I have been appointed, it appears, the official BROG computer game reviewer. One, I know something about games. Two, I have an IBM computer, a sine qua non for playing the things these days. Lastly, my social life has been a shambles lately, so staring at a screen for hours on end seems to be a welcome respite. Anyway, it represents BROG’s burgeoning commitment - something that should have happened to its editor - to recognize other forms of historical activity, especially as computer games seem to be entering a new, more visceral and visual phase. BGG is, today, the best looking computer wargame on the market. That will probably change tomorrow, given the pace of change in the electronic medium, but, suffice to say, this is one neat looking game. The main reason is that the map is easily a full level above any other computer-generated map in the business. It appears that Kibler and Langmead did one of their patented hand-painted jobs and then scanned it in. However they did it, BGG instantly gives you a feel for terrain like no other computer simulation I have ever seen. It looks like a miniatures game in the horizontal. Once you get past the beautiful vistas of the famous Pennsylvania crossroads you forge into the interface, the place where computer games make or break themselves. In this case I give it a big thumbs up. It has an easily assimilated interface where you designate a hex bringing up the available units. Another mouse click designates the units of interest, followed by a click and drag to accomplish the task at hand. In this manner one is quickly able to give orders and move onto the next phase of the operation. Yet, with all this, the second BGG was out, and despite the well-earned rave reactions, two major criticisms arose. BGG, it appears, is basically Terrible Swift Sword on the computer, right down to a 'T'. Actually a “T” is the big clue, as, to my knowledge, TSS was the only wargame to use this designation, found in BGG, for rifled 3” guns. In virtually every other area the designers seems to have been leaning over Berg’s shoulder during the ACW Game Design 101 Final, right down to the remarkable number of Dead Bodies one can accumulate in a few short hours. In fact, the game would be even better if they had continued this trend right on through the later editions that included BCE. [Ed. Before anyone else calls me - and I have had quite a few on this subject - I was quite aware what Jim Rose et amis were doing, and I had no objections, even as I note that not all is quite that similar.] The most noteworthy criticism, and a rather rabid topic on the Internet, was that casualties were running way too high. That’s true, but not for the reasons most of the people were advancing. Its not that the CRTs in the code are wrong, but that the game lacks an overall macro-mechanism to keep the player from flinging regiment after regiment into the fray. Richard Berg added BCE to account for this phenomena, and, later on, Fatigue rules. The BCE mechanic causes brigade units to lose their offensive potential before all of their regiments are decimated. This bounds the level of damage you are allowed to inflict upon your boys before they simply up and quit. Perhaps a later edition of the game will carry this mechanic. The other big criticism was that the AI wasn't very good. Here, I disagree. The humans with the 2 Billion plus RAM usually get the drop on the poor 16 MB computer. I found the computer played the tactical game in the tradition of the south (charge!) and did so reasonably well. The big operational maneuvers weren't terribly challenging, but this was the era of linear warfare, and the AI ain't no Stonewall Jackson. Never fear; if its a tough opponent you want the game does comes with a modem play feature. Another not inconsequential, feature is how friendly BGG it with Windows '95. Lately, I have found that many games, even from the “big” publishers, require an intimate relationship with customer service and a patch to make the game work. BGG worked right out of the box, with no hassles at all. Believe me, this is not a trivial issue these days. My compliments to the programmers. As for comparisons with cardboard versions, the main disadvantage boardgames have in simulating this battle is that the players aerial view of the battlefield prevents Longstreet’s historical flank march from making much practical sense. Using BGG’s fog of war option, though, allows you to get past this traditional designer dilemma. I haven't had the time to fully explore this option, but the year, unlike most in this hobby, is young. If you liked TSS, or even if you didn't, but love Civil War battle games and are looking to see what’s happening in the computer field, this one is a winner. A treat for the eyes and the mind. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Excellent, the best looking computer map in the business. Playability: Excellent, easy to use point and click interface Replayability: Excellent. Although the opening moves play the same each time, that seems to change when you get to the mid game. Historicity: As good as TSS, but lacking in a macro-mechanism that would realistically limit unit usage. Creativity: An excellent electronic version of the original Berg hit; wouldn’t have hurt if they also cribbed off of later GBACW entries, either. Comparison: BGG has every other G’burg computer battle beat hands down in the graphics department, but Decisive Battles has a better command control feel for the period. Overall: Highly recommended. The graphics and the view are worth the price of admission alone. If you loved TSS you’ll love this. from TALONSOFT PC CD ROM Disk, Players Guide, Loading Instructions. TalonSoft Inc., PO Box 632, Forest Hill, MD 21050-0632. c.$60? Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 22 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