|
Showing posts with label confederate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confederate. Show all posts
SPI, THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN (1972)
THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN is a strategic/grand-tactical simulation — based on THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR “concealed movement” Game System — of combat during the last months of the American Civil War. The game was designed by John M. Young, with graphics by Redmond Simonsen, and published in 1972 by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
During the night of 3 May, Federal Forces, 119,000 strong, moved out of their bivouacs and began to march towards the Rapidan River east of the rebel army’s main positions. Alerted almost immediately that the Union army was moving towards the lower fords east of his camps, Lee confidently ordered the Army of Northern Virginia, numbering almost 64,000 battle-hardened veterans, into motion the next day to meet the familiar and completely expected threat of a Union flanking maneuver to turn his right. The Confederate commander, while he did not discount the enemy threat, was unimpressed. He had defeated Federal armies as large as the one he now faced before — both at Fredericksburg and again at Chancellorsville — and he fully expected, as did his men, that he would do so this time, as well. Unbeknownst to General Robert E. Lee, however, he now faced — perhaps, for the very first time — an opposing general who also viewed the coming campaign with supreme confidence; U.S. Grant meant to march his army to Richmond, and he was determined that, whatever the cost, the Union soldiers that he commanded would not be turned back. DESCRIPTION The two color hexagonal-grid game map represents the region of Northern Virginia in which the historical campaign actually took place. Each hex is 4.5 kilometers from side to side. The map terrain types that actually affect play are limited to Rough, All Sea, Coastal, River Hexsides, and Railroads. This minimalist approach to terrain certainly keeps things simple for the players, but it is a little unsettling to see that the “wilderness” (scrubby woodlands) of the game’s eponymous title actually appear nowhere on the game map. In addition to traditional types of terrain, certain locations are designated as man-made fortifications; however, because these “part terrain/part combat unit” strong points can be reduced through assault, they are — like the regular combat units in the game — further represented by fort counters of varying denominations. Lastly, along with traditional types of terrain, major military and political centers are surrounded by belts (of varying thickness) of shaded hexes which represent the “command zone” of each of these special military/political centers.  The basic game mechanics for THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN — particularly for those players who are unfamiliar with THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR (1972) or LEE MOVES NORTH (1973) — are unusual enough to be interesting. Zones of control (ZOCs) are “rigid” but only “semi-sticky”; that is to say: units may not move directly through enemy ZOCs, but may enter and exit enemy ZOCs by paying a movement penalty. In addition, since ZOCs do not extend into friendly-occupied hexes, phasing units may gradually ooze through a gap in an enemy line by stacking and then unstacking while adjacent to an enemy unit or stack. Perhaps the most intriguing feature of the game is that, except for leader and fortification counters, all of the units (including dummy and cavalry counters) are inverted unless revealed either by an enemy cavalry probe or as a result of an enemy attack; hence, the importance of the aforementioned “Hasty Attack/Probe Segment”. Cavalry, it should be noted, represents a special case: these weak but flexible units, when inverted, are treated just like infantry for command and control purposes; but, if deployed on the map face-up, they are allowed to operate independently of a friendly leader. In any case, the inevitable effect of the game’s “inverted counter” mechanic is to insure that, unlike most of the other games produced during this period, limited intelligence and misdirection heavily influence the turn-by-turn decision-making of both players.  
