I have often watched gamers in stores heft a box to see how heavy it is before buying. I assume they want to determine if it contains substantively weighty design thinking on the topic. While toiling under the suzerainty of Eric the Dot at Victory I even considered using lead lined paper, or adding a brick to the box, just to boost sales. But a far cleverer person than I came up with a more solid idea: use wooden pieces. The idea has actually been around for almost two decades, a fact creator Tom Dalgliesh noted upon being presented with his GAMA/Origins Award for Best Game, 1992 (EastFront): "I came up with the idea for using wooden blocks back in 1975. I'd like to thank GAMA for their quick recognition of my creativity." Well noted … and, despite the delay, well earned. Columbia Games have a style all their own. If you haven't seen one you probably don't go to Wargame stores much. Their signature trademark is the use of domino-like wooden blocks to represent units, giving the game an elegant rotating casualty system that also creates a nice Fog of War. The early Columbia efforts, such as Quebec 1759, 1812 and Napoleon (which has been redesigned and recently re-released) tended to be simplistic yet fun to play. However, they all suffered from a move-shoot format with almost no OB content worth mentioning, together with a total absence of Command or Logistics considerations. That began to change in the eighties with the arrival of Craig Besinque and the release of Rommel in the Desert. A very clever system for incorporating logistics, using cards, added an interesting dimension of operational tempo and logistics. It certainly wasn't the ultimate simulation, but it provided a very tense gaming experience. Then they struck gold in 1991 with EastFront and, a year later, WestFront. Now the Columbiads have turned their attention to the ever-popular American Civil War. Bobby Lee is an operational game covering the Eastern theater of operations from 1861 to 1865 in four seasonal scenarios and a full campaign game. Units are Infantry divisions, Cavalry brigades, composite Artillery/ Infantry groups and army HQ's. Visually the game is very pretty with good graphics and all of those fun wooden blocks. The rules are well written with a few exceptions. Warning: some assembly is required. You have to affix the unit symbols to the blocks. It takes about 15 minutes, and, unless you are a total klutz, it's not very hard… although make sure you get them on correctly the first time. The American Civil War was a war of maneuver, constrained by logistics and dominated by personalities. The battles were notable in that most were bloody, indecisive, and devoid of operational pursuit. In the West the river system allowed for rapid maneuver along the river highways, whereas any offensive into the interior of the Confederacy entailed measured advances constrained by the railroads. How does Bobby Lee meet this criteria? Does the game accurately portray this non-linear, maneuver warfare, or is it Battlecry with blocks? All maneuver and campaigning relies upon the use of Headquarters blocks, the activation of which allows a player to move every friendly unit that is within range of the HQ. It also reduces the HQ's "value" by one, which means that, at some point, it is going to have to regroup. Additionally, the actual duration of the game turn is determined by the amount of logistics each player is willing to spend in activations. This is a nice, overall mechanic that makes the sequence of play fairly flexible and allows for interesting player interactions. However, one of the first things that you will notice upon setting up any of the scenarios is that the stacking rules create a structure similar in appearance to a Ziggurat. Moving the ANV is like pushing a huge stack of poker chips in for that final, bluff-em-out-of-his-shirt bet. A modicum of dexterity is required if you wish to avoid having your opponent yell "avalanche!". Movement, itself, carries two important distinctions, moving without fighting and moving into a fight. The former allows units to traverse the map to the limits of their movement allowance, while Moving into a fight limits the number of combat units that can cross the hexsides of the battle site based on the terrain type (and Mud). Choosing when and where to fight is important, because how quickly a side can bring its forces to bear determines its offensive or defensive potential during the Battle. This requires a large number of interesting player decisions, and mastering them are essential if the South is to have any offensive capability. Player skill truly matters, not a simple thing to design into a game. Putting movement into further perspective, Lee can move the ANV from Fredericksburg to Harpers Ferry in two activations and arrive at Gettysburg in three. Grant can move the AoP from Culpeper to Richmond in two activations and Petersburg in three. This part feels right but herein a problem arises. Since the major armies