There are currently five games in the Gamers "Civil War Brigade Series".
In Their Quiet Fields - Antietam
Thunder at the Crossroads - Gettysburg
August Fury - 2nd Manassas
Barren Victory - Chickamauga
Bloody Roads South - The Wilderness
with two more due out this fall on Perryville and Franklin.
As several folks have mentioned, the command system is based on written orders
to Corps. Orders are given for fairly high-level activities, such as marching
to a given point, or attacking to take a specific objective. As an example,
Third Corps orders at the opening of Gettysburg are "attack down the
Chambersburg Pike to take the town of Gettysburg". Corps without orders are
restricted to defending in place.
Orders are sent from the Army commander to the Corps commanders, moving at a
rate of 10 MP per turn. When they arrive, they are subject to an "acceptance"
roll. This roll is modified by the leadership ratings of the two leaders
involved. The result can be that the order is accepted (not likely),
distorted and thrown away (not likely) or "delayed". Each turn that a leader
has delayed orders, he rolls to see if it is accepted (generally a 1/3
chance). Once a leader has accepted an order, he must begin to act on it.
Orders may be sent via an aide (at 10 MP per turn) or in person (if both
leaders are in the same hex). The army commander has a limited number of
command points per turn. These are used to issue orders, with "in person"
or "aide oral" orders costing less than "aide written" orders.
Orders are meant to be "like" the orders given by real commanders. I.e., you
can include start times in your order (the orders in the 4pm Second Day
Gettysburg scenario are of the sort, 1 division starts at 4pm, the next
division starts a 1/2 hour after the first, and Ewell starts after he hears
the guns, though his orders are currently delayed!).
Finally, there are alternatives to the written orders. A Corps commander can
roll for initiative (which, in the 2nd Edition rules, is fairly hard to get)
and if he succeeds, can issue himself orders (which must be written down and
followed, exactly as if they had been written by the army commander).
Below Corps level, you have two options. First, divisions may operate within
a radius of 8 MP of the Corps HQ, and brigades must operate within 4 MP of the
division commander. Alternately, divisions may be given "divisional goals",
which are short specific orders to a division (march to the crossroads, take
that ridge) which allow it to function outside Corps radius.
The intent of this command system is to put you in the shoes of the real
commanders. It takes time to set up an attack. It is very hard to launch
coordinated assaults. Sometimes, by the time an order gets executed, the
situation has changed (poor Longstreet MUST attack Little Round Top, even
though it is now full of troops and his orders told him to occupy the
undefended hill).
This also gives the good commanders with good subordinates a LARGE advantage.
It is very easy for Lee to give orders to Jackson (and if Jackson is operating
at a distance from Lee, it is pretty easy for Jackson to get initiative). It
is VERY hard for Bragg to give orders to Polk, and Polk ain't going nowhere
without orders. Etc.
As to the rest of the game, units are brigade-level. Turns are 1/2 hour.
Infantry range is two hexes (artillery is 10). Sequence of play is basically
Command
Move
Defensive Fire
Offensive Fire
Rally
Losses are strength points, marked on a roster (ala GBACW). Fire strength,
however, is based on fire levels (A, B, C) where your fire level is reduced
after a certain number of losses (marked on the loss chart). You put a
fire-level marker on the map with each unit (so you needn't refer to the loss
chart for each fire). ** Comment ** I think this system works very nicely.
The authors tell you to think of a fire level as the "significant digits" of
the strength. Apparently, they've gotten a lot of resistance to the idea
though --- fire strength MUST go down if I take any losses at all.
Combat results in losses and stragglers (where stragglers losses are higher
for low-morale units and can be recovered later). Targets must also take
morale checks, resulting in "shaken", "disrupted", and "routed" units (and
also "blood lust" units).
All in all, I LOVE these games. With the caveat that I've played them mostly
solotaire. The orders system is innovative, fun, frustrating (in a GOOD way)
and easy to use (since you've only got 2-5 corps, and you only need to issue
orders to each every few hours at most). The flow of play is much like GBACW
(which I haven't played since the original Terrible Swift Sword) but at a
higher level (brigades vs regiments).
And I love the fact that it is a series (I'm getting resistant to learning a
new set of rules every time I get some time to do some gaming).
