Map and Counters

LEE vs. MEADE: The Battle of Gettysburg is a grand tactical simulation of the single most critical battle of the American Civil War: the bloody three days during which the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg was decided, and with it the fate of the South. LEE vs. MEADE was the initial ‘flagship’ title of Volume I of the ‘Command Series Games’ — nine different games, in all — offered by Rand Game Associates (RGA) when the company first entered the conflict simulation market. The game was designed by David C. Isby and published in 1974. It should be noted that also in late 1974, Rand Game Associates made an arrangement with Gamut of Games (GOG) for that game company to independently market several of the games in the ‘Volume I’ series. LEE vs. MEADE was one of the titles licensed to Gamut of Games.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

"Storm Over Gettysburg" Generals Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet, July 3, 1863

In the spring of 1863, the Army of Northern Virginia, under General Robert E. Lee, seemed invincible; it had recently won a crushing victory at Chancellorsville, and Lee began to think that one more decisive Confederate victory, particularly if it could be attained on Northern soil, might be enough to induce the North to abandon its attempt to forcibly compel the political reunification of the North and South. So, despite the bitter memories of the Antietam campaign of the previous year, Lee marched into Pennsylvania at the head of an army of 77,000 men. On 1 July, at a small rural town called Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virginia, quite by accident, blundered into the advanced elements of General George Gordon Meade’s Union Army of the Potomac. In a steadily escalating battle, the Confederate forces of General Ambrose Hill’s corps succeeded, by the end of the day, in driving the Union defenders out of their advanced positions and back into Gettysburg in some disorder. During the night, the Union troops abandoned the town. But Union reinforcements were on the way, and, as additional troops from Meade’s 88,000 man Army of the Potomac continued to arrive, the Union commander immediately deployed them on the ridges to the south overlooking the now Confederate-occupied town.

General George Gordon Meade

On the morning of July 2^nd, Lee fixed his main attention on the Union Left. Longstreet, supported by Anderson’s division would attack the poorly positioned Yankees in the Peach Orchard and then move forward against the stronger Federal positions to the south. Once the Unionists on the left were heavily engaged, Ewell’s men would storm Cemetery Ridge and Culp’s Hill on the Federal right. Even if the Federals held fast on their right, Lee was confident that Longstreet’s corps should be able to turn Meade’s flank; such a turning maneuver might make it possible to capture Little Round Top as the Federal line was pushed back. Although the hill was only 650 feet high, if the Confederates could emplace artillery on its heights, they could enfilade the entire length of the Union line tenaciously defending Cemetery Ridge below. The Confederate commander knew that if his men captured Cemetery Ridge on the right or Little Round Top on the left, Meade’s forces would have no choice but to retire in defeat. Lee was supremely confident in his men as they began their preparations for battle, and he was just as confident that by sundown on 2 July, 1863, Gettysburg would be the site of another decisive Confederate victory — perhaps the crucial triumph necessary to bring the War for Southern Independence to a successful end.

DESCRIPTION

LEE vs. MEADE: The Battle of Gettysburg is a grand tactical (brigade/division) level simulation of the climactic three-day Civil War battle at Gettysburg, 1-3 July 1863. The two-color 'square tessellation style' game map represents the area in Pennsylvania in which the battle of Gettysburg was fought. The blue and grey counters represent the historical units — divisions for infantry, and brigades for both artillery and cavalry — that actually participated, at some point, in the battle. Combat units display only one number: their combat power. All infantry and artillery units have a standard movement rating of ‘5’, and all cavalry, horse artillery, and the headquarters unit have a rating of ‘8’. LEE vs. MEADE is played in game turns which are further divided into two symmetrical segments: a Confederate and a Union player turn. Each game turn begins with the Confederate player turn and proceeds in a set sequence: first the reinforcement phase; next, the movement phase; and upon completion of all movement, the combat phase. Once the Confederate combat phase is completed, the Union player then repeats the same sequence of actions. At the conclusion of the Federal player turn, the game turn marker is advanced one space, and the turn sequence is repeated until the game ends.

