from GMT GAMES 400 counters, two backprinted 22 x 34 maps, system rules book, scenario rules book, 1862 update pamphlet, 2 charts & tables cards, 2 dice. Published by: GMT Games, 310 W. Lacey Blvd., Hanford, CA 93230 . $37 The Civil War game market has always been a lively one; except for WWII games, there are more ACW titles than any other era. Unlike WWII games, though, the biggest area of proliferation has not been in the operational/strategic arena but in "battle" games. A recent anthology of ACW titles by Jamie Adams lists 30+ operational and strategic-level games; it contains almost four times that number of battle games. There are nine titles on Shiloh, alone . . . and that doesn't include the recent FGA game or Blue & Gray I. (That's about half of the number of games on Gettysburg. But that compilation is swollen by Avalon Hill's desultory efforts to get it right, a level of success which, so far, has eluded them.) Suffice to say, Civil War battles are popular. And no designer has been more Civil War prolific than Richard Berg (ed. a distant relative of the publisher of this estimable sheet). Of the over 40 games he has published, almost 50% are Civil War titles! In 1989 he even formed a company - Simulation Design, Inc. - to publish designs using his "Great Battles of the American Civil War" system. Along with Simulation Design's three GBACW releases in '89 and '90 came a Civil War "quad" game, 1862. The game system was designed by Rob Markham, who had done some previous, albeit botched, work for S&T (cf. Campaigns in the Valley and The Indian Mutiny) along with some interesting WWII titles (Raid on St. Nazaire, for AH, and the similar Pegasus Bridge, for S&T). Markham designed a new system in the tradition of the old - but highly popular - SPI Blue and Gray Quad, which SDI dubbed "The Battles and Leaders Series," mostly for marketing purposes. Many gamers had experienced the Blue & Gray quads at some point. But the hopelessly out-of-date, simplistic, quasi-Nappy at Waterloo mechanics left much to be desired in terms of historicity. Somewhere between those classic quads and the GBACW-type games (or even The Gamers' Brigade series) was a void - a need for a concise, fast-playing, yet relatively accurate Civil War game covering major battles, using a state-of-the-art system. Many expected SDI's 1862 to be the answer. And it was. Unfortunately, it was the wrong answer. 1862 was a classic "turkey." It lacked adequate development, had major system problems, offered numerous physical inadequacies, and received several negative reviews - all of which were well deserved. The rules - which included the by-now, infamous "Opportunity Exception", a rule of massive incomprehensibility - were overbaked and underdone. The graphics, except for the box cover, were, at best, sterile. They were rarely, though, at their best. The Antietam scenario had more historical laughers than a John Jakes novel, and the rather fun, Seven Pines battle was unplayable using the tacked-on Turn Continuation system. (Ed. Markham's original sequence of play used a somewhat tiresome, chit-picking system which Berg discarded like a used lottery ticket . . . in favor of his, at-the-time, paramourish TCT.) In all, it was a disaster. Some of the problem was in the system, but most was in Berg's failure to perceive, as developer, what would work and what wasn't. Despite adequate sales, Berg and SDI promised to eventually "correct" this problem by personally redeveloping the Battles and Leaders system for SDI's next Civil War quad, 1863. (He also promised new counters for Cedar Creek, but we haven't seen any sign of those lately, have we.) Re-emergence In the interim, Simulation Design ceased active publishing and sold the title to GMT games. GMT maitre'd, Gene Billingsley, liked the idea of the game but insightfully perceived that it needed to be made much simpler to succeed. Prodded by Billingsley, Berg did some experimentation with the system for the S&T game, Rio Grande. Using information gained from that design, he effected massive changes in the B&L series. 