familiar with the HPS Campaign series, which already includes five previous titles, (Corinth, Ozark, Franklin, Gettysburg and Peninsula) and will want to skip this section, but for those of you new to the series I'll lay out the basics below.

The HPS Civil War Battles series is an American Civil War tactical wargaming system, which attempts to allow the player to refight specific campaigns and battles of that war, either against the computer or a human opponent. The majority of the game is devoted to the fighting of actual engagements, but the game does have an important campaign element linking the battles together. The game engine was designed by John Tiller, and is a development from an earlier series of his, the Battleground series from Talonsoft. This is a regimental sized tactical game, with daytime turns covering 20 minutes and hexes 125 yards.

Each game is similar in most features, and in particular the game engine and controls, but improvements and changes are being made as the series develops, (see below for the Shiloh new features) and the size of the campaign and maps has increased dramatically in some of the games. The game can be played either in Campaign Mode, or in Single Battle Mode, depending on the wishes of the player.

At the start of the Campaign game, the player is offered the choice of six campaigns of different duration and size, some of which offer up to twelve separate sub-choices covering the whole campaign, smaller segments or individual battles. After selecting the desired campaign to be played, each player (human or AI) is in turn presented with a short strategic briefing, unseen by the other player, from which he will have to make a strategic decision as to how and where to deploy his current forces.

The computer provides each player with a series of available options to choose from (usually from one to five) covering the type of strategic position and dispersal of forces in very general terms and, depending on what combination of selections are made by the two players, will then branch to a pre-defined battle scenario matching the combined decisions made. There are usually several similar, but slightly different versions of each such scenario to choose from, and the computer selects one of these at random, thereby providing originality of gameplay each time you play a campaign. (Indeed, additional variations of these scenarios can be designed by the player, or a third party, using the provided Scenario Editor, and if these are placed in the correct folder on the computer, the choice of scenarios available for the computer to select from can be increased – one of the Game Designers working on the Gettysburg game, utilising an in-house automated version of the scenario generator, created an additional 18,000 scenarios for that game, which were released free to the gaming community!!).These variations encompass such things as initial placement of units, arrival times of reinforcements, etc., so that there are distinct differences in the way the variations play, and often in the strategy required, and guarantees that replaying a campaign again and again never works out the same.

When an engagement is completed, either by time limit or agreement of both sides, the computer evaluates the win/loss situation and then branches to an appropriate strategic situation and resultant player choices, so the process develops again as above. Although a campaign may notionally cover a period of weeks, and a large number of potential battles and minor engagements, the actual campaign may not last that long in actuality, and/or may branch off in completely different directions. Thus, depending on battle results in the full campaign game, the players may never actually see Shiloh itself, the campaign ending in a different battle hundreds of miles away. Certain results and branches will also result in the campaign ending much earlier, should the resultant strategic situation dictate that either one side or the other has lost, or it is impossible for one player to achieve his strategic goals.

Casualties incurred in battle are carried forward to succeeding engagements, so there is a strong requirement for players to take the longer term view and not allow their forces to be chewed up in minor engagements, or get trapped in one of the various sieges in the game. For example, losing all ones' cavalry early on could severely limit your ability to track and block enemy forces at a later stage. This provides an interesting additional element to the game which is lacking in many other single engagement wargames.

The game can also be played in Single Battle Mode, whereby the player(s) select an agreed scenario to fight and are provided with a short summary of the situation. (This mode is in fact played exactly the same as the engagements/battles fought in the campaign mode, but with no prior strategic options and decisions, or repercussions in terms of carry forward). Campaign Shiloh provides 212 scenarios that can be played in this mode, many of which are "what if" variants of the included historical battles, and also includes some interesting fictional encounters. (These are different, although obviously similar, to the 198 scenarios included as part of the Campaign element, thus providing a richness of re-playability for the player with a possible 410 differing scenarios available.)

At the start of each engagement there are Options available, whereby the gameplay can be affected in a myriad of detailed and technical ways. The major choices involve selection of Fog of War (the ability to see enemy units being restricted to line of sight from your units), treatment of Routing, various Fire and Combat parameters, and selection of Phased play (see below).

