I’ve been wargaming for about 20 years. I remember fondly my first, the 1960’s classic Gettysburg (the one with the squares). My dad and I played it till the pieces were worn away. It wasn’t particularly historical, but it was a fun game. Speerit’s new read on old wine, Gettysburg: 3 Days in July, equals one of those assessments. Unfortunately, it’s the wrong one. I play a lot of different games, some complex, some not so complex. When I saw this game at my local store, I opened it up, took a look under the hood, and figured, why not?. The graphical presentation of the rules is striking. The rule book is printed on glossy paper, with clear, well thought-out illustrations throughout. The author obviously knew his Gettysburg, just from looking at the rule book. Roster sheets were included for each side, and in pads of 50 sheets each! The playing pieces represent brigades, with standup, two-sided plastic pieces. Unfortunately, you have to assemble the pieces from four sheets of labels before playing the game. A lot of information is contained on each piece. For example, the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division of the II Corps has on its piece the symbol of the II Corps, the Corps ID (II Corps), a NATO Infantry symbol, a brigade designator, the division name (3rd Division), brigade name (2nd Brigade), and a unit number for identification purposes (18). This might seem like an awfully crowded unit marker, but the pieces are 1” round, and all of the above is actually readable and clear. Additionally, each regiment or battery in the unit is included on the marker, another impressive point in the game’s favor. The only downside to these pieces is that they are a bit too big for the hexes on the map, which makes the game a bit cluttered, especially in the later going. The map is also initially striking, although problematic during play. The map’s scale is 300 yards per hex. The fields and such surrounding the town of Gettysburg are all represented, although I could not vouch for the accuracy of the terrain, or even what it was! There is no terrain key, so you have to sort of guess what is woods, what is a stream, what is a bridge, what is a ridge, what is a wall, what is a slope… you get the picture. Granted, even passing familiarity with terrain symbology will suffice, but the topographical lines delineating slopes are very faint, except near Little Round Top. The game is a throwback in another sense, in that terrain features like roads and streams meander in and out of hexes with abandon, making calculation of road movement a thing best left to the UN. The biggest mistake, though, is using the old Avalon Hill hex-numbering system, with no hex numbering on the map itself. Makes setup a bit of a pain, and really causes problem with artillery fire (see below). The sequence of play is simple. Move (while taking defensive artillery fire), Attack, and then bring on Reinforcements. The only terrain that affects movement is woods, roads and streams (but not slopes, interestingly enough). Considering the scale and level of the game, movement into and out of terrain is rather complex. For example, if you enter woods with infantry, it costs 1 MP, but if you move into another woods hex, it costs 2, while exiting a woods hex costs 1 MP. Since the exit costs are the same as normal movement costs, this could have been eliminated. This kind of rule might be appropriate for a more detailed simulation but feels wrong at this level. Units have ZOCs and fields of fire based on facing. If a unit faces a hexside (Line Facing), it has a 3 hex ZOC, while if facing a vertex (Point Facing) the ZOC is 2 hexes. The combat chart included with the game shows the field of fire for artillery, and also shows how it is blocked in a clear manner. However, given the unit vs hex size problem, Line Facing should be eliminated, as it confers little advantage to the player, other than increasing the ZOC from 2 to 3. There are 13 elevated positions enumerated in the rules, but since they aren’t marked on the map, and we’re using the old cross reference map coordinates, it’s difficult to use them. In addition, while artillery fire causes only casualties, artillery cannot fire when attacking! So, if you’ve put your artillery with your infantry and want to attack, only the infantry strength is counted. But if you are defending, not only does the artillery get to defensive fire on moving enemy units, but you also count the strength in the defense. Artillery also fires at any enemy unit that moves into its field of fire, so one maneuver used in the game is to send one unit charging the artillery to block its field of fire, then moving other units around the flanks without receiving any fire. Combat is odds based, with limited ranges of 3-1 to 1-3. Combat is mandatory for units in enemy ZOCs, and it is quite bloody. Too Bloody. This is mostly true when the odds are uneven. At 3-4 (??), 1-1 or 3-2 odds, the