Don "new to the list" Stone (stone@cs.unc.edu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 11:39:15 EDT
From: stone@CS.UNC.EDU
Subject: Re: The Gamers: Bloody Roads South
I meant to add a caveat to my review of the Gamers Civil War system.
It requires "mature players". For the game to work, players must live up to
the "spirit" of the orders system. This includes following orders that are a
"bad idea". Not trying to do things you haven't given orders for. Etc.
Given players willing to play in this spirit, I think it is a lot of fun
tyring to win given the very frustrating nature of civil war command.
Don Stone
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 07:27:39 -0600
From: John Burtt <jdb@INEL.GOV>
Subject: ACW
gang (and arnaud): Picking the best civil war game is really dependant on
the time you have, the opponents you have and individual taste. I like Berg's
GBACW series, but more for the research in them. The gamer's series is more
"playable" but big (two maps, etc). Jon Southard's series out of West End -
Chickamauga is the best in my view - is smaller and manageable and has "good"
command control ideas (this is the system I am adapting to a STONES RIVER game
for Bill Gibbs and Omega Games...). AH's BULL RUN or 3W's Forward to Richmond,
are easy fast and furious. All are worth a look to find your best fit.
Regarding Gamers - the ACW system is in fact being adapted to napoleonics -
Austerlitz is the first I believe. About orders, well, I have to fall back on
Don's statement about maturity. Orders like "cover the area between Kentucky
and Georgia and attack or defend as you deem necessary" are to most people
unacceptable. Orders like move to crossroads and hold, or move to crossroads,
form for battle and advance against the enemy to the north as far as snodgrass
hill, are. But immature gamers will play latitude with anything, so it calls
for the spirit to be adhered to. Then again, if you have a problme gaming with
those kinds of restrictions, there are multiple games (most mentioned above)
that allow you complete latitude to respond (maybe not the movement allowance,
but the latitude). Please note gang, that "you" in the last sentence is a
generic "you" not anyone in particular.
john
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 10:47:48 EDT
From: stone@CS.UNC.EDU
Subject: Re: ACW
Several extra comments about the Gamers CW system:
I should note that there are 2nd edition rules out (a set of bridge rules came
with Barren Victory and the actual 2nd edition rules came with Bloody Roads
South). In general, the new rules are simply a clearer rendition of the
original rules. There are some minor changes to the basic game systems. And
there is a "major" change to the command system ... it is much harder to get
initiative and commanders are given more command points (ability to write
orders) to compensate.
Steffan described the ratings scale to me. Take these with a large grain of
salt though (until I've seen a pile of ratings for games I know, I won't
really have a feel for what a 2 versus a 3 rating might mean)
Complexity : 2
Detail of Play: 2
The basic system is quite straightforward. Flow of play is very smooth once
you know the tables and get your routine for rolling the combat and recording
the losses down (there is some record keeping -- strength and fire level --
but it is not very onerous ... and I HATE record keeping)
A trick from one of the magazines helps with combats ...
Roll 5 dice for each combat. I use two cups, one with a red and a white die,
and one with a red, a white, and a very small green die. The first cup is the
morale result, the second cup is the fire result. Works very nicely (note
that you sometimes ignore some of the dice, if the combat doesn't require a
morale check, etc)
As to the command system, I too fall back on my comment about mature gamers.
Though "mature" is a loaded word. You have to commit to the spirit of the
command rules before this works. If you do, it is a lot of fun (and very
educational) to try to "get around them", by carefully issuing orders in
advance, and really planning your day. Takes a lot of "spirit" though to run
a corps up at an impregnable position while waiting for a initiative roll (or
a corps attack stoppage roll).
There is no rule mechanism for misinterpreting orders. Such "misinterpreted"
orders are merely thrown away (leaving that valuable, well-positioned corps
sitting around for another few hours while you try to get a new order to
them).
Anyway, end of plug. I think I love these games, but I haven't had a chance
to play much against opponents, and it seems unlikely I will soon. And the
proof that these command rules can work (and be fun) will really come when I
can spend some time with an opponent with similar taste/goals.
Also, the Gamers have a system out for WWII (I believe it is "panzer leader"
level) which uses a "similar" command system. I'm afraid I don't know much
about it. But there are 4 (I think) games in the series and more in the
pipeline.
Don