CRIMEA is a grand-tactical level simulation of the Crimean War (1854-56) between Russia and the unlikely alliance of Britain, France, Turkey, and Sardinia. Today, the Crimean War is remembered chiefly for the mind-boggling incompetence of virtually all the senior commanders on both sides. It should also be noted, however, that it was the first modern war; and that many of the lessons ignored in the Crimea would finally have to be relearned, at terrible cost, first in the American Civil War, and later in the Franco-Prussian War.
CRIMEA was designed by Frank Chadwick and published by Game Designer’s Workshop (GDW) in 1975.
DESCRIPTION
CRIMEA is a detailed division/brigade level simulation of the Crimean War from the allied landings at Evpatoria (September 1854) through the fall of Sevastopol (September 1855). Chadwick’s design choices for
CRIMEA are both unorthodox and really quite clever. He has divided the game map into five sections, so that players can examine individual actions or aspects of the whole campaign; at the same time, he has made it possible to unify the different map sections for purposes of the advanced campaign game by offering a logical and easy-to-use
Line of Communications Chart.
The actions taken by the players in any given game turn of
CRIMEA are unusual enough so as to warrant a fairly detailed discussion of the turn sequence. The player turn is divided into three discreet segments: the first is the
Fortification construction segment; next comes
Strategic movement; the third and last segment is the all important
Action segment. The
Action segment goes into effect whenever enemy units move adjacent to each other, or whenever the allied player, at the end of his
Strategic movement, declares his intention to fire siege artillery. This segment may consist of several
Action turns, each of which is divided into the following sequence of phases: the
Simultaneous fire phase; the
Siege fire commitment phase; the
Disrupted defender movement phase;
Attacker movement phase;
Siege fire resolution phase; the
Fortification repair phase; the
Hold fire resolution phase (defending units which did not fire during the first phase may now fire at adjacent enemy units);
Attacker melee phase; the
Defender undisrupted movement phase; the
Attacker’s hold fire phase; and finally, the
Defender melee phase. This ingenious set of game mechanics allows the simulation to stay within the requirements of the longer-duration strategic campaign cycle, while still allowing battles to be fought on a much faster-paced, more realistic tactical time scale.
CRIMEA is really many games in one. The
Basic Game uses only the Sevastopol map section, and allows players to concentrate on the critical action of the investiture and siege of Sevastopol. The
Advanced Game ties all the map sections together in a simulation that allows for far greater strategic flexibility on the part of both players. In both the 23 turn
Basic and
Advanced Games, the objective is the same for both players: capture Sevastopol before the end of October 1855 for the allies; hold Sevastopol at game end for the Russians. The
Battle Games are short, fast-playing snapshots of the campaign that allow the players to fight one or more of the major engagements of the Crimean War in the tempo of the
Action segment. The seven
Battle Games offered are: the
Battle of the Alma (September 20
th 1854); the
Battle of Balaklava (October 25
th 1854); the
Battle of Inkermann (November 5
th 1854); the
Battle of Evpatoria (February 17
th 1855); the
Battle of Tchernaya (August 16
th 1855);
Storming the Malakov (September 8
th 1855); and a “micro-game”:
Into the Valley of Death (the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava, October 25
th 1854). As a means of adjusting play balance, and in order to introduce more game variation, the designer includes two additional scenarios (with altered victory conditions) to expand the players’ strategic options further:
Russian Free Set-Up; and
Napoleon III’s Plan of campaign. For those players who think that a pair of trained seals could have done no worse than Lord Raglan and General Menshikov, this game offers the opportunity to refight the entire campaign, without the incompetence of the senior commanders or the deadly buffoonery of Cardigan.
Design Characteristics:
- Time Scale: 2 weeks per game turn (winter turns: 1 month per game turn)
- Map Scale: 1 mile per hex
- Unit Size: division/brigade/regiment/artillery battalion/artillery battery/naval squadron
- Unit Types (a GDW trademark is unit variation, and hence, this partial exposition): headquarters, infantry, cavalry, marines/naval troops, dragoons, artillery, horse artillery, siege gun, siege mortar, naval squadron with attached merchantmen, gunboat and information markers
- Number of Players: two
- Complexity: above average/high
- Solitaire Suitability: average
- Average Playing Time: 3–40+ hours (depending on whether a Battle Game, the Basic Game, or the Advanced Campaign Game is being played)
Game Components:
- One 22” x 28” hexagonal grid multi-section Game Map (with Turn Record Chart incorporated)
- One 8½” x 11” Lines of Communication Chart (with Allied Ammunition Supply and Cumulative British Losses Tracks incorporated)
- 480 back-printed ½” cardboard Counters
- One 6¼” x 9¼” Rules Booklet
- One 8½” x 11” Campaign Game: Russian Order of Battle
- One 8½” x 11” back-printed Basic & Campaign Games: Allied Orders of Battle
- One 11” x 17” back-printed Basic Game: Russian Order of Battle/Order of Appearance & Campaign Game: Russian Order of Appearance
- One 8½” x 11” Allied Unit Composition Chart
- One 8½” x 11” Russian Unit Composition Chart (with enlarged diagram of Sevastopol and Fortification Repair Table incorporated)
- One 8½” x 11” back-printed Battle Games: Introduction
- Two 8½” x 11” back-printed Battle Games: Orders of Battle (one each Allied & Russian)
- One 8½” x 11” back-printed Terrain Effects Key & Unit Identification Chart
- Two 8½” x 11” identical back-printed combined Combat Results Tables
- One 8½” x 11” sheet of Errata (September 1975)
- One “Ziploc” Bag (original packaging)
Oh how I thought this game as hard to learn but the review by Ralph Vickers in F&M #7 got me to look at at more closely and then I found how great it was. Rules could have used a much better development job
Good Again Kim:
Yes, like a lot of the early GDW games it took a little work to figure it out. After awhile my gaming group just got into the habit of mailing off "rules questions" to GDW on a regular basis. The record for us, however, was DNO/UNT: we ended up sending the boys in Normal over thirty type-written pages of questions before we were finally satisfied with our understanding of the game. I always thought that the guys at GDW must have dreaded seeing yet another thick envelope with a Portland postmark come into their office
Best Regards, Joe