General Pickett receives the order to charge from General Longstreet, Battle of Gettysburg, 3rd July 1863, painting by Henry Alexander Ogden

The game mechanics of LEE vs. MEADE are generally easy-to-learn and intuitively logical. The movement rules — although admittedly somewhat unorthodox at first glance — once learned, are extremely simple to remember and use. Instead of a hexagonal grid, the game map (based on an idea from Phil Orbanes) is divided into 144 squares — referred to by the designer as a Time/Space Grid — with movement costs for entry into the next square marked at the sides and corners of each box. In those scenarios in which night movement occurs, the phasing unit’s movement factor is reduced by ‘1’ and no movement into an Attack Position is permitted. Stacking is the same for both players: three artillery-type units and three infantry and/or cavalry units (for a total of six) may occupy a sector or any of its boundaries (relevant during attacks against adjacent enemy occupied boxes). Headquarters units may stack free. All terrain (typically high ground) that confers an advantage to the defender is noted by the presence of either one or two solid ‘triangles’ in the affected square. What this means is that no terrain effects chart is required for play. Because of the time scale of the game, there are no supply rules.

There are no conventional zones of control (ZOCs) in LEE vs. MEADE; however, units may not move diagonally between two adjacent enemy occupied sectors (boxes). To attack an enemy occupied sector, a phasing unit or units must have enough movement points to move into Attack Position on one of the target sector’s side boundaries (no corner moves are permitted) and combat between units in Attack Position and adjacent enemy units is mandatory. Five different types of ground attacks are possible: Frontal Attack, Flank Attack, Pincers Attack, Double Envelopment, and Encirclement Attack. Artillery is a special case: it may either participate directly in a regular attack (just like any other unit) or it may bombard offensively against any one of six adjacent sectors if it has not moved into Attack Position on a sector boundary. In addition, the defender may also use artillery bombardment to add support to an adjacent sector that is under attack.

"For God's Sake Forward" Gen. John F. Reynolds leads the 2nd Wisconsin (Iron Brigade) into the grove of trees on McPherson's Ridge to stem advancing Confederates during an opening encounter at Gettysburg, July 1, 1863.

Combat resolution is a two-step process. First the opposing players secretly select one of six tactical cards, each of which signifies their choice of a specific battlefield option. For the defender, the choices are: Linear Defense, Delay, Withdrawal, Aggressive Defense, Counterattack, and Central Position. For the attacking player, the available tactics are: Cautious Advance, Linear Attack, All Out Attack, Rapid Deployment Attack, Attack Supported by Artillery, and Attack Preceded by Artillery. Interestingly, when faced with a purely Frontal Attack, the defender, if he thinks discretion is the better part of valor, can always choose Withdrawal and retreat without loss, regardless of the tactical option selected by the attacker. Once both players have made their selections, their options are matched up using the matrix-like Tactical Analysis Chart. The tactical cell determined by the intersection of the players’ choices will either indicate a retreat result or it will specify which one of six Combat Computation Charts (CCC’s) is to be used for actual combat resolution. LEE vs. MEADE employs a set of six ‘odds differential’ type CCC’s. However, because artillery fire plays an especially important role in this combat system, CCC’s #5 and #6 are reserved exclusively for attacks involving artillery. In any case, once the appropriate CCC for the battle currently in progress has been determined, the regular ground attack is then rolled and the result adjusted to account for all bonuses (represented by plus or minus Die Roll Modifications) for artillery participation, terrain, and adjacent headquarters. One of the more intriguing aspects of the LEE vs. MEADE combat system is that the phasing player, if he announces his intentions before hand, may choose — instead of combining his forces into one large attack — to make smaller multiple attacks against the same enemy-occupied sector using units positioned on different boundaries of the same target sector.

