earlier in the year which we found too simple.
|Positional Defence (2). Confederate attack.|
|Union starting positions|
|Confederate attack on left flank develops|
|Confederate attack on Union right|
|Right flank falling back, artillery about to be destroyed|
|Union forces pushed off hill on the right with reserves trying to move up|
|Situation on the left|
|Rebels in the woods|
|Not looking good for the Union|
|Confederates capture hill on right, attack hill on left|
|Rebels run away. Right, who's next?|
|Union regiment combats flanking force|
|Ha! Take that!|
|Rebels to the right of me, Confederates on the left... here I am...|
As with all of CS Grant's ideas, the scenario was pretty good but perhaps the forces could have been slightly better balanced to make more of a fight of it, although that might have been more to do with how we chose forces rather than the scenario itself.
As for the POW2 rules they worked fine and were easy to follow. Unlike some sets of rules they don't bother with a lot of 'fluff' but get straight to the point in a structured way, even laying out the rules in the same order as the move sequence, which some well known sets of rules don't seem to bother with.
However, there was something slightly 'flat' about them and I certainly felt that the rules did not give the defenders the expected tactical advantages from cover or elevation that would enable them to even slow the enemy, let alone stop them as they advanced inexorably in the open to contact.
That said the POW2 rules certainly performed better than the very simple nineteenth century Neil Thomas rules so I haven't given up on them just yet.