Civil War armies comprised Infantry Regiments, Cavalry Regiments, Artillery, Supply Wagons and Leaders of all levels. Campaign Shiloh also includes Gunboats on the many rivers, albeit these are in simplified form. The HPS system models all of these, with a wide variety of weapons types for each unit, unit quality and fatigue levels, Disruption of units caused by terrain or combat, different formations for march and combat, the direction a unit is facing, and the effects of a wide range of terrain types and obstacles on movement and line of sight. (The game is modelled to a level of detail whereby the height of trees in forests can be varied, pre-set and calculated as to their effect on line of sight).

A key component of the game is the effect of Leadership and Unit Cohesion on all units and combat. Brigades, Divisions, Corps and Armies are all modelled, together with named and selectable leaders for each. These are based on very detailed Orders of Battle which have been exhaustively researched in an attempt to make the games as historically accurate as possible. Such leaders, and their known quality have a radical effect on how the game plays. At the beginning of each turn, the computer rolls a notional dice against each leader and unit, in turn, and the results will determine whether units suffer disruption or rout, recover from these, or gain supply. Leaders will have a beneficial effect on units under their command, dependant on their inherent quality levels and the dice results, provided that they are within specified distances of those units. These distances, known as Command Ranges, vary by rank and side. It can thus be seen that fighting with cohesive brigades and divisions is extremely beneficial, and brings an important historically accurate element to the game.

Each scenario has a set start time, and a defined number of game turns. Each turn covers a period of twenty minutes, except during the hours of darkness, when they represent an hour or 100 minutes depending on scenario. Each game turn has two main elements, namely the Union Turn and the Rebel Turn, but a scenario will commence with a specified side going first. Each Turn can be played in one of two ways: either the basic Turn way, or alternatively in Phased mode. Under the former, a player may move and fight his units all in the same process---firing and melees may be interspersed with movement, until he has completed his desired actions (movement includes formation changing). Individual Units that fire cannot move thereafter, but other units may be moved. Firing or moving a unit may result in Opportunity fire being attracted from enemy units in view and in range. The second method of play, Phased Mode, is different in that all movement for one side takes place, followed by an enemy fire phase, followed by firing of your own units, then a final phase for meleeing, where possible and selected. This option provides a wide difference in gameplay, which gives a player a different gaming experience, and reflects the style of play used in the old Talonsoft Battleground games, also designed by John Tiller.

Game play can be controlled by drop down menus, or icon selection, as desired, and unit movement is controlled by mouse, with a number of options available to assist and vary according to preference, and also some use of Hotkeys.

On each map are a small number of key selected geographical locations, known as Objective hexes, which are assigned a points value. The side currently having possession of such hexes (i.e. last moved a unit into or through the hex) is awarded those points. In addition, casualties suffered result in points being awarded to the side inflicting them, based on different levels of points for each type of unit. It is the accumulation of these points, set against defined targets, that dictates who wins the scenario---a combination of ground occupied plus the casualty difference.

There are a wide variety of standard rules which affect movement, unit stacking, combat and all aspects of the game, and these are detailed in the voluminous help files and parameter tables available at the press of a button.

Because of the effect of the quality, fatigue and weaponry of each unit, of available leadership, and of terrain and range on combat results, casualties suffered can vary, and this coupled with the random factor of the “dice roll" makes for an interesting and uncertain situation. Numbers and quality will generally tell, but not all results are predictable. This is not a game where constant attacking, and disregard for the exhaustion and state of your own units, will result in success. Rather this is a game where manoeuvre and the careful build up of defensive lines and attacking forces, carefully organised in their higher unit formations, supported by adequate reserves and carefully sited artillery, is the way to achieve results. In fact, the way to fight a successful battle is to replicate carefully the approach and methods of the real Civil War generals! This, and the bold use of manoeuvre and flanking moves makes for a rewarding and exciting game.

An interesting additional feature is the Scenario Editor, which allows the design and creation of new scenarios, either for inclusion in the existing campaigns, or as stand alone. However, there is no Map Editor included, so scenario design is limited to the existing available maps.

As with all games in this series, although the engines and controls are almost identical, some changes are made with each release, either to respond to gamer feedback, or to reflect the particular needs of the campaign and battles in question.