The winner in LEE vs. MEADE is determined by comparing the victory point totals of the Confederate and Union players at the end of the last game turn. Victory points are awarded to both players for the destruction of enemy units, and — depending on the scenario — for control of certain geographical objectives.

LEE vs. MEADE offers four short scenarios: Scenario #1, 0700 hours 1 July to 1400 hours 1 July 1863 (8 game turns); Scenario #2, 1400 hours 1 July to 1900 hours 1July (6 turns); Scenario #3, 1400 hours 2 July to 1900 hours 2 July (6 turns); and Scenario #4, 1400 hours to 1900 hours 3 July 1863 (6 game turns). In addition, players have three additional scenario options in that they may also begin with any scenario start time and continue play through to the end of game turn 41 (the last turn of Scenario #4). In addition, to the regular game rules, the designer has also included a pair of ‘Optional’ rules cases to add a little variety and uncertainty to the game. These are: Rules for Cavalry Raids; and Rules for Screens (limited intelligence).

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

Col. Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine Regiment vs. the Alabamans LittleRound Top, July 2, 1863.

LEE vs. MEADE: The Battle of Gettysburg, in keeping with the majority of the Rand Game Associates titles, is really an eccentric little game. Sadly, it also tends to fail to make a good first impression. I confess that when I first unboxed my own copy — it came packaged inside the distinctive red cardboard ‘Command Series I’ storage cupboard — I was a little nonplused. I don’t remember precisely what my own first impression was, but I do remember the unenthusiastic reaction of two of my regular opponents who had both dashed over just to see the first of the new Rand games: “Congratulations,” the first of my guests observed sarcastically, “you are now the proud owner of a brand-new copy of GETTYSBURG ’63½; let me know how it stacks up against its successor.” Not to be outdone, my second visitor quickly chimed in: “What’s the next game in the series, KRIEGSPIEL: THE WEIMAR YEARS?” A few more snarky comments followed, but I forged ahead anyway and continued to unpack the game. However, when I suggested that we set the map and counters up and give it a try, both of my guests suddenly remembered that they had urgent business elsewhere; thus, I found no takers that first day for an inaugural LEE vs. MEADE game. In fact, my two visitors had made their escape before I had even managed to punch out all of the counters. So, I gave up for the time being. And with those two endorsements still ringing in my ears, I carefully put the game back into its storage cupboard; I would withhold final judgment, I decided, until I actually had given the game a careful look. I think that my reaction was probably the same as a lot of players when they received their first Rand title.

Several weeks went by before I finally found the time to take that careful look at LEE vs. MEADE that I had promised myself; and when I did, my initial reaction was mixed. The counters were legible and nicely done; the map was clear but, if one’s favorite color wasn’t green, a little on the monotonous side; the rules were more or less comprehensible, although it was immediately clear that there would probably be some DRM errata coming before much longer (there was); the game charts, however, were a problem. First, the print on both of the charts was VERY small: magnifying glass small, in fact. Second, the combat results were displayed as symbols and not as text. So, instead of D Elim., for example, the Rand Combat Computation Chart (I still don’t know why the designer discarded the familiar term: Combat Results Table) showed a tiny solid dot. All in all, things did not look all that promising for LEE vs. MEADE as I dug into the game system.

Nonetheless, I soldiered on and, after a bit more study, I discovered — much to my relief — that there really was a modestly intriguing, relatively fast-playing game hiding amongst all the unfamiliar, irksome dross that seemed to be intended only to conceal the better features of the game’s design. And I was not alone. Several of my regular opponents also finally agreed to try LEE vs. MEADE and, much to their surprise, discovered that they didn’t completely hate it. Granted, the game mechanics are a little odd, but movement costs and terrain effects are both unambiguous; more importantly, the combat system, once it is finally internalized, actually works rather well. Moreover, because the piece density is low, the game puts a real premium on maneuver; and unless an enemy position can be turned or penetrated, decisive attacks are virtually impossible to bring about through frontal assault. This is particularly true if a powerful force occupies high ground with both its headquarters unit and artillery near by. This is really the central challenge of the game for Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia: to force a decisive battle on Meade’s assembling Army of the Potomac before it can complete its concentration. In LEE vs. MEADE, just as it was in real life, this is surprisingly difficult to do.

