Board Games Strategic Hex Game John Prados' "The Campaigns of Robert E Lee"

Pat Answer

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Location
“...somewhere between NY and PA”
When one is a hex-and-counter game nut and the opportunity to acquire an old but very well-preserved copy of something like this fairly cheaply comes along, one moves…

CoREL game.JPG


Welcome (back for some) to 1988. If the name of game designer John Prados rings a bell, it may be because we have him to thank for the early versions of “Rise and Decline of the Third Reich” among other achievements.

The map by the late artist Rick Barber is not always easy to read but is a masterpiece of calligraphy and topography. (In the thread, “Avalon-Hill's 1961 'Chancellorsville' Game" James N. showed in his review what not to do with a hexagon-grid map; this beauty is IMHO just a step down from the gold standard represented by the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War (GCACW) series.) At about four miles to the hex, I am even finding it useful as a reference when reading. As usual in hex-based games, terrain and die-rolled weather affects unit movement on the board.

CoREL map.JPG


On first perusal of the rulebook:
Compared to GCACW, in which the simple concept of fatigue points makes it possible to do away with several pages of rules on marches, morale, and attrition, the system seems dated and cumbersome. Particularly confusing is that troop morale is rated 0 to 6 with zero being the highest level while leader ratings are also numbered 0 to 6 but zero is the lowest. Apparently a leader can reduce his morale level to increase the chance of his force executing a forced march, which raises unit morale (in this context a bad thing…).

The “fire exchange results table” is a 16 column by 23 row chart of possible outcomes with another half-page of die roll modifiers and column shifts. This can be good or bad, of course, depending on one’s temperament. Some don’t want to spend a half-hour fighting for one hex; others don’t want to lose a battle because of one lousy roll. This leans toward the former, but both sides can try for reinforcements and maneuver reaction during a battle so it's a really interactive process. For those of us used to games in which interchangeable “strength points” or “factors” simplify combat results, the unit step loss and replacement sequence, admittedly historical in that units tend to move back and forth from “combat effective” to “broken” without being eliminated, seems to just add to player accounting tasks.

Fortunately the organization charts, where most of this accounting takes place, are laid out well. The players move tokens on the board but may not examine opposing organization charts so using context clues to estimate what one faces before committing to combat is where much of the fun/frustration lies. Also, one must track and place railroad and wagon train tokens to ensure supplies are reaching your marching columns from the nearest depots and are sufficiently protected from enemy cavalry by escorting detachments. A well-timed raid can ruin your plan and maybe your day.

The 'game' is really a set of scenarios: with starting positions for each major historical campaign (e.g., Peninsula, Chancellorsville, or Overland) and turn sequences lasting at most a few "months." So, quite unlike my usual fare of whole-war grand strategy exercises taking days to play, this can be reasonably enjoyed in not much more than an afternoon.

All that said - I’m afraid to punch the counters and not just because the cardboard used is pretty thin… it almost feels like I would be messing with history… :D To more fully learn the game I think I will use the tokens from my “War Between the States” game, which can represent all the required combat and support units down to the supply wagons…

PS: For @Rhea Cole As we know the dramatic ebb-and-flow of the Virginia theater gets the press but the outcome of the war really depended on what happened on the other side of the Appalachians. :wink: So, when I saw the younger sister of the above game was also available I didn’t hesitate. I hope to make a post on this in the near future...

AotH cover.JPG


Cheers, all!
 
Last edited:
I bought this game used back in the 90's and held on to it for several years, but after reading through the rules, did not deem it worth keeping in my game library. So I sold it for $20. Now I think that the game is worth owning for the map itself - it is just a superb rendition. I see now it is commanding prices on eBay from $70-$180...big mistake on my part.

I own all the GCACW games and agree that those maps are gorgeous. This one, while not as colorful, just elicits a feeling of the 1860's. Please let us know what your impressions of the system are when you've had a chance to move those counters.
 
... The map by the late artist Rick Barber is not always easy to read but is a masterpiece of calligraphy and topography. (In the thread, “Avalon-Hill's 1961 'Chancellorsville' Game" James N. showed in his review what not to do with a hexagon-grid map; this beauty is IMHO just a step down from the gold standard represented by the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War (GCACW) series.) At about four miles to the hex, I am even finding it useful as a reference when reading. As usual in hex-based games, terrain and die-rolled weather affects unit movement on the board...
During last summer's period of enforced imprisonment and isolation due to the plague I rekindled my old passion for the Napoleonic Wars and delved into several massive tomes I'd owned for years but never read or read all the way through like Elting's Swords Around A Throne and Chandler's Campaigns Of Napoleon. One adjunct to all that was digging out my equally old S&T games like Wagram to "refresh" my memory about terrain, orders of battle, etc. I'd done much the same several years earlier for WWII by revisiting old A-H games like Stalingrad, Battle Of The Bulge, and Afrika Korps. Yours looks like a truly beautiful map, and yes, it's a far cry from A-H Chancellorsville!
 