for both sides (ANV and AoP) can have up to four activations (all others are three) before "regrouping", the Confederacy has little operational maneuver advantage. As a consequence, it is hard for the South to outmaneuver the North to any great extent since their HQ range advantage is offset by the unlimited stacking per hex that allows the AoP to shadow any Southern maneuver with its entire force. Moreover, the scale of the map and small movement allowances will often allow the Union to counter with its large stacks, neutralizing most of this theoretical Confederate advantage, forcing them to attack an already concentrated force. The game effectively handles the span of control, but, by simplifying operational control, most Southern maneuver advantages are nullified. Winning with the South, as in most Civil War games, is a challenge. I like the way the system plays and the potential within it - especially the rather elegant methodology for implementing Rail and Naval Movement - but, between two good players, the North should be able to avoid any 2nd Manassas-style surprises. Whatever rules problems exist are within the Battle rules. Battles are off board, in a pseudo-tactical arrangement, with combat resolution based on variations of a six-sided die roll between units in contact determining hits (based on unit type, terrain and offensive or defensive posture). Unit attrition is marked off by rotating the damaged units to reduce their strength. When a unit takes its last hit it is removed from play. There is a penalty cost to bring a unit back from the dead pile, so it is prudent to take units with one remaining hit out of combat prior to their destruction. The only tactical variation between the two sides is that Southern Infantry divisions at full strength are four as compared to the Northern three, whereas Northern artillery is four versus a Southern three. If I have a particular problem with the game, it's that, at this level, the game is far too homogeneous. Moreover, this system works well enough with large forces but falls apart when there are less than three units on one or both sides. Pursuit is obtuse as are some of the subtleties covering assault on fortification but certainly not a show stopper. I have a higher tolerance for this than many, but a close friend of mine was far less kind. Overall the rules are understandable, but read them before trying to get directly into a game with a friend. To the game's credit it handles the bugaboo of gaming, logistics in a very reasonable and interesting manner. Replacement points are used to buy logistics (replace or increase HQ strengths) and augment/ replace combat losses. This gives the players interesting choices between operational tempo and force structure. As a reflection of superior Confederate leadership, Southern HQ's are cheaper to replace and raise in strength. In play this mechanic is painless and interesting. Since the players are unaware as to the identity of the augmented or replaced units, the fog of war is as thick as pea soup. Fog of War, of course, is the system's great strength, and it is "gamed" far better than anything else out there. You just don't know what is going on. Then again, since there are no dummy counters, it doesn't take a genius, to figure out that that huge Tower of Pisa moving toward you means Heavy Trouble. There are rules for Supply, but as long as a unit can trace a supply line, or forage, there is nothing to worry about. There is also an interesting rule for the Emancipation Proclamation and declaring Drafts. The game often surprises you with its sophistication and elegance, this small political dimension being one of them. I liked Bobby Lee because it is my ideas of what an ACW game should be about: maneuver. Yes, the map scale and the stacking rules often conspire to neutralize much that is theoretically possible within the system. But, it is fun to play, the system requires some very interesting player decisions, and it is guaranteed to meet the most discriminating and important of all game buying decisions. It weighs a lot. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: Beautiful. Playability: Rules are basically clear, but assimilating all of the possibilities takes a couple of plays. No solitaire. Replayability: Due to the fog of war effect, quite high. Creativity: A surprisingly sophisticated design, especially in its breadth. Historicity: Strategically pretty good, but that's where it ends. Comparisons: Not as historically insightful as Stonewall Jackson's Way or the Clash of Arms Area system. However, it's a lot more playable. Overall: A good time, with a touch of historicity thrown in. from COLUMBIA GAMES One 22"x25" cardboard mapsheet; one 6"x10" battleboard; 84 hardwood pieces, with mount-em-yourself, stick-ons; Rules Book, Deployment Charts; Boxed Columbia Games, POB 3457, Blaine WA 98231. $45. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 11 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com