Pointing the Way

ACW Boardgame Reviews
Atlanta

by Jack Greene

Atlanta is the next simulation to be discussed. At the end a comparison will be made with Lee Moves North (SPI), as both are strategic Civil War simulations.

Atlanta had delivery problems but eventually arrived. It is available from Guidon Games, P.O. Box C, Belfast, Maine 04915, priced at $5.95. It is a brigade/divisional/corps level strategic simulation of Sherman's advance on, and capture of Atlanta.

Atlanta arrives in a 12x9x2, attractive box. Inside is an 18 1/2" by 24 1/2" two-color, unmounted, plastic-coated board. The board contains railroads, mountains, rough terrain, towns, rivers, and a hex lettering system. Much of the board is filled with step-reduction set-up charts, and the time record. The actual playing area is not as large as the entire board. You also receive command cards, die, rule book with historical comments, and the pieces.

The die-cut mounted counters are grey and blue. They are not easy pop-out types, though. On the backside is listed their movement rate and an arrow pointing their direction facing. They have defensive/offensive/movement factors, with the defense being stronger than the offense in most cases. Mr. Lowry, who designed Atlanta, does not give his credits but it may be assumed that Mr. Lowry did virtually the entire show. He did include an excellent bibliography. However, it may be assumed that this simulation was rushed, and it suffers accordingly.

The biggest single problem with Atlanta is the poor coordination between printer and designer. Shiloh looks perfect next to the problems of proofreading with Atlanta. Set-up charts are filled with errors and confusion, Hardee's Corps is mixed up with Hood's, units are supplied with the simulation but nowhere does it tell where and when they appear, the time record is confusing as to when scenarios start or end. If one gets beyond the problem of proofing he ends up with an excellent simulation.

Historically it is superb. The only disageement I could advance was over Cleburne's elite division: I felt that it should be stronger like the First Division in Battle of the Bulge because of its fighting record.

Let Mr. Lowry say a few words about his simulation. He was kind enough to let us reprint them from Panzerfaust No. 57:

    "One problem was to isolate the campaign geographically to find a definite geographical limit beyond which forces and actions did not significantly influence the campaign being simulated. Another problem was to define victory conditions for the campaign. Yet another problem was that many Civil War campaigns were the result of considerable stupidity on the part of one side or another, which increase considerably the conflict between accurate simulation and a playable game.... Many units have defense factors higher than their attack factors. This represents the defensive power of these units' artillery which . . . was considerably greater than their offensive power . . . The CRT is fairly standard. However, one of the game's most unique features ~s the Combat Order Cards. These allow the attacking player to order a unit to probe, feint, attack, destroy, or pursue. And the defending player can order h~s units to screen, delay, defend, hold or counterattack. Only infantry can probe, pursue, or screen. Only infantry can be ordered to destroy or hold . . . On the Leadership Rating Chart (for Corps or Army commanders) each general is rated on three characteristics. The first is "judgment"Äthe reaction of the commander to circumstances not covered by his orders ... the second characteristic rated is "action" -- whether the officer does what you want him to [do] ... The other characteristic is "coordination"Äwhether he coordinates the actions of his units or commits them piecemeal."

Mr. Lowry has produced a fine set of rules and innovations. These ideas certainly have advanced the state of the art, and I would strongly suggest Atlanta to any designer. Even his rating of the different generals of either side is well thought-out and intelligent. With the possible exception of McPherson, I could not really fault him anywhere here.

Included in the assorted attacks is an echelon attack also. This simulation also includes realistic supply rules, fortifications, and garrison-engineer ideas. The simulation will be decisive if you have one or two gamblers playing: historical if you have a Sherman versus a Johnston. One must play carefully and make full use of maneuver on a limited front. Though it suffers from playability problems, I would recommend this to the advanced wargamer.