There are several changes and unique features in Campaign Shiloh, and the most interesting ones are listed below:

1. Selected Units are permitted to cross rivers or wider stretches of water, in some, but by no means all, scenarios. Where a unit is able to cross stretches of water is denoted by the letter "B" appearing in the unit details box after the Movement Points number. Such crossings are carried out by the unit in question boarding an "invisible" and “assumed" steamer moving to the other bank and then disembarking. (Leaders can only cross with another unit!) Such steamers can be fired upon, causing the unit to lose men/guns, but they cannot be sunk! Whilst this is a very welcome additional feature, and one that makes for a more varied game with greater options opening up a crude amphibious warfare, there has been no attempt to try and represent this water crossing visually, and there are certain peculiar features associated with it. Infantry and Cavalry Units can apparently cross in either column or line mode, with skirmishers extended (although they cannot fire), and are thus ready for combat as they step ashore.

Personally, I feel all units should cross in march mode and should incur a movement cost for embarking/disembarking, and only be allowed to deploy once on dry land. Normal stacking rules apply whilst on the water, but as many “amphibious" units as desired can commence a crossing at the same time, and in parallel, so that there is effectively no restriction on the number of these hypothetical steamers, which is a little unrealistic. (An additional feature, which presumably needs correcting in future patches, is that whilst artillery can board and cross unlimbered, they cannot land unless limbered, nor can they change formation or fire whilst aboard steamer! Thus once embarked in the wrong formation they are condemned to a life on the ocean wave!). Now, I appreciate that much of the reason for this simplified approach is to keep the development costs down, and I for one very much welcome the move towards amphibious warfare and river battles, but personally I feel that the high levels of historical accuracy that the designers attempt to put into these games, based on exhaustive research and careful design, is somewhat let down by this half-hearted solution.

2. The inclusion of gunboats has been expanded, and loss of their artillery will now affect Victory Points. The gunboats are all of a simple generic type for both sides, with similar artillery mounted. There are no ironclads or rams, as yet!

3. For the first time, the game includes a simple attempt to replicate bad weather, e.g. rain/snow. When represented in a scenario, this is done by reducing unit visibility to four Hexes (similar to Dusk) with a small effect on movement, but there is also a welcome graphical representation on screen, other than only a message in the status bar. I do not believe that any attempt has yet been made to degrade firepower to reflect wet cartridges and such, but I may be wrong.

4. Although units in campaigns carry forward their strengths from the previous battle end, they will now have 10% added to their strength at the commencement of succeeding engagements, to reflect men coming back to the flag, which can be very welcome after a heavy engagement. A unit destroyed in a previous encounter returns at 10% of it's original strength.

5. As well as the usual “Fixed" units (i.e. ones that are unable to move until a certain time or when fired upon), the game now includes “Emplaced" units which are not allowed to move or change formation, come what may, only to defend existing positions.

6. Interestingly, in the Battle of Shiloh historical scenario, units cannot build breastworks, whereas they are able to do so in other scenarios, as normal. The designers state this is to preclude the advantage given to the Union player if his supposedly “surprised" units pass their sleeping time by building defences at the start of the scenario.

As with all the HPS Civil War Battle games, the graphics are relatively basic, and by deliberate design no great effort (i.e. money) has been spent in improving them.

The main map can be viewed in both 2-D and 3-D landscapes, with a close up and zoomed out view for each. On the 2-D view units are represented by typical wargaming counters, on a flat map, whereas in 3-D mode, units are shown as actual figures, on a 3-D landscape. In this case however, the units displayed on the map are fairly basic, as are the terrain views. There is also a Jump Map available showing the whole map, to assist easy movement.

Whilst some would, and do, criticise the 3-D graphics, these games are intended for the serious wargamer and Civil War enthusiast, and as such, graphics take second place to gameplay. I personally always play in the 2-D view, as it gives me more information on screen and a better feel, although I know many who prefer the 3-D view, so I don't have a big issue with the graphics. I'd prefer better, but they don't stop me buying the games or detract from my enjoyment. If you play in 2-D, then it's hard to see how the graphics could be greatly improved.