Victory in THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN is determined, on the basis of the opposing players’ final victory points tallies, at the conclusion of the last game turn. Because of the different strategic objectives of the two sides, these points can be amassed through the capture or occupation of geographical objectives, and through the destruction of enemy combat strength points. Like John Young’s other Civil war title, LEE MOVES NORTH, victory in this game comes in several different “flavors”; hence, different levels of victory ranging from Marginal to Decisive are all potential outcomes. Finally, I feel compelled to note that the game’s victory conditions seem — at least, based on my experience — to be skewed somewhat in favor of the South. This last is not really a fatal defect, but it does lead to a peculiar game anomaly; that is: based purely on the game’s victory conditions, Grant actually lost to Lee in the historical campaign. THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN offers three different game situations: the Wilderness to Cold Harbor game; the Cold Harbor to Petersburg game; and the complete Campaign game which ties the two shorter games together. In addition, the designer has included a number of what if? scenarios that can, at the discretion of the players, be applied to the various games to vary play or to adjust play- balance. There are no other “optional rules.” A PERSONAL OBSERVATION
Finally, I should also note that THE WILDERNESS CAMPAIGN was designed by one of my favorite SPI game designers: John Michael Young. This title is only one example of the many games designed by John Young during his relatively short career at SPI. As evidence of John’s versatility, his many designs dealt with historical topics as varied as ancient Rome, the first wide-spread individual use of firearms, the wars of Napoleon, the Crimean War, the American Civil War, and all the way up to, and including, the Second World War and beyond. I confess that — even after all these years — I am still a big fan of almost all of Young’s many games for the simple reason that his designs are usually innovative, interesting, playable, and fun. Thus, in spite of his tragic and untimely death many years ago, John Young has left behind a library of some of the best game designs that, in my opinion, SPI ever published. . Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Related Blog PostsSPI, LEE MOVES NORTH, (1973)SPI, THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR, (1972) Recommended ReadingSee 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
TAHGC, GETTYSBURG (1964)In the course of writing my memorial post on the recent passing of Charles Roberts — the founder of modern “adventure” gaming — I was reminded of an unfinished game profile that I had, for a variety of reasons, allowed to languish in my documents folder for over a year. The passing from the scene of Charles S. Roberts, however, finally moved me to complete this long-neglected game review and it is presented here. - JCBIII GETTYSBURG ’64 is a historical simulation of the critical battle between the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in 1863. This bloody three-day battle determined, more than any other single engagement between the Unionists and the Confederates that, however long the American Civil War might last, the South would not prevail. GETTYSBURG ’64 was designed by Charles Roberts and published by The Avalon Hill Game Company (TAHGC). The game profiled here is the 3rd edition of the game, reissued in 1964 after substantial changes from the earlier 1958 and 1961 versions. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 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 Yankees to abandon their attempt to forcibly compel the political reunification of the North and South. So, in spite of 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 in the summer of 1863. On 1 July, near 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 strong army continued to arrive, the Union commander immediately deployed them on the ridges to the south overlooking the now Confederate-occupied town. As night fell on the first day, the stage was already being set for the battle to be renewed as soon as the sun rose on 2 July, 1863.  In the Confederate camp, General Lee had some reason for optimism as darkness settled over the battlefield. Although his army had been unable to rout the Yankees completely, it had succeeded in pushing the Unionists back. On the first day of the fighting at Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virginia had attempted, without success, to break the Union Right; when the battle resumed on the second day, Lee had decided that he would shift his attention to a small brush and scrub covered hill on the Union Left, known locally as Little Round Top. 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 defending Cemetery Ridge below. The Confederate commander knew that if his men captured Little Round Top, 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   GETTYSBURG ’64 presents only one game situation: an hour-by-hour simulation of the entire three day battle; there are no shorter scenarios, so players who sit down to reprise the battlefield roles of Generals Lee and Meade must be prepared to slug it out for as many as forty-nine game turns. In addition, the designer includes only one “optional rule”: a short but somewhat awkwardly framed set of instructions for incorporating Hidden Movement into the play of the game. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION It took Avalon Hill three years, but in 1961, the second version of GETTYSBURG finally made its appearance; and in a form that was noticeably different from its predecessor. While Roberts had opted to make a number of alterations to his earlier design, the most significant (and obvious) change was that, while GETTYSBURG ’58 had made use of a square-grid map board, GETTYSBURG ’61 presented players with a hexagonal-grid playing area. Despite the game’s several improvements, it proved to be a commercial failure; neither Roberts nor the gaming public, it turned out, could muster much enthusiasm for the second edition changes, and in 1964, Avalon Hill reverted to the earlier design format and reissued the game yet again, this time in the square-grid version presented here. I purchased my own copy of GETTYSBURG ’64 in the late 1960’s and, after sitting though a couple of uninspiring play sessions, I put it aside in favor of BULGE ’65 and AFRIKA KORPS (1964) and did not look at the title again for almost twenty years. Interestingly, when I finally took up the game again, I discovered that, although the square-grid map design seemed antiquated and awkward, the combat system was actually more sophisticated and challenging than I had remembered. The combination of enfilade and down-hill attacks tended to make for very interesting tactical problems for both players, particularly where the defender was forced to create an angle by bending his line. To make a long story short: although I had barely played GETTYSBURG ’64 when I first purchased it, I ended up playing Robert’s Civil War game — both face-to-face and solitaire — more than twenty times on this second time around before I finally tired of it and moved on to other titles. Nowadays, of course, players can select from an extensive library of different game titles which, employing varying scales and levels of complexity, all attempt to simulate the Battle of Gettysburg. Even Avalon Hill returned to this popular topic two more times: first, with the somewhat disappointing GETTYSBURG ’77; and then again with the simpler, and much more popular, GETTYSBURG ’88. Thus, given the fact that there are currently a large number of Gettysburg games to choose from, the obvious question is: Who would most likely be interested in owning GETTYSBURG ’64? The short answer is that this title will probably mainly appeal to collectors; moreover, I personally believe that it also has enough play value to suit both soft-core Civil War buffs and casual gamers. However, those players who are looking for a richly-textured, highly-detailed simulation of the battle should, in all honesty, probably give GETTYSBURG ’64 a pass. The game was cutting edge in its day, but that day was almost fifty years ago. Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Recommended ReadingSee 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: B000MTBTEUAlso, 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 ArtworkThis 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.
RGA, LEE VS. MEADE (1974)
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 MeadeOn the morning of July 2nd, 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:
Game Components:
Universal ‘Command Series’ Components Required:
Recommended ReadingSee 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 ArtworkThis 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.
VG, THE CIVIL WAR (1983)
THE CIVIL WAR: 1861-1865 is a strategic level simulation of the American War Between the States. The game spans the years 1861-1865 and focuses on combat operations in the three main theaters of the Civil War: the East, the West, and the Trans-Mississippi. THE CIVIL WAR was designed by Eric Lee Smith and published by Victory Games, Inc. (VG) in 1983.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In the confused and chaotic days that immediately followed the outbreak of war between the anti-secessionist Northern States and the still-forming, pro-slavery Confederate States of America in the spring of 1861, clashes between the breakaway South and the Unionist North flared up repeatedly, particularly in the states that lay between the two belligerents; however, these actions were typically limited to relatively small-scale skirmishes between opposing bands of militia. Hence, although the War Between the States had actually begun with the Rebel attack on Union forces at Charleston, there had not been another major battle between Confederate and Federal troops in the four months following the surrender of Fort Sumter by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, on the 13th of April, 1861. Neither side, however, spent this period in complete idleness: volunteers were called up and new armies began to take shape on both sides of North-South divide. Finally, in mid-July, the 35,000 enthusiastic but poorly-trained Union troops bivouacked around Washington, D.C., stirred to action and began to lumber south. The Union commander, Brigadier General Irvin McDowell, although deeply skeptical about the battle-worthiness of his freshly-minted army, had at last reluctantly succumbed to political pressure and ordered his soldiers to move against the Confederate Capital at Richmond. Barring McDowell’s path were 20,000 Confederates under the command of the same Rebel general who had accepted Fort Sumter's surrender only a few months earlier, General P. T. Beauregard. The location and approximate strength of Beauregard's force was no mystery to McDowell; nor did its presence cause the head of the invading Federal army undue concern. Unbeknownst to the Union commander, however, an additional 12,000 Rebel soldiers from the Shenandoah Valley, under General J. E. Johnston, were already rushing to Beauregard’s aid. And by the time the slowly advancing Union troops at last encountered the first Confederate pickets, fresh reinforcements for Beauregard’s army were only miles away. The two opposing hosts — both composed mainly of green recruits and 90-day enlistees — spent the day after their initial contact with each other engaged in desultory sniping and minor skirmishing, but with no serious fighting. This brief period of relative calm did not last, however, and on 21 July, 1861, the two armies violently crashed into each other near the hamlet of Centerville, in Virginia.  