The original Terrible Swift Sword (SPI) was the first monster game I actually played and enjoyed. Sure, it was a tad goofy and a bit simple-minded (I remember watching my opponent furiously making entrenchment markers in a mad attempt to entrench the entire Union army, yelling "Maginot! Maginot" with a demonic gleam in his glazed eyes), but it was great fun. The second edition, compliments of TSR, featured a bit more reality (and some rather fru-fruish pink hills) but still retained much of the original system's fun … while eliminating much of the goofiness (including the ability of artillery to run up to defending units, unlimber, and unload without so much as a whimper from the defender). The GBACW system quickly became the Civil War system of choice for most boardgamers. Now, the system’s progenitor, Richard Berg, has once more returned to Gettysburg and redesigned the GBACW system, yet again, this time for the ‘90s. In editing “Volunteers” (a magazine devoted to the ACW), I could sense through the letters that crossed my desk the generally high level of expectation and anticipation that the announcement of the new 3DoG raised among my readership, the most avid ACW gamers in existence. The interest level dramatically heightened when news began to leak out that it would not use Berg's TCT system. While TCT had its adherents, the general consensus was that it didn't work well enough to make up for the reduction in playability that it caused. Sure, it simulated the confusion of the battle field, but many people like their battlefields clean, clear, and understandable. It also added another level of die rolls that, strangely (considering the Wristcon-4 level of wristage already present), many gamers complained about. This never affected me, since I normally get the cortisone shots for both wrists before I began any extended gaming period (a fact which some reviewers of my designs have, no doubt, already surmised). Richard Berg obviously listened to his critics (Ed. Critics? I have critics? Where? Just show ‘em to me, and I’ll give them what for!), and 3DoG is his response. Based on his LIM (Leader Initiative Markers) system first used in GMT's Battles of Waterloo (Ed. …but, in truth, originally designed for Gringo, which was supposed to be a forerunner to 3DoG), Berg is once again approaching the central problem of simulating the confusion of the battlefield in game design. As a game designer, I eagerly awaited the results. In late August, 3DoG showed up at my doorstep in all its detergent-sized box glory. Since then it has occupied a large part of my gaming time. Together with my usual gaming group, Mark Seaman, Alex Kachevsky, and Brian Mulvihill (the same savvy, determined, and, at times, easily befuddled group that has playtested each of my designs for the tainted-but-sainted 3W), I prepared to play the Second Day scenario. While I read the rules, punched and clipped the pieces, and set up the maps, my friends followed a strenuous diet and exercise program to reach peak playing condition. Finally ready, we each said good-bye to our loved ones, made sure food and water were set aside, background music selected, and then we were hermetically sealed in my gaming room for the duration of the playtest. My first task, even before the testing began, was to select the music that would kick off the gaming experience. Instinctively, my hand chose the jewelbox of Bruckner's First Symphony. Sometimes, the subconscious creates links that I will explain later. Once the door had been secured, we looked at the set up for the first time. The immediate reaction was how great the maps looked, even with the much-discussed, curious white spots. We all agreed that this is the best looking game map of Gettysburg that we had ever seen. Even if the game were to turn out terrible, the maps made 3DoG well worth owning, even with the blemishes. The counters likewise looked great, except for one detail that would greatly impede play: it was exceedingly difficult to differentiate leaders from combat units. If you'll recall, TSS used a strikingly different background color to help make commanders easier to spot. I hope, in future games, that GMT will consider this option. It would facilitate play, and, really, shouldn't that be the underlying goal of good game graphics? Time to tackle 3DoG’s highly interactive system. Each turn begins with an Initial Segment that contains three phases. The first phase is an Initiative Phase, wherein turn initiative is determined; then players designate brigades for fatigue recovery (this is optional, but given the size of the game and the length of a game turn, why not go all the way) and reorganize the LIMs on their Chain of Command Chart. Remember to keep this chart neat and up to date, because it is essential to the flow of the turn that this part be well organized. Next comes the Efficiency Allocation Phase, the heart of the command system. Leaders are either at Maximum Efficiency or Reduced Efficiency. At the beginning of this phase, each player rolls to determine if his army commander is at Maximum Efficiency or not. If the army commander is at ME, he may select to either place one corps commander within “extended” range in ME, or do the same for any division commanders within his “normal” range. Once this has been decided, each player then secretly resolve which of his division commanders will be given ME by their corps commanders. RE markers are then placed on all other division commanders. Unfortunately, I never had enough RE markers, since I usually failed my army leader's ME die roll. The Pool Placement Phase then follows. The player with initiative decides which of his units with ME will start the Army Activation Phase. The rest of all leaders with ME then have their LIMs removed from the Chain of Command Chart and placed in an opaque container. If the overall artillery commander is on the map, the artillery barrage LIM may also be included. Now begins the first Activation Segment. As each ME command is activated (i.e. drawn from the opaque container) the units do the following, in order: move and/ or fire (players may also choose instead to re supply, rally, or construct breastworks), and finally to initiate shock combat. Then the next LIM is chosen, and so forth, until all of the chits have been pulled and actions taken. Then part B of the Activation Segment, Reinforcement Strategic Movement Phase occurs. This segment allows units away from actual fighting to keep moving at a fairly rapid clip without resorting to turn-by-turn orders. One of the many decisions a player must make is when to take his commands out of StratMove mode. We then go to part C of the Activation Segment. The player with initiative selects one of his unused Division LIM and places the rest in the opaque container, while his opponent does the same. Then, as commands are drawn and activated, the player may attempt a brigade efficiency die roll for each brigade leader (for which they are all rated), which is modified by the division commander's DRM, if the brigade leader is within the division commander's command span. If there is no dieroll, the brigade is at RE. If successful, the brigade is considered at ME; if it