LEE vs. MEADE is not a great game by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not (at least, once errata is in hand) a particularly bad game either. In fact it is no worse and, in some ways, a bit more interesting than GETTYSBURG ’88. Unfortunately, even in the upgraded, licensed edition put out in late 1974 by Gamut of Games (GOG), it remains pretty much unchanged; virtually all of the problems that plagued the subscription copy were left untouched in the somewhat nicer (mounted game map and colored game charts) GOG boxed-version. However, given the original design’s pros and cons, I think that I can still, with reservations, recommend this title. Without doubt, it would have benefited greatly from a major face-lift. That is: from better, more traditional graphics; from expanded and rewritten rules; and from larger, more legible charts. Oh, and a bigger, more interesting game map would have been nice, too. Nonetheless, for all of its faults, it is probably a moderately good choice for a casual player, and an interesting, if frustrating little trip down ‘memory lane’ for the seasoned gamer. But a word of warning: if any of you, my readers, actually decide to give this old title a look, remember to have a magnifying glass handy; believe me, you’ll need it.

Design Characteristics:

• Time Scale: 1 hour per game turn
• Map Scale: ½ mile per square
• Unit Size: brigade/division
• Unit Types: headquarters, infantry, cavalry, artillery, horse artillery, and ‘screen’ counters
• Number of Players: two
• Complexity: average
• Solitaire Suitability: average
• Average Playing Time: 2–6 + hours (depending on scenario)

Game Components:

• One 17” x 25” Time/Space Grid (square boxes) Map Sheet (with detachable Union and Confederate Order of Appearance Tracks incorporated)
• 72 ⅝” cardboard Counters
• One 8” x 8” LEE vs. MEADE Rules Booklet (with Scenario Instructions incorporated)
• Two 8” x 8” back-printed combined Tactical Analysis and Combat Computation Charts
• One 3” x 4” ‘Games & Puzzles’ Ad Insert

Universal ‘Command Series’ Components Required:

• Universal Turn Recorder
• Twelve Tac Cards (six red and six white)
• One six-sided Die

Recommended Reading

See my blog post Book Review of this title which is strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background.
.
THE WEST POINT ATLAS OF AMERICAN WARS (Complete 2-Volume Set); edited by Brigadier General Vincent J. Esposito; Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. (1959); ASIN: B000MTBTEU .
.

Also see my blog post Book Review of this definitive three volume work on the officers of the Army of Northern Virginia by Douglas S. Freeman.
.


Also, for those interested in battlefield maps, the "museum book" collection of historical Civil War maps by William J. Miller, released in  2004, or the atlas compiled by Stephen Hyslop in 2009 of Civil war battlefields are worth collecting.

Recommended Artwork

This Giclee print of a map of the Battle of Gettysburg is suitable for framing and makes a nice wall decoration for a game room with a Civil War theme.