The Union soldiers opened the battle with a flanking attack against the Confederate left, and for a time, Beauregard's troops were forced to give ground. Unfortunately for McDowell, Rebel reinforcements began to arrive just in time to shore up the wavering Confederate line. With the timely arrival of Johnston’s troops, the two armies were now almost evenly-matched. The Union soldiers, however, had been in almost constant action throughout the morning and were beginning to tire; gradually, the initiative shifted to Beauregard as Johnston’s fresh regiments continued to enter the fight. The seesaw battle lasted through most of the day, but by late afternoon, the battlefield belonged to Beauregard. Their unexpected defeat at Confederate hands quickly led to a breakdown in both the morale and the discipline of the green Union troops. And just as McDowell had feared, the Union retreat quickly turned into a rout. The confident, even eager, army that had marched out of Washington only a few days earlier, now fled back towards the same city largely as a disordered mob.  This action was the first real preview, for both sides of the conflict, of the true and tragic cost of the war that lay before them. Fourteen hundred and ninety-two Union troops had been killed and 1,600 taken prisoner, while the victorious Confederates’ losses numbered 1,752. Word of the outcome from the fighting at “Manassas” — also known as the “First Battle of Bull Run” — would produce rejoicing in the South, and shocked disbelief in the North. An unknown Union officer, without political connections, named William T. Sherman would first impress his military superiors with his courage and leadership during this bloody clash; while in the enemy camp, an obscure Confederate officer would, after this battle, ever after be known as Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Tragically for both sides, a political argument between countrymen had become a life-and-death war between states. And although neither the officers nor the men from either army who fought at Manassas on 21 July, 1861, could have known it at the time, the fight at Centerville had been the first major battle in what would ultimately become the deadliest war in American history.DESCRIPTION THE CIVIL WAR is primarily an army/corps level simulation of maneuver and ground combat during the war between the American North and South, 1861-65. The ground operations portion of the game, because it deals with the unique problems of a multi-year, continent-wide land war in the mid-nineteenth century, places special emphasis on what the designer perceives to be the three most important strategic challenges posed to both sides: leadership (which historical leaders command which armies where?); theater resource allocation (where will each side decide to concentrate their main effort?); and initiative (which side acts first during the Action Phase of each game-turn?). These three core game elements are both reasonable and comparatively standard fare in Civil War simulations presented on this scale. However, one aspect of the game’s design is particularly intriguing: this is the simulation’s requirement that players secretly choose a single one of the game map’s three operational theaters as the focus of their impending ground operations. This 'fog of war' aspect of the simulation can be important both to the flow and to the tempo of the game; if both players choose different theaters, for example, one player — typically the one without the 'initiative' — is very likely to find himself with serious operational problems. Thus, strategic misdirection and the lack of intelligence as to the enemy’s intentions and strength play a more significant role in this game than in many other large-scale simulations of the American Civil War.  Naval operations also play an important, if supporting, role in the long-range plans of both sides in the game. And, it should be noted, Eric Lee Smith does a nice job of keeping naval operations both interesting, exciting, and yet easy-to-perform for both players. The United States (Union), as was historically the case, has an enormous advantage over the Confederacy in the realm of sea-going and riverine combat power and capabilities. Nonetheless, naval operations are still relevant to both sides’ conduct of the war; nor is the Southern player completely helpless in the face of the powerful Union Navy. In the turn-to-turn play of THE CIVIL WAR, players will find that the naval conflict between the Confederate States of America (CSA) and the North has been highly abstracted. This part of the game concentrates on the three naval elements of greatest strategic significance to the outcome of the war: the Union sea blockade of Southern maritime commerce; the Southern effort to raid Northern shipping; and the Confederate campaign, using 'blockade runners' and 'ironclads', to break the commercial stranglehold imposed on Southern ports by the Union naval blockade. THE CIVIL WAR, from a purely graphics’ standpoint, is attractively packaged; and the game is, on the whole, nicely presented. The title’s components are generally good to very good: the counters are a little drab, but clearly-printed, and the maps are colorful and relatively unambiguous. One minor nit regarding the game maps: the Far West map section is — in my opinion, at least — so bland as to be almost off-putting. But, on the other hand, this theater of operations was historically so unimportant to the overall outcome of the war that most players will quickly find that its inclusion in the game — unless the Union player really wants to reprise Freemont’s failed campaign in the Far West, or unless both players want to drag the Southwestern Indian tribes into 'someone else’s' war — is easily dispensed with. The back-printed charts and tables for THE CIVIL WAR are uniformly clear and easy to use. The “Rules Booklet,” on the other hand, although reasonably well-written and fairly complete, seems a little too long and awkwardly organized. For this reason, while I personally found individual rules sections to be relatively clear as to the designer’s intent, I nonetheless found it to be impossible to conduct the first read-through of the game rules without repeated references to earlier sections and rules cases. This is not a big problem, but it does mean that new players should expect to spend a bit of time acquainting themselves with both the familiar and the unorthodox elements of the game’s design architecture.  Although it was designed (and is best) as a two-player game, THE CIVIL WAR can be played by teams. Each game turn in THE CIVIL WAR is equal to two months (except for the winter game-turn) and consists of an integrated, interactive sequence of play. The game turn sequence has eight steps: the Reinforcement Phase; the Command Phase; the CSA Commerce Raider Phase; the Blockade Effects Phase; the Action Phase; the Command Point Table Use Phase; the Rally Phase; and the End Phase. Considering the scope of THE CIVIL WAR as a simulation, these various player operations are neither particularly cumbersome nor tedious. In fact, most player operations are intuitively logical and proceed fairly quickly. This relative simplicity in the game’s design platform, however, is deceptive. Thus, no individual turn phase is unduly complicated or time-consuming, and the piece count, given the simulation’s overall size, is really quite manageable; nonetheless, the game is still richly layered with detail and, because of this fact, is surprisingly difficult to play well. In short, on any given game turn there is almost always a lot going on, both at the strategic and the operational level — even when both sides appear to be relatively inactive — and for this reason, it can be frustratingly easy to make mistakes.  Command and control, logistics, terrain, and manpower all play an important part in THE CIVIL WAR. However the proper use of leaders is, without doubt, the single most important consideration in the game. The Union player needs commanders like Grant and Sherman to spearhead his invasions of southern territory; the South depends on generals like Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet to move decisively during the Reaction Phase to block the invading Yankees as soon as they march into Rebel areas. This fact, however, does lead to the unrealistic player tactic of parking incompetent generals like McClellan and Butler well to the rear where they can do no real harm. Not surprisingly, long-term planning pays, but given the fluid nature of the game system, it is virtually certain that both players will suffer unexpected reversals. Of course, it can also reasonably be argued that the inevitable surprises and missteps that crop up in the course of play add a distinctly historical flavor to the simulation. Presidents Lincoln and Davis, after all, were both plagued by disobedient or incompetent subordinates, and experienced unexpected military setbacks and disappointments of their own; often because of factors completely outside of their direct control.  THE CIVIL WAR offers four basic scenarios: the 1861 Scenario; the 1862 Scenario; the 1863 Scenario; and the 1864 Scenario. Players interested in simulating the entire Civil War may opt to expand the scope of the game to include operations on the American Frontier by adding the Far West Option. In addition, the game offers a number of what-if(?) Optional Rules — for example, Jackson and Lyons aren’t killed, cavalry use in intelligence gathering, changes in restrictions on army sizes and placement, and others — from which the players can pick and choose. These additional rules options can be used either to add variety or more realism to a specific scenario, or alternatively, to adjust play-balance between unequal opponents.The victory conditions, as might be expected, vary according to the scenario being played. They are also, thankfully, both intuitively logical and historically reasonable. As was the case in the real war, the political significance of attaining certain geographical objectives, particularly the control of the Border States are often central to both players’ plans. Play balance in THE CIVIL WAR, although far from perfect, seems to fall within acceptable bounds; which is to say that, with skillful play, either side has a decent chance of winning. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION All and all, weighing the pros against the cons, THE CIVIL WAR is a very good game. And while it certainly is not a “ground-breaking” new treatment of the war between the North and South, designer Eric Lee Smith still manages to successfully meld a number of traditional gaming concepts with a few clever design wrinkles of his own to produce a well-balanced and exciting simulation. Moreover, despite its size, it is actually, once players become comfortable with the game mechanics, surprisingly playable. Still, all that being said, most players will still want to ask: how does this title stack up against other similar Civil War games? The short answer to this question, I would argue, is probably “better than most.” However, even this answer really depends on which titles this game is being matched against. Set against games like FOR THE PEOPLE and THE WAR FOR THE UNION, Smith’s design looks pretty good, particularly if a player is biased against 'Card Driven Games' (CDG) like FOR THE PEOPLE. But there’s a rub. Because of the subject matter and scale of the game, the temptation to contrast THE CIVIL WAR with Irad Hardy’s WAR BETWEEN THE STATES (WBTS) is well-nigh unavoidable. Unfortunately, this is not an easy comparison to make: the games are simply so very different in concept and execution.Hardy’s older (1977) WBTS design places far more emphasis on the historical problems that arose from the mobilization and organization of the manpower and economic resources of the North and South. The weekly game turns and low movement factors of the ground units, combined with the virtually perfect information available to both players about the disposition of enemy forces, means that campaigns have to be planned well in advance. Sweeping maneuvers and stunning surprises are, with the exception of rail and naval movement, almost never a factor in the game. Moreover, the combat and leadership rules for WAR BETWEEN THE STATES, although somewhat cumbersome, tend to reproduce the bloody and inconclusive battlefield results that actually characterized most of the engagements fought during the Civil War. The issue of leadership illuminates another frustrating, but historically accurate facet of WBTS: leaders are so scarce — particularly in the early phases of the war — that both sides have no choice but to place incompetent generals in positions of command. And then there is the Strategic Production Cycle that shows up every four game turns. Some players love this aspect of the game, and others just hate it. However, for those McClellan-style plodders, like me, who actually enjoy a heavy dose of administrative and organizational detail, WBTS is probably still the best strategic simulation — despite its several well-documented flaws — ever published on the War for Southern Independence. Eric Lee Smith’s 1983 design, THE CIVIL WAR, takes a very different approach to America’s bloodiest conflict from that of Irad Hardy’s WAR BETWEEN THE STATES. The two-month game turns and limited intelligence baked into THE CIVIL WAR game system makes for a much more dynamic and free-wheeling (read: nerve-racking) gaming experience. Major surprises are almost nonexistent in SPI’s WBTS; they seem to be almost commonplace in Smith’s newer simulation. By the way, one nice little historical touch in THE CIVIL WAR that is usually absent from games on this subject is that, as the war progresses and the Union naval blockade really starts to bite, Confederate rail capacity steadily deteriorates. This is a little detail, but it is one of many that give Smith’s design its unique flavor. On the down-side, several of the subroutines in THE CIVIL WAR seem almost too simple; and the outcomes of battles, although bloody enough, seem somewhat more decisive than was the case historically. That being said, Smith’s Victory Games design will probably appeal more to the R.E. Lee or Grant-style gamer than WBTS would. THE CIVIL WAR may not have the historical simulation chops that WBTS does, but it is still a richly-textured and challenging treatment of America’s costliest war. So where does all this leave us? I suppose that one way to put it is that, if I, personally, could only own one Civil War monster game, then, hands down, that game would have to be WBTS; if, on the other hand, I could add one more Civil War monster to my collection, then that second game would probably be THE CIVIL WAR. This is not to say that the Victory Games title is for everyone. This is not a simple game; and learning its game system, even for experienced players, takes a bit of work. For this reason, while THE CIVIL WAR is a good choice for those seasoned players interested in a detailed treatment of this tragic page from American history; given the sheer scope and complexity of its design, this title is probably a very poor choice for the inexperienced or casual gamer. Alternatively, for those novice or casual players who would like to own a smaller, more manageable (read: non-monster) game that still covers the entire Civil War, and not just a single battle — and for experienced players looking for a great 'beer and pretzels' game, as well — I strongly recommend GDW’s little gem of a game, A HOUSE DIVIDED, in any of its several versions. This title is an excellent game in its own right; it is also a challenging, fun, and very playable alternative to the other more complex simulations discussed in this profile. Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Recommended ReadingSee 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 ArtworkThis 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Popular Posts
About Me
My Nephew Joe and Three Marine Buddies
|
