Review: Chancellorsville 1863 as a solitaire wargame

  

Chancellorsville 1863 (Worthington Publishing, 2020) is, in broad terms, the spiritual successor to designer Maurice Suckling’s earlier game, Freeman’s Farm 1777 (Worthington, 2019). The two games share a similar quality, with the game board of each looking more like a tactical map of the conflict represented than any kind of conventional playing surface. I confess, when Freeman’s Farm appeared on Kickstarter, I balked at it. I’d been a frequent backer of Worthington’s campaigns, and had never been disappointed with a final product, but looking at that map, I could not make the imaginative leap to it being an interesting tactical situation to play. So, when the Chancellorsville KS campaign came up, I didn’t really consider it for the very same reason. I was also put off a little by the hidden movement mechanism (again, mostly through a lack of understanding – I can be a bit thick, sometimes).

I think I stumbled across a video review of Chancellorsville 1863 on YouTube, and as I watched it, I became more intrigued by the ideas and mechanics embedded in the game. It helped that the reviewer was both enthusiastic and articulate about what made the game work so well. If I find that review, I’ll add a link to it here – it as definitely worth the time, and will probably explain some things better than I can here.

I managed to score a copy a little before Christmas (a very happy day; Tarawa 1943 arriving in the same package). I unboxed it, read the rules through, and even set it up to get a feel for it, but I didn’t tackle it immediately. I think I was still a little intimidated by the prospect.

So far, I haven’t had the chance to play Chancellorsville against a real opponent; that particular pleasure awaits. I did hold off playing it for a while because I really wanted to try it as a two-player game, but I got fed up waiting. My curiosity got the better of me. Reader, I played it alone.

Before I go on to the game play, I want to spend a moment on just how  beautifully and thoughtfully this game has been put together. The board is mounted (not to everyone’s taste – which I get – but I like them), with the operational map centre, two reduced maps at one end for tracking hidden units in the two player game, and various place-holds and tracks for general and solitaire play. With the exception of the cards you’re holding, everything fits neatly on the board. And the whole thing is so damn visually appealing. The units are long wooden blocks with the commanders of each division or corps stencilled on them in clear white print. The momentum points and redoubt markers are also painted wooden cubes, and the map, and all the printed titling on the board, match the style of cartography and typesetting of the era. The attention to these details elevates the play experience. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s familiar with Worthington’s recent game output.

An unnecessarily thorough victory

Chancellorsville plays like it was always intended to be a solo game. Nothing about the solo experience feels like an add-on or an afterthought. The victory conditions are the same as if you were playing face to face, and the hidden movement is abstracted to a track on the board. A deck of cards (actually, two decks of cards – one each for the Union and CSA forces – allowing the player to take either side in the battle) dictates the movements and functions of the opposing side. You would think that the random element to the opposition’s orders would lead to wasted or self-defeating action, at least from time to time, but the orders are drafted in such a way that there is rarely a wasted action. The “Bot” keeps you on your toes. Each card will order two or three units, with prerequisite conditions and alternative orders, so it’s unlikely the opposition will do nothing in their turn (this has happened occasionally, but it just leaves me feeling like the game is planning something even more vindictive for the next round).

I initially played as the Union, and I only won on my fourth time out. I still haven’t won playing the Confederates. On the face of it, the game feels weighted toward the Bot; the opposing side isn’t hampered by the cost of a cohesion point for each movement, and will often get two attacks in a single round. But this is balanced by the You-the-Player accruing Momentum points and having sole access to the tactics cards on which to spend those points. Also, the first couple of games, the Bot deck felt awfully shallow for what I had to accomplish in terms of victory conditions, but having played it some more – and actually winning once or twice – it now feels pretty well balanced; still a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

I’m looking forward to a time when I can get Chancellorsville 1863 to the table against another actual human being, if nothing else than to try out the hidden movement the way Maurice Suckling intended. In the meantime, this game offers a really satisfying solo experience.