Battle of Gettysburg - Civil War Pano... 9x12 Giclee Print Buy From Art.com

In 1973, a hitherto unknown game publisher named Game Designers’ Workshop (GDW) introduced its first title: DRANG NACH OSTEN; a monster game on the German invasion of Russia, June 1941. A year later, Simulations Publications, Inc. (SPI) launched its own, long-anticipated —rumors had been floating around about Dunnigan’s ‘super game’ since at least 1969-70 — operational simulation of the entire Russo-German War (1941-45), WAR IN THE EAST. There was no doubt about it: this was a heady period for wargamers; things really seemed to be taking off, and those of us who had been in the hobby for awhile were full of optimism. Then, like GDW the year before, another new game company, Rand Game Associates (RGA), suddenly appeared on the scene. In the spring of 1974, the first copies of Rand Game Associates’ LEE vs. MEADE: THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG were shipped to a mob of eagerly waiting customers. This game was the first installment in a collection of nine brand-new titles which, when printed and mailed, would comprise Volume I of RGA’s ‘Command Games Series’. Moreover, it should be noted that, not only were these first lucky subscribers impatiently looking forward to the arrival of nine (already paid for) wargames, they were also slated to receive — along with their copy of LEE vs. MEADE — a spiffy red cardboard cupboard in which to store their soon-to-arrive collection of new games. Also, along with the ‘unique’ storage cupboard, RGA was sending its lucky customers even more game paraphernalia; hence, in addition to everything else, new subscribers were also fated to receive a ‘Universal Game Turn Record’, twelve tactical cards (six red and six white), and a six-sided die. I was one of those subscribers, and almost as soon as my first parcel arrived from RGA, I began — despite my receipt of the ‘one-of-a-kind’ game box, the new game, the ‘tac’ cards, and the die — to have misgivings about Rand Game Associates. As it turned out, my initial worries turned out to be well-founded.

In the beginning, Rand Game Associates looked like a winner. The first RGA full-page, four-color ads had started to appear, as I recall, in the hobby press towards the end of 1973 and they were eye-grabbing, to say the least. Moreover, the company’s initial pitch for subscriptions had looked mighty convincing. At a time when the typical SPI ‘flat pack’ game sold for $6.00 plus shipping, the RGA subscription package looked downright cheap. So, despite the fact that I knew nothing about the company other than what I had seen in a glossy ad slick; like a lot of other gamers, I decided to give the company and its games a try. In retrospect, I’m not really sorry that I did, but it is still, even after all these years, a very close call. Nonetheless, before I get to reminiscing further about my own love-hate relationship with RGA, a little company history is probably in order.

Rand Game Associates, according to David Isby, was the brain-child of Phil Orbanes and was initially formed in New Jersey. The company based its operations, for the most part, on the efforts of three men: Bill Vega, to handle the business end; David C. Isby, to do most of the actual game design work; and Al Zygier, to handle the graphics design for the finished games. Freelance designers, such as John Prados, Ken Smilgelski and Phil Orbanes, would periodically be brought on board to spice up the company’s offerings and to take a little of the design pressure off of David Isby. In addition, RGA could also look to the likes of Lenny Glynn, Al Nofi and Professor Milton J. Pierce, among others, for occassional help with game development and historical research. The basic business plan seems to have been to cut into SPI’s market niche by offering inexpensive games via subscription. Rand Game Associates could do this because, unlike SPI, it would not have the content, deadline, or production problems that inevitably go with publishing a fresh magazine issue to accompany each new game. Also, like Dunnigan’s ‘game mill’ in New York, RGA would make extensive use of customer surveys in order to select topics for future games and, by so doing, stay in tune with the changing interests of its subscribers. On its face, it all seemed very reasonable; unfortunately the wheels began to come off almost as soon as the first games started to ship.

The initial problem was pricing: by focusing so heavily on keeping prices low, RGA inevitably cut back on revenues and thus, limited its options when it came to producing its finished games. The end result of this pricing pinch was that the games all seemed just a little bit ‘cheesy’. The maps, rule books, and game charts, for example, were all relatively small by the standards of the rest of the industry. And with games, just like many other things, size really does matter. The utility of the rule books and game charts, particularly, suffered because their small size inevitably led to small and, in some cases, even tiny, hard-to-read print. This was off-putting, to say the least. The game counters, on the other hand, were generally well-done. However, by sticking with a single counter sheet and then by opting to use die-cut game pieces with rounded corners, the typical RGA game design was limited to a maximum of seventy-two unit counters; in the age of DRANG NACH OSTEN and WAR IN THE EAST, seventy-two counters did not, in the eyes of many players, seem to be nearly enough. This was particularly true when it is remembered that most SPI games during this era had from 200 to 400 game counters. More than one fellow subscriber to the ‘Command Games Series’ that I talked to echoed my own thoughts when they observed that it would have been better for RGA to have skipped producing the essentially useless game cupboards, and to have spent the savings on the game components, instead.

