- 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…
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.
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… 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. 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...
Cheers, all!
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.
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… 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. 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...
Cheers, all!
Last edited: