Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 09:55:14 EDT From: Osli@aol.com Subject: Re: Bobby Lee (long) This is long. Probably overkill. But I think it covers the bases... Dave Townsend writes: > It's been on my "should I buy this?" list for a long time now. On the one > hand, I like Columbia's system and strategic ACW games. On the other hand, > I mostly play solitaire, reviews have only been lukewarm, and from what > I've read it doesn't sound like it really recreates ACW combat all that > well. So I can always use another data point. Well, Dave, I think I can give you about 50 more data points than you request, but I'm feeling generous. And wordy. As to BOBBY LEE's solitaire playability: One of the coolest features to Columbia's inherent "fog of war system" is that even when you're winning (and this goes for ANY of their games), the mysterious mass of enemy troops seems daunting. Halfway through the Barbarossa scenario in EastFront, for example, long before the Germans are even slowed down, the wall of red blocks between them and Moscow has an air of menace and impenetrability. Even if it's a bunch of pathetic 1 step infantry huddled together for warmth, it sure looks scary from the west. Same goes for North/South in Bobby Lee. All you have to do is stand up, move around to the other side of the table, and you have NO CLUE what the "other guy" was planning, or where his weak spot is, or whether that stack of units in the Wilderness is fresh Rebel infantry or ragged, battered Rebel cav. So for solitaire, it's probably BETTER than most regular wargames... because even if you want to favor one side against the other, you can't be sure what's behind that intimidating blue (or grey) wall... As to BOBBY LEE's "recreation of history": Well, for one thing, there are no leaders represented, except for some special Lee and Grant rules (extra HQ range). That's probably the single greatest abstraction in the game. Ultimately, that's what the Columbia games are all about anyway: abstracting the details down into playable, flavorful, decision-filled games. The turns are monthly, but in each month, both sides get to secretly bid for the initiative (whoever commits to the activation of more HQ's gets to go first, with the South winning ties). Also, a side can pass its turn, at which point the other side can go again, all in the same month. This way, you have very fluid, unpredictable movement and long range strategic planning, which can get mangled due to a sudden enemy grab for the initiative. The map stretches from Baltimore to Richmond, with the Shenandoah on the west. But every battle in the game (even the tiny ones) are fought out on the Tactical Battle Board, and it is here that this game separates from the pack. The battles have fours pairs of turns per day (dawn, morning, afternoon, evening), and if the attacker burns up another HQ step at the end of the day, he can continue the battle the next day, too. Each side has a center, reserve and flanks; as the battle begins, each side secretly sets up its forces. And in an elegant, simple, but realistic system, the inf, cav, and art duke it out accross the battlefield. Units roll id6 per step in combat. Infantry hits on a 5/6, cav hits on 6, and artillery hits on a 6 or a 4/5/6 depending on range. Generally inf and cav can move to engage the enemy, or fire at an already engaged enemy. The art can fire weakly at long range, or, if the enemy has closed upon it, devastation at close range. Alternately, if units are in reserve, they can "flank march" on a die roll to move/fire the same turn on the enemy flank (there's a chance the unit will just get lost on the way, though, and waste his turn; in this CSA is better than USA, and cav is better than inf). If you manage to sweep the enemy flank, you can enfilade fire down on his center. And if you sweep the enemy center, you win the battle. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist. To my mind, even though it's simple, even though it's a simulation that boils down the finer minutia of combat to a series of abstrations, it still accurately represents the decision making processes involved. I personally don't like the optional "morale" rules, but they're in there if you want 'em. And as for command/control rules, they're kind of built in, too. Dan Raspler osli@aol.com