Omaha Beach map

The second major problem for the Rand Game Associates brand was the graphic presentation of the games, themselves. Al Zygier, sadly, was no Redmond Simonsen. First impressions are important. A mediocre game with clever or visually appealing graphics will, almost without exception, find a wider audience than a good game with awful artwork. And RGA managed, against all odds, to produce some of the most vividly amateurish graphics that I, personally, have ever encountered. But it need not have been so. For several years, the map for Avalon Hill’s ALEXANDER (1971) had been, I thought, the most repulsive (almost vomit-like) game board that I had ever laid eyes on. But I was premature. RGA utterly crushed its competition in the ugliness category by publishing my hands-down choice for the most revolting 17” x 24” piece of commercially-printed paper ever, the game map for OMAHA BEACH. To be fair, it should be noted that the game map and counters for THE WAR OF THE WORLDS II, when seen together, came in a very close second.

The War of the Worlds II

Of a piece with RGA’s uneven map quality was the format and print size of most of its game charts. Instead of listing battle results using traditional and familiar abbreviations — like DR, DE, or Ex, for example — tiny abstract symbols such as solid or hollow dots, and solid or hollow arrows were instead printed on many of the RGA charts to indicate combat outcomes. This irksome little convention was pointlessly obtuse, and would have been wholly unnecessary if the charts had been bigger and more legible in the first place. However, the use of symbols in lieu of letters for combat results was not the only pointless innovation that RGA introduced. Combat Results Tables (CRT’s), for example, became Combat Computation Charts (CCC’s), and Zones of Control (ZOC’s) became Ranges of Influence (ROI’s).
Lee vs. Meade Time/Space Grid map

This smacked a little bit of conceit on the part of the designer; after all, even Jim Dunnigan and Frank Chadwick had not attempted to completely change ‘game speak’ in this way. Moreover, this pernicious custom of game designers rechristening existing (and perfectly adequate) simulation concepts, thanks to Rand Game Associates, has now become a pervasive and common design element in contemporary American Civil War and Napoleonic simulations. In addition, everyone presently in the hobby also has Rand Game Associates to thank for the ground-breaking introduction of German military symbols into the mainstream of contemporary board gaming. This pointlessly confusing little affectation first appeared in RGA’s INVASION: SICILY, then in OMAHA BEACH, again — just in case you hadn’t noticed the first two times — in ROMMEL: THE WAR FOR NORTH AFRICA, and finally in the first of the ‘Command Series II’ games, HITLER’S LAST GAMBLE: THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE (1975). Despite RGA’s fixation on this graphic formula, however, their obnoxious innovation really only reached its apex when Randall Reed, apparently channeling the Führer Bunker over in Baltimore, adopted this pretentious and distracting style of unit annotation for both German AND Allied units in THE LONGEST DAY (1979).

Lee vs. Meade

Rand Game Associates, of course, had other problems besides graphic design. Product presentation is important but, in the end, it is the games themselves that actually matter most. And the game designs produced by RGA were, to say the least, a little uneven. Errata — the bane of all players — reliably followed each new title’s introduction. These types of post-publication corrections, needless-to-say, were hardly unique to RGA; what was unique, however, was that the errata that inevitably accompanied the next game — in far too many cases — dealt with simple errors or omissions in the rules that should have been caught during proof-reading, or with glaring problems in the game system that should have emerged in the first few ‘play-tests’. Blame for these lapses is difficult to assign. Rand Game Associates — wisely, it turned out — usually did not list game design or development credits; so, while there is a popular consensus as to which designers created which titles, there is no general agreement as to who handled the critically important development chores for the various games.

Cambrai, 1917

As to the various games, themselves: opinions, even today, will vary as to which of the RGA games were ‘good’, which were ‘mediocre’, which were ‘bad’, and which were just plain ‘ugly’. The ‘ugly’ titles I have already touched upon. As to the others, estimates vary wildly. I personally detested INVASION: SICILY and NAPOLEON’S LAST CAMPAIGNS; other players, much to my surprise, liked one or both of them a lot. Both LEE vs. MEADE and ROMMEL, I considered on the borderline between mediocre and good; on these appraisals, at least, I have generally found few players who strongly disagree. The best of the lot — in the eyes of most players, at least — undoubtedly were SARATOGA: 1777, CAMBRAI, 1917, and MISSILE BOAT. Oddly enough, despite the justifiably bad odor in which Rand Game Associates tends to be held by today’s crop of players, virtually everyone that I know who has actually played these three RGA titles thinks that they are, given the production limitations imposed on their designs, outstanding little games. Interestingly, the creator of CAMBRAI, 1917: THE FIRST BLITZKRIEG, David C. Isby, revisited the same topic four years later with the SPI title, TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND (1978); unfortunately for SPI, despite the six-times larger, more colorful counter-mix, the much nicer Simonsen graphics, and the denser, more elaborate game system that accompanied the newer title, most people that I know who have played both designs still consider CAMBRAI, 1917 to be, far and away, the better game. And pretty much in the same vein, despite the fact that SARATOGA: 1777 is vulnerable to almost the identical bit of tactical gamesmanship that detracts from SPI’s VERACRUZ (1977); I would still probably jump at the chance to play the game again. In any case, good or bad, the RGA titles continued to arrive in the mail at regular intervals into the spring of 1975. Once all of the first batch of games had been delivered, by the way, a complete Rand Game Associates ‘Command Games Series Volume I’ collection of games would include the following titles:

1. LEE vs. MEADE: THE BATTLE OF GETTYBURG (Time/Space Grid
Game System), by David C. Isby
2. SARATOGA: 1777 (Strategic Points Grid Game System), by David C.
Isby
3. INVASION: SICILY (Hexagonal Grid Game System), by David C.
Isby
4. NAPOLEON’S LAST CAMPAIGNS (Area Game System), by David C.
Isby
5. CAMBRAI, 1917: THE FIRST BLITZKRIEG (Hexagonal Grid Game
System), by David C. Isby
6. MISSILE BOAT (Hexagonal Grid Game System), by David C. Isby
7. OMAHA BEACH (Time/Space Grid Game System), by Ken Smigelski
8. THE WAR OF THE WORLDS II (Orbital Grid Game System), by
Philip Orbanes
9. ROMMEL: THE WAR FOR NORTH AFRICA (Hexagonal Grid Game
System), by David C. Isby

Rommel: The War for North Africa

At the end of March 1975, the last of the ‘Command Games Series Volume I’ games shipped; and enclosed with the final game in the series, ROMMEL: THE WAR FOR NORTH AFRICA, was yet another in the long string of more and more frantic appeals that, with increasing frequency, had been bombarding current subscribers urging them to sign up for the new improved, bigger, and better ‘Command Games Series Volume II’ collection of five or maybe six new games. I decided to pass, and apparently, I was not alone. Subscription rates plummeted. Rand Game Associates struggled on for awhile longer, but was only able to finish work on two more of the Volume II games before it ran out of cash and finally gave up any pretense of honoring its obligations to its subscribers. Bankruptcy was the next stop, and, as quickly as it had come on the scene, Rand Game Associates disappeared permanently from the game publishing business.

