From: Rusty Witek <jwitek@TOPHAT.STETSON.EDU>
Subject:      3DoG as a System (long)

Most of the reviews of GMT's 3 Days of G-burg so far have been by players
who mentioned that they either had never played the GBACW system or had
done so only briefly.  I was wondering what people who *had* played Berg's
previous regimental-level ACW games thought of the 3DoG system. I will
admit that, after three run-throughs of the first day scenario, one of
them complete, my game partners and I were rather disappointed (me perhaps
more than the others).  I don't want to indict the system entirely, and I
look forward to seeing what will happen to it (the TCT version of the
GBACW system, which I came to love, also had very serious problem sin its
initial, Horse Soldiers, incarnation).  The components are high qulaity,
and the system is rather playable.

I thought it was interesting that the same problems that plagued
the very first version of TSS still are troublesome in 3DoG.  In TSS Mk.
I, artillery was prone to being used as mobile assault guns, wheeling up
to an enemy defensive position ahead of the infantry and blasting away
with canister (NOT a viable Civil War tactic). It took years of
development of crews, 1/2 crews, sections, withdrawal fire,
change-formation fire, etc. before the tinkering stopped, and even then we
installed a Draconian set of house rules to keep the artillery to its
historical usage.  (I think the central design problem is in giving
defensive artillery its appropriate equivalent of infantry firepower
at close range without overstating its long-range ability to hurt
infantry while still allowing artillery to be used correctly in
counter-battery fire.) In 3DoG the problem remains, as artillery
battalions form ad-hoc mobile kampfgruppen while defending infantry (which
usually has its own artillery spread out for infantry support) can't do
much to stop it.  The extensive errata for the game and the rule changes
that have been bruited about on various e-fora indicate that the artillery
rules still aren't quite right.

Anther problem is cavalry.  Since Buford's division must take a central
role in any (decent) Gettysburg game, the cavalry rules immediately come
under scrutiny, and it wasn't until the very late GBACW entry REBEL
SABERS that cavalry got the rules attention it deserved. First of all,
what Buford's men did was quite unusual for that stage of the war: cavalry
generally did not even try to stand up to line infantry, and even Buford
could not have stood a determined, coordinated assault by the forces
arrayed against him. Yet in organization and equipment Buford's division
is not atypical of the Union cavalry.  So how do you design rules that
allow Buford to at least approach what he did historically without
making all the Union cavalry into mini-panzergrenadier divisions?
Berg hasn't figured it out: in 3DoG it's too hard for cavalry to mount
and dismount, so they have a hard time doing an effective fighting
withdrawal, and the cav. divisions are hamstrung in the 3DoG system by not
having a corps commander. But these units were *made* to operate
independently, and forcing them into the same LIM rules as the infantry
just seems wrong.

Then there's the asymmetry of the two forces: Rebel cavalry can't
dismount, even though much of the July 3 cav battle was fought dismounted
by Stuart's men.  They certainly weren't as well-trained and equipped to
fight on foot as were the Union cav., but they could and did do it,
oftentimes very well (the Luray valley battles earlier in the campaign,
for example), and to not allow them even to dismount seems like the kind
of decision that's barely justifiable for this game situation and will be
trouble in future games (anyone remember that the Union in TSS had only
division commanders, while the rebels had brigadiers?  It did simulate
the tactical flexibility of the Confederates pretty well, but it was
totally untenable for the system as whole).

I also have major problems with the interaction of the fatigue and
movement rules, which force lines of infantry to scurry around like rats
to stay on roads and paths in order to avoid incurring fatigue.  The end
result isn't really a problem, but it feels way too much like design for
cause.  Also, in our games the Strategic movement rules were abused a
great deal as well, as units entering as reinforcements wandered around
the roads trying to sneak into the enemy flank rather than give up their
special reinforcement strategic movement status and subject thmselves to
the normal command rules.

Ultimately, I like the gains in playability, but I think many aspects of
the old GBACW system seemed more accurate, and the 3DoG version feels
underdeveloped.  Certainly a new, fairly complex system like this one will
have lots of errata, but the many of the errata/changes/clarifications
smelled of a sloppy development job.  I still look forward to later games,
though.

Rusty