Pointing the Way

ACW Boardgame Reviews
The Battles of Bull Run

by Jack Greene

Turning to the next tactical Civil War simulation we plan to discuss, one is struck by the professional quality of the standard Simulations Publications, Inc. simulation. The Battles of Bull Run, which can be purchased for $7.00 from the company at 44 E. 23rd, New York, N.Y. 10010, is a simulation of both the First and Second Battles of Bull Run; the former using brigadeffize counters while the latter uses divisional/brigade units. The first battle is eight moves long, making an entire day, while the second battle is three days long.

The 22" by 28" board is unmounted but made of heavy cardboard and has three colors. On the board is the Time Record Chart and Victory Point Levels. You also receive their plastic trays (which are great) to store your units in as well as a rules folder, die, counters, combination examples of play, CRT, Terrain Effects Chart, and a pad of their simultaneous movement sheets.

Redmond Simonsen, who did the physical layout, is still obsessed with dark and somber colors. Browns, greys, blacks, and blues cover the board. Let there be no misunderstanding, the board, pieces, and box are professional from start to finish. The units are clear to read and the terrain features are clear also. The main error on the units is that unit designations are not explained anywhere. Players may figure out "Ja" stands for Jackson, but only a student of the period would realize that "3 III V" is the Third Division, Third Corps, Army of Virginia. While credits are fully supplied (with the exception of a bibliography), there seems to have been a failure to communicate between Mr. Nofi, the man who did the research, and Messrs. Hardy and Young who did the game development and rules. This is not simply because I could not find any Confederate unit by the symbol "Mi" in any history of the first battle.

More, it lies with the second battle where some unusual liberties were taken with the Corps compositions; liberties that were not communicated to the players. Milroy's brigade of Sigel's Corps is increased in strength and made into a division; a 4-8 (Reynold's division) is mixed up with a cavalry division in the initial placement. Porter's V Corps gets an entirely new division.

Expanding on the comment about Porter's new 3rd division there are two important points to be made. For the Union, 1,000 men equal one combat point for infantry. Porter's Corps numbered 12,000 men and the three SPI divisions total 12 combat points; instead of two divisions of 6 combat points we have three of 4 each. One important point is that the player is not told of this fact. I think that the three units were created so they could defend a front of seven hexes which would be historically realistic, while two units, no matter how strong, could not historically fulfill the role of holding the wide front that Porter's Corps did against Longstreet.

This involves us with the second point, the use of square units for linear tactics. Different rules are produced to give an idea of flanks, such as in Bull Run (the attacker is doubled if the defender is attacked from two non-adjacent hexes). This appears to me to be a serious error. Not only does it mean we have weak rules conceming flanks (Gettysburg I and III excepted) but we lose the sense of linear tactics. We have no feel for long lines advancing and we have a bastardization of history.

Bull Run has an interesting system of simultaneous movement. Basically it is a cleaned up version of Chuck Lane's Spirit of '76. You have a simultaneous movement sheet pad and you write out the hexes each and all of your units are going into. Each hex is numbered. Yes, it is a lot of work. I think it is worth it, and it produces a large leap in historical realism at the cost of added paperwork. The number of units is limited. Often times you are writing orders only for a dozen units. Cavalry has no advantage whatsoever with this system. Union cavalry is only a 1-8, which actually becomes a burden. It moves no faster than infantry and when one is totally destroyed one loses an additional victory point. The difference between the First Bull Run scenario with inverted units, dummies, and simultaneous movement in comparison to alternating turns with face-up units is the difference between night and day.

In the former situation the Union may win, while in the latter situation it is a question of how bad the Union loses. Note: one of our local clubs uses the see-through plastic covers into which you slip a movement sheet. This will save you many sheets as you write on the plastic with a grease pen.

Turning to their other rules of interest one is struck by their Command Control rule. If McDowell or Beauregard do not move, then all units within four hexes may perform their orders without being affected by the scatter rule. They may move and attack freely. In the Second Bull Run scenario only Pope of the Union suffers this limitation. The idea and function of this rule appear to be quite realistic. The Scatter Rule, however, is a disaster. The idea that units away from the commander will march in the wrong direction or make mistakes is realistic. But to have a random scatter die roll that sends your troops marching off through swamps and forest, sometimes paralleling roads, and getting totally cut off by the attacking enemy is completely ridiculous.

A modification must be made: the one I use is that one may march on the road or toward a road subject to the die roll direction, and in groups/Corps of units near each other. One may desire to allow the troops to retreat from the enemy. An historical example of the above at the Second Bull Run was when Porter and McDowell marched past Manassas Junction for a few miles before turning around and marching to the battle against Jackson. This actually happened. But with the SPI scatter rule you may have several divisions from several different Corps marching in several different directions.

This points out a certain philosophy that SPI has embodied in their computer. France '40 (Avalon Hill, but designed by SPI) is an ideal example of the computer philosophy as demonstrated in what is done to the French Infantry Corps. Historically the French Infantry Corps varied according to their reserve status, equipment, etc. SPI did not custom design each infantry corps but instead threw them into a giant sifter and came out with one universal strength to represent all French Infantry Corps though they all differed in individual ways. This contrasts with Mr. Lowry's Dunkirk in which the French are differentiated. SPI and their computer take the optimum percentage and then apply it to all facets of the game; I feel that though more research is required, they should individualize each unit. Here SPI has the individual trees being lost in the forest.

SPI was kind enough to allow us to reprint (with their full permission) their feelings about the Scatter Rule in Bull Run:

    "While this might at first seem unrealistic, further examination will show that this 'scatter' re-creates very realistically what happened. What happened was that, for numerous reasons, units would either sit still or wander off in the wrong direction. The net result was that you would lose control and uee of units for a while. The random 'scatter' system we use gives the same result."

Granted, one can have too many nickel and dime rules to simulate every conceivable historical possibility. It is my feeling, however, that SPI went overboard on this "generalization,, and "systems" approach to wargaming. It did mean a lot of simulations could be mass produced, the classic example being the Grenadier, Rifle & Saber, and Musket & Pike line of simulations. Simulations of tactical combat from three widely different eras that are all using roughly the same rules and the universal unit approach. On top of this, one does not have the same feel for the period that one would get from, say, Soldiers (also SPI), in which the individual nationalities are represented.

One excellent point of Bull Run, especially the second scenario (for the Confederacy especially), is the realization that to win one must have a grand tactical plan. If, as R.E. Lee, one simply gets involved with the Union forces in a line battle, then one will surely lose. Lee is forced into mobile warfare, attacking flanks, and, all in all, thinking out a consistent approach or plan of battle if he plans to win.

As this is one of the first simulations in SPI's simultaneous movement system, and SPI,s recent upsurge from decline in simulation design, we should expect some problems with Bull Run. Bull Run is fun and if money is no problem then by all means buy it.

At this point I would like to make a small comparison of Shiloh and Bull Run with our own Rifle-Musket. The first two both use equal combat factors for offense and defense. This, of course, is the classic method. The strong points of defense are reflected in terrain considerations only. In our simulation the main factors are firepower and size of the target, as well as terrain, which gives a better representation of those factors. Also the Command Control rule gives a better sense of combat in this period. I would have preferred a counter representing the General commanding in Rifle-Musket that could be eliminated like Pope in Bull Run. But the system we finally adopted gives a better representation of the cohesiveness of unite operating together at the brigade level, not the actual commanders and staff.

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