combat results work OK because its percentage-based system doesn’t discriminate too heavily. On the other hand, at 2-1 or higher, or 1-2 or less, it doesn’t work too well. Since combat is mandatory, a force of three Union hexes attacking a single Confederate hex could very possibly lose 22 steps to the Confederate 1 and 1/2 steps, a result that is not only most unfortunate, but way out of line with the reality of ACW combat. Much of this is because combat is required until there are no units left in an enemy ZOC. This results in a sort of “crocodile death roll” effect. The attacker must attack, and attack, and attack, until one side or the other is eliminated or retreats. The combat chart is unfortunate, in that losses are effectively percentage losses, applied against each side’s total combat strength, which means the bigger boys are always taking greater losses. I’m not sure what the reasoning is behind this, but it sure makes for some unhappy play results. There are more problems with the rules. Unit strengths are supposed to be equal to the highest unmarked box on the roster sheet. There is no indication in the rules as to what the strength is of units with all but one hit marked on them, as all boxes equal 1/2 a SP. The designer says that units with less than one full step have a strength of 0 and are eliminated when attacked or attacking alone. He also suggested stacking them with artillery, to absorb losses in combat. We played it as 1 for defense, 0 for attacking. Since this is a hidden movement game, however, another use could be to fool your opponent into thinking you have strength. The designer also stated that these units were often used to block retreats, thus eliminating the retreating unit. Personally, I think it’s too much effort for the benefit. Want more? Multi-unit combat is not addressed anywhere in the rules. Since combat is mandatory if you are in a ZOC, and continues until nobody is in a ZOC, this can be a problem, especially for units in more than one ZOC. I spoke with the designer - an option not open to all, for sure - and he stated that combat must be pre-designated, with all combats being resolved, followed by additional combat resolution for any units left in an enemy ZOC. We played the game designating our attacks, and if, after an attack was complete, any units from that attack were still in a ZOC, they could combine with any attack on that unit. It got confusing, but we got through OK. Since minimum odds were not addressed at all, we made 1-3 minimum. Another rule that would help would be a voluntary retreat after combat rule, which would avoid the sometimes ridiculous, death roll syndrome. On the other hand, based on my discussion with Mr. Speer, you could, theoretically, conduct one large combat with ALL adjacent units, creating one giant retreat. Wouldn’t that be a treat? Imagine the casualties. Imagine calculating the odds. Imagine figuring out who retreats first. Imagine throwing in the sponge and going home! The charts for the game could also have been better. A terrain key is needed, and all movement modifiers are only in the rules. All in all, this game is a disappointment because it looks so good but plays so bad. While there is a need for simpler, more “fun” games these days, this one requires a little too much effort to make it fun. The designer say he wants to create a series of games based on this system covering American conflicts through history. Most admirable. But, for now, G-3 is less a game and more a “kit’, an engine in bad need of not just a tune-up, but an overhaul. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Well designed and beautifully presented. Graphic Playability: Once you rewrite half the rules, pretty good. Playing time is about 3 hours, not including arguments. Graphic Replayability: Acceptable. Once the game is going, it’s got some good tension because of the hidden movement aspect. Graphic Historicity: Good research, poor implementation. Combat doesn’t make a lot of sense. Graphic Creativity: Minimal. Graphic Wristage: Moderate Graphic Comparisons: No dearth of competitors here. AH’s original Gettysburg wasn’t that great, nor were its newer editions.. Easier than Lee’s Greatest Gamble or 1863, but suffers by comparison historically. Not as cumbersome as Yaquinto’s Pickett’s Charge, but has more panache (but far less fun) than Across 5 Aprils. Much less intense than 3DoG, but fewer typos than Fateful Lightning (just kidding, Ty). Certainly not as good as Thunder at the Crossroads. Problem is, can you think of a good “easy access” Gettysburg? Graphic Overall: Looks of a Ferrari, runs like a Yugo. from SPEERIT STRATEGY GAMES Two 18” 21” hard maps, 145 plastic pieces, 1 Combat Results card, 2 Order of Appearance cards, 12 page rule book, 2-50 sheet roster pads, 2 plastic pawns; boxed. Speerit, 10612-D Providence Road #325, Charlotte, NC 28277 (800) 831-1155. $40 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