1863, this time, appears to be much closer to what was anticipated with 1862. Fortunately, 1863 shares only a few, fundamental concepts with its older sibling. The torn and tattered "Battles and Leaders" mechanics have been given a thorough overhaul, resulting in a rather unique system with varying scale and complexity. This "new" system bears only passing resemblance to the original Battles and Leaders. If anything, it's closer to the GBACW games - or better yet, a "GBACW Jr." What helps 1863 work is that it comes with two different Play Sequences: the Basic Rules and the Advanced system. The heart of the Basic system is a somewhat conventional, integrated turn sequence: first player moves, shoots, and melees; second player moves, shoots, and melees. The turn's "integration" lies mostly in the fact that after the first player fires, the second may return fire (fire results are applied simultaneously). Plus the defender can "react" by retreating before combat. Artillery can fire - at range - before the move/fight phases, right after initiative is determined (i.e. who's first player; who's second). And after all of that, both players get a second movement opportunity, although one in which combat is forestalled. The advanced game is the Basic Game built around a simplified version of the TCT system (of GBACW fame) which allows extensive use of leaders - which are, in turn, employed in a quasi-GBACW fashion. (Optional rules also allow leaders to be used in the basic game.) The advanced system actually adds little in the way of complexity; what's increased, mostly, is playing time and die-rolling. With optional systems for Command Morale, as well as other, added leader features, the system actually has four levels of complexity. Combat Units Combat units range from demi-brigades (in Brandy and Freddy II) to demi-divisions (in G'burg and Mine Run). They have two (rarely) or four (usually) strength steps, and they are differentiated on the terrain charts and in the combat tables. Given the 200 to 400 yard per hex scale, artillery is the only unit type which can employ ranged fire. Combat units have morale levels, but the level is solely a function of step loss. (Optional, advanced rules include morale on a larger scale: Command Morale.) Morale affects only combat; there are no "morale checks" per se. Units rout only after they have been disordered and then "fail" a rally attempt at the end of a turn. Combat results are applicable to the period: artillery fire causes disorder (and some, minimal, step loss), melee causes retreats (and step losses when odds get close), and "fire" combat causes attrition (step loss). The latter is simply the application of a unit's strength points into a particular hex, while melee is the traditional odds/ratio, voluntary combat with semi-rigid ZOCs. The game's overall "feel" is similar to that of the GBACW games, but on a different, and much simpler, level (and scale). In this case, however, you will not have to (or get to, depending on your point of view) deal with the dirty details of formations, limbered artillery, abandoned guns, gun crews, LCE, BCE, etc, etc. And best of all, there is NO, I repeat NO, pencil-and-paper, record keeping in this game - whatsoever (for those allergic to such machinations). GBACW zealots should feel completely at home with this new tactical/operational level system. Physically, the game is solid. The larger, 19mm hexes are a nice touch; they do wonders for playability. Rodger Mac Gowan's striking box cover art, and Mark Simonitch's clean, logically arranged maps, clearly stand out - as does all of their work. Rick Pavek's counters use silhouettes, color coordinated to their leaders in fashion similar to TSS 2nd Ed. The color looks nice, but I wish an alternative to silhouettes could be found. 16 years of the same symbols is about enough. There are four battles in the game, all occuring in the Eastern Theatre of 1863. (Actually, for all intents and purposes, they are ALL the major battles from that time and place.) The common thread among all four of these battles is, not suprisingly, the Confederacy's numerical disadvantage. Playing the CSA will always provide the greater challenge. Although special scenario rules may hinder one side or the other for various ineptitudes (like the Union's command problems at Mine Run), it's the victory conditions that ultimately direct the players' approach and the battle's progression. "Gettysburg's" victory conditions are centered on unit losses and objective hexes (especially those on Cemetery Hill). This is the bloodiest battle in the quartet - casualties will usually be horrendous. Because of its sheer excitment value, large scale and good balance, G'burg is best suited for face-to-face play. "Brandy Station" tends to unfold rather unpredictably, as there are no clear-cut objectives for each player. The historical variants (mostly concerning the arrival of Duffie's divisions) are nice, but they will affect balance. Playing the CSA is clearly the greater challenge. When an entire Union cavalry brigade dismounts their firepower makes them nearly invincible against the CSA's mounted cavalry, unless they can be flanked. Even if Confederate cavalry dismounts, the Union still enjoys a considerable