There are a wide variety of visual and other options available to make the game easier to follow and to cater for a wide variety of styles. These include options for highlighting unit organisations, various unit states (such as disrupted or fixed), map contours, visible hexes and many, many more. Also, there is a panel available which displays two screens of data (depending on mouse button selection) on all units and the terrain in the selected hex.
Sound

In a turn-based wargame, sound inevitably takes a back seat, as being non-essential to the game. That being said, the game has reasonable sound effects for the wide variety of weaponry modelled, and for the benefit of family members who object to explosions at three in the morning, these can be turned off. Also available are some excellent period background songs, which add greatly to the atmosphere.

For those who have experienced other HPS Civil War Battles games, this will be a welcome addition to their library, and a game they will play over and over. There will be the usual debates and arguments about the effectiveness of artillery, which is considerably reduced from that in the old Talonsoft games, but to me, particularly on the river crossings, this did seem to have improved slightly. Sound tactical dogma for HPS aficionados dictates that you don't put artillery in the front rank, because of the high points attached to losing guns, but in the dense woodlands of Tennessee and Kentucky, this is sometimes hard to avoid. Ground as always is critical, and in the heavily wooded hills good arcs of fire are not always at hand.

Cavalry as always is weak, and in the Notes, the designers stress that it is desirable to keep your boys mounted and moving, preferably out on the flanks or in your enemy's rear. It is dangerous and wasteful to try and repeat Buford's delaying tactics before Gettysburg, unless you absolutely have to, as the infantry will cut them to pieces. However, I spent a pleasant afternoon sending all my cavalry round the flank and into a mess of Supply Wagons and artillery batteries in one battle, thereby destroying my enemy's (albeit only the AI) ability to resist.

As discussed above, there are a wide variety of battles and scenarios available, and the ability to create many more within existing maps and the provided Orders of Battle. There are even some scenarios available with regiments broken into smaller units to allow for those who prefer to play at a more detailed tactical level. The campaigns are well structured and cover a lot of ground and what if options. There are even some fun scenarios included to show street-fighting and river battles, although the latter are limited in scope and appeal with simplified units, and no ironclads or rams (yet). The large number of scenarios provided in both Campaign and Single Battle Mode allows for considerable re-playability and make for a game that should last.

The individual scenarios vary in length from as little as eight turns to two-day scenarios of about eighty or so turns. The maps are also varied in size, but are slightly more manageable than some of the biggest Campaign Gettysburg maps. The shorter scenarios represent either complete encounters, or particular segments of a larger battle, such as the Hornets Nest at Shiloh. There is one absolutely massive 450 Turn scenario depicting the Fort Henry to Fort Donelson Campaign on one map, encompassing as it does two separate battles and a long approach march in between – this covers a period from 5 to 15 February and is in effect a mini campaign in itself. I confess to salivating over this one in expectation, but as yet haven't had the time to try it out. I think however that this is a welcome extra inclusion adding even more variety and scope to the game.

In addition to the expected “historical" battles, there are numerous “what if" ones included to increase playability and variation. Some of these are simple variations, including changes in position, reinforcement arrival times, units available, etc. Others are more radical and more interesting, such as Shiloh scenarios which assume that the Rebel forces who surrendered at Fort Donelson actually escaped and marched with Johnston to Pittsburgh Landing. Also, two Orders of Battle for Shiloh are present, one with regiments broken into smaller units, to allow for greater detail in tactical play for those who wish.

The maps are good and varied, but this is a heavily wooded part of the country, and movement is often restricted to roads and trails. There are few scenarios with large open spaces, and players are going to start feeling twitchy about those exposed flanks, which all adds to the feel.

Despite the criticisms mentioned above, I for one welcome the inclusion of river crossings, even in the limited form here present. The ability not only to cross, but to float an army down river to a better location, or into your enemy's rear is a welcome new development. However you'd best watch out for gunboats and shore batteries as these can have a heavy impact on helpless and defenceless troops on the water.

The HPS AI opponent is not necessarily challenging for the experienced player, being predictable and limited, but to the new wargamer, or anyone new to the series, will still provide hours of good entertainment. Undoubtedly the real thrill of the game is in playing against another human being, either in real time, (Hotseat, LAN or over the internet) or by e-mail, all of which are supported. Several internet clubs exist where opponents can be found. I know to my cost that many of the members will hand you your head on a plate if you don't watch your flanks!