Mr. Lowry is sloppy in his production department. But his accuracy is of a standard to which all in the hobby could aspire. He will bend over backwards to produce an accurate simulation. He also has tackled too large a job for one man. He has too many projects to give full scope to his obvious talent.

This completes the view of the three simulations. However, there would be some value in comparing Atlanta as a strategic simulation to Lee Moves North, which is produced by Simulations Publications, Inc. Lee Moves North is your "typical" SPI simulation. It uses the command type counters of Leipzig with the dummy units of Franco-Prussian War, the cavalry (slightly improved) of Wilderness and is on a strategic level. Units are corps size for the Union and division size for the Confederacy, in the main. The front stretches from Fredericksburg to Philadelphia. There are several fortresses in this simulation.

The best point about Lee Moves North (which is superior to Atlanta) is that if one gets involved in a straight head-on line battle a draw will result with both sides suffering heavy losses. The CRT is the type that gives almost even step reduction losses no matter what the odds. Therefore one must tum to maneuver as the key to victory. One must outsmart one's opponent in strategic terms if one desires to gain a decisive victory. One must think in Napoleonic terms, which is Mr. Dunnigan's intent. He achieved it here.

The command counters are done in totally different fashions in both simulations. Atlanta has already been mentioned. In Lee Moves North, you receive a simple bonus of numbers when adding your factors together. McClellan is a 12-pointer in the Antietam Scenario while Jackson is worth 10. This is done to reflect the discovery of Lee's orders by McClellan. Lee is worth 15 while Longstreet is an addition of 6 combat factors. One of their scenarios has Grant and Sherman coming out East. Grant is equal to McClellan while Sherman is worth 8. This is for the Gettysburg scenario.

The main difference between Atlanta and Lee Moves North for combat factors lies in two points. First, Lee Moves North has equal defense and offense combat factor values, unlike Atlanta. I feel Atlanta is superior here. Secondly, both simulations have the larger units losing bigger chunks in the Step Reduction System. In Lee Moves North an army corps of the North goes from 16 to 12, while a 4 becomes a 2. The South loses smaller chunks than the North (reflecting superior local officer control).

Atlanta is roughly the same way: a Union 9-12 reduces to 6-8, while a 3-4 reduces to a 1-2. Southern units lose strength in an equal fashion to the Union. This adequately reflects the strength and ability of Sherman's army in 1864: both sides had equal local officer control.

Finally, in Lee Moves North there is a command control rule which is similar to Wilderness which keeps the army concentrated. In Atlanta it is the supply rule that achieves this same effect. Both of these simulations are quite good buys.

In summary, if I had to choose one game of the seven we viewed in this issue and in Conflict No. 6, I would purchase Kasserine Pass for playability, and Atlanta for the simulation that advances the "State of the Art." The four points I was most impressed with overall are as follows:

First, most simulations do not vary as far as mechanics go. This seems to be the easiest way for the gamer to play all those simulations out there. It would appear that there are many more weekend gamers than historians interested in concise simulations. Many of the game designers are not too interested in concise simulations either.

This in turn has helped spawn poor research. Gamers are more willing to accept a less than historical simulation if Rommel has a real chance to win: e.g., equal chance to win for either side. The multitude of scenarios in SPI simulations help on this point, though it could be argued that this use of scenarios helps to keep the same situation from getting boring.

Thirdly, we are faced with too many rushed simulations. Rushing means money, but it also means poorer products. The average level of quality drops, and this turns off potential wargamers who find poor rules in a fancy box. Oddly enough this same point combined with the greater number of simulations on the market means that there is less chance for "classic" simulations to circulate throughout the hobby. I miss the simulation that everyone knew about and had played several times. How else can two players gain a mutual understanding of the rules?

Finally, if we are going to make any real progress we will have to look to the leaders in the field, the companies, to point the way. The professional level of the hobby is low. It depends upon them to raise it.

The Reviews

Back to Conflict Number 7 Table of Contents
Back to Conflict List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1974 by Dana Lombardy
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