advantage - in several respects. The rebel troopers must rely on their speed and morale. What makes the scenario most interesting is the interaction of the relative advantages/disadvantages of mounted vs dismounted cavalry. The most disappointing aspect of "2nd Fredericksburg" (the eastern portion of the battle of Chancellorsville) is its victory conditions. They're the "exit-unit-off-the-board" type, a type of which I'm not a big fan. In what is an already numerically unbalanced situation (favoring the Union) the players' objectives do not serve their purposes well. The Union will usually win this Confederate nightmare, and, unless the Confederate retreats continuously (and slowly), the Union's giant divisions will grind the Reb brigades into hamburger. If you like running for your life, Freddy's it. But, do it solitaire; finding someone to play the CSA side will be difficult. Of the four, "Mine Run" is clearly the sleeper. This game was originally slated for publication in Command #2. As alternate history (the battle never actually took place), it would appear to be XTR Heaven. Meade could have attacked a retreating Lee in the Wilderness, in November, in what might have meant the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. But, as one may easily surmise, it wasn't quite that simple. From the Union's command ineptness to the effects of weather and the thick "Wilderness" terrain (players can chop down the trees!), this is a fascinating look at realistic, historical possibilities. Although, on sheer numbers, balance seems biased in favor of the Union, those numbers provide a "false positive". With luck playing a role - as it usually does - the game game turns out to have good balance. And once the entire system has been mastered, "Mine Run" is at its best when all optional and advanced rules are employed. Physical Minuses There are some physical minuses; the most irritating of which is the rulebook's graphic quality (not to mention a few amusing typos). The two-column format, and the small, but widely spaced, typeface, look shoddy at best. Even worse is something you will not find in this set of rules: a table of contents. While this is a relatively short rulebook (16 pages), the lack of a TOC is strange. Even stranger, however, is the game's lack of sufficient utility counters. Why is it always assumed the gamer will be able to "provide" the necessary counters? These games are expensive; all the pieces should be there. Finally, the bottom line: price. SDI's 1862 was $28 in '90; GMT's 1863 is $37 in '91. Both games have similar components. While I feel 1863's price is unjustified, the fact that there is a real game lurking under the cover, one that works, is what really counts when considering price. Given 1862's condition when it was released, it was worth less (or worthless - whichever you prefer). As an addendum, 1863 contains a four-page pamphlet which enables owners of 1862 to adapt the new rules and system (if not the graphics) to their old game. The quad has come of age. 1863 couples this popular concept to an historically responsible and realistic game system, with battles that are fast playing and exciting (what's more exciting than Gettysburg?). Richard Berg has not sold out completely to gameplay in what is his most playable game effort yet. (And he can thank Gene Billingsley for that.) So, if 1863's sales warrant, we may well see an 1862 II. I, for one, hope to see many more games using this system. Say goodbye to your old Blue and Grays; there's a new kid on the block. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Physical Quality: Great boxcover and map layout; good, colorful, counters; fair rules booklets; not enough utility counters. Playability: Very high for Basic Game. Advanced Game requires more time, but is just as playable. Historicity: It's a Berg game. When has he ever done a game lacking in historicity? Nothing's changed here, although Mine Run, a battle that never actually occurred, is alternate history (sort of). Playing Time: Expect play times to range from 2-6 hours - more with slower opponents. Comparisons: A stepping-stone between the "small-but-dumb" specials (viz., Blue & Gray [SPI] and Civil War Classics [FGA]) and the larger, more incisive (and complex) treatments by The Gamers and the GBACW series. Although the mechanics are much different, it is a good replacement for the out-of-print South Mountain system games (West End). Overall: High levels of playability and varying levels of complexity make for a well-rounded, valuable, package. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II #2 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com