I own all the GCACW games and agree that those maps are gorgeous. This one, while not as colorful, just elicits a feeling of the 1860's. Please let us know what your impressions of the system are when you've had a chance to move those counters.

Well... I tried. There certainly were enough counters from War Between the States to have a go at it.
biggrin.png


1634873786270.jpeg


But... right from the start the bidding mechanism for "impulses" could not be adequately duplicated solitaire. In order to preserve the move-and-counter dynamic of Campaigns of Robert E Lee, it made increasing sense to use chit-pull, card draw, and dice to determine initiative and movement ranges each turn. Which proved to be easier than looking up "operational effort" charts to cross-reference with leader move ratings every time a force had to try to march or react... And... before long I realized I was playing a heavily modified hybrid WBtS/GCACW rather than CoREL.

CoREL has some good ideas and intentions but (again, especially after GCACW) there are simply more intuitive and streamlined ways to accomplish almost every one of them, from combat to unit morale to overall resource management. The brilliant exception, as I noted upthread, is the way supply is handled. Placing depots, arranging wagon trains when "off-grid" (not connected to rail or river hexes), and guarding lines of communication are handled with some of the most straightforward rules in the game. It figures they still worked very well no matter what else was adjusted.

There is a great game in here somewhere - or at least the map itself cries out for one...
 
Well, if it doesn't play well solitaire then it may not be worth the purchase for me. Do you think that your approach using the GCACW/WBTS hybrid rules would work if refined a bit? Thanks for giving it a go.
 
That's what I'm exploring now. I'm going with two dice differential rolls: one to determine initiative and number of command points (i.e., US rolls 4 and CS rolls 2 for the turn = US does two actions and then CS does two), and a second to decide which "operations effort" table (how convenient that there are five) will be used by both sides. The leaders can then use their initiative ratings against the tables as designed. I did tweak them a bit so that weather effects are applied directly as marching roll modifiers, and the wildest differences in move points are reduced. (The Confederates in the East have generals with better movement efficiency, as they should, but some results allow them 18 to 24 hex moves in the same turn that a Union general may be lucky to get 4 - the overall effect is a bit Kryptonian even for "foot cavalry"!)
Most importantly, instead of messing with impulse bidding I just made each turn about 3 days rather than 5. More turns but much less "overhead" calculating if you know what I mean.

If it holds together I might like to run a 'community playtest' later this winter, set up close to how we are doing GCACW here, with my plugging in "orders" received by PM from US and CS teams with incomplete information.
 
The hybrid project is proving most interesting. I decided to test some play mechanics with my own generic, all-purpose "ACW OCD" counters, which enable me to concentrate on how system elements hold together rather than 'factor fiddling'. The following is more a "developer" note than a formal After Action Report but is presented in the hopes that some may find it intriguing.

Endgame: March 21 - April 12, 1865, (1)
What could be easier than wrapping up the Eastern theater? As it turns out, a great many things...

The "Appomattox" scenario, like most in the Campaigns of Robert E. Lee rulebook, have some things wrong (e.g., Butler is still in command at Bermuda Hundred instead of sacked after the December Fort Fisher debacle) but in general gives you a fairly accurate historical situation. To work solitaire, I have each turn at "3-4 days". March will run from Turn 6 to Turn 8, then there will be three April turns. Each turn has at least two "impulses" (with a very small chance of a third) during which movement and combat take place. Initiative depends on supply and administrative points but outright ties go to the Confederates as in GCACW. I adjusted the movement tables so that the Confederates do not get crazy distance advantages, but rather still have generals with higher move efficiency ratings and greater chances to "put in all men" in combat - a reflection of less impedimenta, though that can be a mixed blessing. Also, I simplified the die roll modifiers so that weather and force-march options are directly tied to move results. Other elements (supply, administration and artillery points, War Effort and Victory Points, the turn Reorganization Phase, etc.) are mostly as designed by Prados.

Map 1 is the opening situation. Triangles are forts/fortresses, diamonds are depots, anchors are major naval flotillas. I'll let you guess where the entrenchment lines are. :D (I'll give a brief glimpse later at what happens off-map. Hidden information is a core element of Prados' design which I adopt heartily.)

Endgame Map 1.JPG


Let's zero in a little with Map 2: (Turn 6, Impulse 1, Clear weather)
Both sides make administrative adjustments. The Confederates have had a very rough winter and need to re-establish logistic support; note the absence of operational depots. Supply attrition and desertion are minimal this time. The dice won't always be that kind...

Endgame Map 2.JPG



Map 3: (Turn 6, Impulse 2, Clear weather)

Endgame Map 3.JPG


Fitz Lee is having a tough time getting any information about the extreme Federal left but that means there must be a heavy cavalry presence there, no doubt Sheridan. The details unknown to each player are that the Union II Corps (Humphreys) has pulled out of line south of Petersburg to stack with Warren (V Corps) and Sheridan east of Dinwiddie Courthouse while Lee pulls Kershaw's division from Longstreet (opposite Bermuda Hundred) toward Petersburg so he can shift more forces to his right. Both sides are having some trouble moving very far, but each Confederate move is being done without supplies and risks attrition losses. Lee has placed depots but has to stock them in the upcoming Reorganization Phase.