Invasion of Sicily

By the time of its demise, Rand Game Associates had actually published a total of thirteen titles. Besides the nine games that collectively made up ‘Command Games Series Vol. I’, RGA also published several larger, more complex titles as part of their ‘Military Time Capsule Games’ series of independent offerings. These were: the John Prados design, VON MANSTEIN: BATTLES IN THE UKRAINE 1941-44 (1975), which has subsequently been reissued by several different publishers under the title, PANZERKRIEG; the John Prados game, VICKSBURG: THE WAR IN THE WEST (1975); and David Isby’s BRANDY STATION: THE CLASH OF CAVALRY (1976). It should probably be noted that BRANDY STATION was originally slated to be the second game in the ‘Command Games Series Volume II’ collection of RGA titles following HITLER’S LAST GAMBLE: THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE, but when the struggling game company began to finally slip beneath the waves of insolvency, it was offered as part of the ‘Military Time Capsule Games’ series of independent titles.

For those readers who are interested, the three bigger 'Military Time Capsule' games were packaged in a window-style game box and came with a larger map, much more extensive and detailed rules, and significantly more counters. This trio of games included, in the order of their publication, the following titles:

1. VON MANSTEIN: BATTLES IN THE UKRAINE 1941-45 (Hexagonal Grid Game System), by John Prados
2. VICKSBURG: THE WAR IN THE WEST (Hexagonal Grid Game System), by John Prados
3. BRANDY STATION: THE CLASH OF CAVALRY (Time/Space Grid System), by David C. Isby
4. WELLINGTON IN THE PENINSULA (Area Movement System), by Vincent J. Cumbo, Albert A. Nofi, and John Prados

Saratoga

In addition to their publication as ‘Command Series’ games, a few of the Rand Game Associates titles were repackaged for independent distribution. David C. Isby’s ROMMEL: THE WAR FOR NORTH AFRICA was the first and, so far as I know, the only offering from RGA as part of the ‘Great Battles of History Series’ of games. And, last but not least, fairly early in the 'Volume I' subscription cycle (sometime around September 1974), Rand Game Associates licensed the first three of their titles to Gamut of Games (GOG) for outside distribution. As part of this arrangement Gamut of Games republished LEE vs. MEADE: THE BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG; SARATOGA: 1777; and INVASION: SICILY in a modestly upgraded (mounted map board and colored charts) boxed version.

Missile Boat

Looking back at the short, sad saga of Rand Game Associates, it is easy to see the flaws in the company’s original business plan. By focusing on keeping prices, and by extension, production costs low, RGA underperformed in the area that was most critical to their ongoing success: game quality. This realization, which was reflected in their plans for the ‘Command Games Series Volume II’ collection of five to six titles, came too late to salvage, much less to grow, their original base of subscribers. Moreover, nine original new designs, magazine or no, were simply too many games for David Isby — or anyone else, for that matter — to produce in a single calendar year; particularly without a lot of very experienced development help. This meant that unmitigated ‘turkeys’ like THE WAR OF THE WORLDS II found their way into the RGA lineup. Obviously, Phil Orbanes went to Rand Game Associates with his Sci-Fi design because no one else would touch it; and for good reason. And RGA’s main designer, David Isby, deserves some of the blame for the company’s failure, as well. His use of Phil Orbanes' ‘retro’ Time/Space Grid game system was moderately interesting, but never particularly popular; this fact was something that RGA’s own customer feedback should have told him.

Napoleon's Last Campaigns

And there was something else, even more fundamentally wrong at RGA. In countless little ways, it just didn't seem like the physical production of the games was ever really in the hands of an experienced 'gamer'. The much touted storage cupboard is a perfect example of this disconnect. When examined closely, it was obvious that the little red box, drawers or not, was simply too small and flimsy to meet the game storage needs of a typical player; it looked good, but it was essentially useless. In the end, Rand Game Associates did something that no business can afford to do: it disappointed the majority of its customers. One of my friends, and a fellow subscriber to the ‘Volume I’ series, probably said it best. He was in the process of rereading the game rules to NAPOLEON’S LAST CAMPAIGNS for the umpteenth time,; finally, he put the rules booklet down and observed resignedly: “I think that Rand is where bad game designs go to die.” In more than a few cases, I think that he was right.