fails, the player must use the brigadier’s Action Profile rating to see what happens, a dieroll that produces some interesting results, to say the least. Units at ME function normally and conduct their activation just as the units in the initial activation phase did. Units at RE have restricted movement and fire. They may not enter an enemy ZOC, but they may perform shock. Once all of these LIMs have been drawn, the Out-of-Command Phase occurs, with further restrictions, and the turn concludes. Obviously, the turn is structured by the demands of the command system. In fact, all other systems are made subservient to the command system, just as, in the original, it was the combat systems that took full center stage. This is not to say that there aren't interesting changes in the old GBACW movement and combat systems. First and foremost, Berg has borrowed GDW's old Torgau system for fire as being a function of movement. Just as there, the tactical feel imparted by this construct is excellent. Unfortunately, there are problems with cavalry being too powerful (because of their large movement rates), although this has been ameliorated by the rather large collection of errata growing around the game. Artillery may also move and fire, although in more limited fashion than in the original TSS. One of the interesting reactions to watch during our playtest was how individuals reacted to the elimination of some of the sacred cows of the old GBACW system. Eschewing bookkeeping, Brigade Effectiveness, a checking off of losses in the old system, has been replaced by Combat Ineffectiveness in the new. When more than half of a brigade's units have collapsed, the brigade becomes ineffective. While it does eliminate one chore, it requires that players keep careful track of their brigades, even when they probably would rather not. (I noticed that I would occasionally say to myself, “no need to check on that brigade,” even though my opponent usually had the exact opposite feeling). Artillery supply is likewise abstracted. No longer do you check off each round fired. Instead, the wrong die roll can leave your guns empty, while the right die rolls can keep your guns popping endlessly. This became a much discussed point during the playing (further proving that gamers do have lives; they're just dancing to a different paradigm). The ammo supply of mounted units became another area of down right hostility. Why is it that a dismounted cavalry unit resupplies by mounting up? Or more importantly, cavalry never is out of ammo if mounted? [Ed. They carried sufficient supply.] My guess is that in pre-publication playtesting, cavalry was never used as armor, which I'm sure some gamers have done since the release of the game. [Ed. Right there, Mr. Rob.] The game itself plays at the rate of about 2 and a half to 3 hours a turn, which means that the Second Day scenario took us quite awhile to play. When the door was unsealed, and we straggled out, we felt like we had been in a battle. Oh, sure, a couple of us were babbling a bit, but nothing that a few days in the hospital and support from the family couldn't overcome. To play the campaign game in a reasonable time period, my guess is that caffeine would have to be supplied intravenously throughout the experience. Once I recovered, I played the first day scenario solitaire, and found that, with fewer units and more familiarity, the game moved much better. By the time everyone arrive, and the turns slowed, I was so far under its spell that I continued until the Confederates had taken Cemetery Ridge. One aspect that has no bearing on the game’s allure is whether or not it is balanced. Who knows? Only repeated playings can determine that, and given that I didn't have three years to determine that before I wrote the review, and that I have a real job, that falls outside my parameters. You play for 450 hours, you really care who wins? 3DoG is nothing if not challenging. Berg has created a system that questions many of our preconceptions based on previous systems. The other recent Gettysburg game, XTR’ and Chris Perello’s Fateful Lightning, did much the same thing. On that alone, I can recommend 3DoG, but with some provisos. First, you need all of the extensive errata. As with any new system on this scale, it's only when it has been published that all of the wacky abuses of the system come to light. If you play within the framework of the Civil War, the system is pretty clear. If you play to win and don't care how, choose another game. This is not a game you're going to go to Origins to play in a five round tournament. Secondly, the game takes a great deal of time to play, and if you feel you can do without another Gettysburg game, then by all means wait until the next game in the series comes out. It looks like it's going to be Twin Peaks (South Mountain and Cedar Mountain in one package, two battles that I know I eagerly await with cash in hand). (Ed. And thanks for the neat title, Robbo!] However, if you are like me, the second reservation doesn't mean a thing, because you want 3DoG right there on your shelf, and you'll content yourself with playing the first day and planning wistfully to get to the campaign game when you retire. Oh yes, Bruckner. Old Anton’s First Symphony was actually a remake of his “Zero” symphony, changed almost note for note. Bruckner’s 1st is a huge, somewhat jumbled affair, that nevertheless has moments of intensity and sheer beauty. At its heart, under all its massiveness, is a simple, elegant statement. The same could be said for 3DoG. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Except for the white spots, the map is beautiful. Leaders mar an otherwise great looking set of counters. Playability: This is a high-end complexity game that takes a while to play. Still, given the scale, rather elegant and playable. Replayability: The raison d’etre for all G’burg games, this one is no different. Wristage: No pain, no gain. 3 weeks of cross-training recommended. Historicity: Excellent. Creativity: Used in large doses to challenge preconceptions. Not your father’s TSS. Comparisons: This is the one you’ve all been waiting for. More interesting than either of its predecessor TSS’s, albeit not as playable until some of the system is cleaned up. Fateful Lightning, which I found to be a bit weird, is better at showing a broader, big battle picture (3DoG tends to micromanage), and as for the brigade-level Thunder at the Xroads, both games focus on command. However, TX is interested in command dissemination, while 3DoG focus more on the capabilities of leaders within the command hierarchy. Ultimately, they’re all good games; it depends on what you want out of what you play. Overall: Audacious and loquacious. Floats like a B-52 and stings like an H-bomb. This is an interesting start to a new series. I look forward to the next installment. Three 22" by 34" unmounted maps; 1,680 die-cut 1/2" counters; 36 page rules book; 12 page scenario booklet; 8 cardstock charts. Boxed, from GMT, POB 1308, Hanford, CA 93232. $60 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 20 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 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