(Reorganization)
The US has 65 (down from 100) War Effort Points. Grant buys supplies. He has a ton but also an over 100,000 man army eating through them. The CS has 59 (down from 75) WEP. Attrition losses were bad this turn but Lee still has about 55,000 men. He is able to get enough supplies to temporarily solve his most pressing problems.
 
Map 4 (Turn 7, Impulse 1, Clear weather)

Endgame Map 4.JPG


With operational depots, Lee can move effectively... and not a moment too soon. Humphreys moves into Reams Station, allowing Ord to move north and dig in closer to the Confederate lines. The Confederate contingency plan is for the Dinwiddie Courthouse force (Pickett and F Lee) to pull back to Five Forks. RH Anderson is a full corps commander (CS IV) and will move to immediately support Pickett. The open flank is simply the obvious place for a large Federal assault. Lee also considers that Gordon (CS II Corps) is concentrated at Prince George Courthouse. If a sudden attack forces the Federals opposite to retreat it would put the depot at Union Grove in jeopardy and mess up enemy attack plans. The Confederate player has two ways to earn enough VP for a win: hold Richmond and Petersburg past the time limit or gain a point for each formed unit that escapes toward Danville. A sudden spoiling delay could be of great value...

Map 5

Endgame Map 5 Gordon diversion.JPG


Gordon actually achieves local numerical superiority when all the administrative and combat engagement rolls are done. Both sides lose about 1500 men, which is pretty good as an attacker against entrenchments. But Federal reserves are able to react and Gordon wisely pulls back.
Parke launches his own diversion from the City Point area. It too is thrown back though losses are only slightly in favor of the Confederates because of numbers involved. Federal reaction rolls have been very effective. The most important result is that Kershaw is killed holding the line. (His replacement, Colston, is an equally capable leader on the ratings table roll. Not sure if he was with Longstreet's corps at this time, but that's who is on the rule book list... LOL)

And then...
(Turn 7, Impulse 2, Mud) It is March after all. It rains so heavily that muddy conditions ensue immediately. All ground movement is halted, except that supplies may be moved by rail.

(Reorganization)
So both sides do so. US 53, CS 51 WEP, CS +1 VP in combat unit losses after replacements.

(Turn 8, Impulse 1, Rain) Less precipitation but the roads and fields do not have a chance to dry out yet. The clock is ticking for the US player...
 
Map 6 (Turn 8, Impulse 2, Clear after rain)
Not optimal conditions but ground movement can happen. Grant does not hesitate.

Endgame Map 6 Five Forks A.JPG


Sheridan, Warren, and one of Humphreys' divisions move against Five Forks. F Lee is roughly handled, yielding cavalry superiority to the Federals with devastating effect. The result is not a rout but Anderson's corps is smashed. Both Ransom and Johnson are wounded severely enough to take them out of the game, which is probably just as well as between them they would command the equivalent of a brigade. Pickett loses his artillery but covers the retreat to Sutherland, fortunate that Warren does not have any more admin points to pursue.
But Humphreys does have enough points to move further, switching Gibbon's large reserve division to the right.

Endgame Map 7 Humphreys then AP Hill.JPG


Ord, Wright, and Parke are ordered in from their respective positions. Ord hits the front of the line north of Reams Station while Gibbon comes in on the flank. Ord is thrown back, but Gibbon overruns a section of the trenches. AP Hill counter-attacks and holds the Federals away from the Southside railroad.

To Ord's right, Wright (haha) in the hexes northwest of Union Grove, did not roll enough to launch an attack. Neither did Parke in the City Point area. This is fortunate for the Confederates as only Kershaw's (excuse me) Colston's "division" would have been in line before Longstreet could have reacted with Field from opposite Bermuda Hundred.

The dust settles as the sun sets on the "fourth day" of this big turn. Both sides are minus about 8,000 men.

(Reorganization)
US 35, CS 36 WEP; CS +2 VP in combat losses but supplies are dangerously low again. Critically, one cavalry division remains 'broken' in morale. Sheridan will not be stopped by what's left.


As April 1 approaches, the Confederate player has a big decision to make - continue to hold the cities or give them up and make a run for it...

What do you think?
 
A note about the "off-map":

Each player or team keeps track of things like condition of major units, morale, artillery, leader points and total War Effort available with displays that the other side is ideally never able to see:

Endgame CS 1865 04 01.JPG

Confederate forces are weakening but still able to give as good as they get in most combat situations. The real problems are loss of cavalry effectiveness and artillery points, and supplies are an issue again.


Endgame US 1865 04 01.JPG

The Federals have plenty of guns and equipment, driving division if not corps-level commanders, and a powerful cavalry wing. A coordinated assault could end things... but so could the clock.
 
Back
Top