From: sparky@militia-watchdog.org (Mark Pitcavage) Subject: For the People: First Impressions I was able to get a good look today at Avalon Hill's new strategic level Civil War game designed by Mark Herman called FOR THE PEOPLE. It is a successor to such games as WE THE PEOPLE, HANNIBAL, and SUCCESSORS. In this post I am giving my first impressions of the game. I will describe the components, the rules, and various other elements of the game, in order to help you arrive at an opinion as to whether or not you think the game might be for you. Please keep in mind that this is not an actual review of the game, because I have not yet had a chance to play it. It is a "bookcase" game, like Hannibal and unlike We the People and Successors. However, it is not small. It contains two mounted mapboards, making it a full-sized game. COMPONENTS: Maps: Two maps make up the game, stretching from the bottom edge of Pennsylvania down into Florida and across to Missouri and Texas. The map pretty much skimps at Pennsylvania--you get a glimpse of it but not much more. It is not an attractive map in virtually any sense. All of the U.S./C.S.A. is a bland beige in color, with a few relief features thrown in. No greens whatsoever. There's nothing about the map which makes you want to play the game (contrast War for the Union, which is a mediocre game with a beautiful map). The map is basically area-movement, through the use of the boxes found in We the People as well as in games like A House Divided. The designers learned a lesson from some of their previous games and this time had the good sense to put the place names associated with the boxes OUTSIDE of the boxes (this is important because political control markers generally cover the boxes, which makes it hard to read place names if they are in the boxes). There is, however, nothing graphically original about the map at all. It is about as attractive as 3Ws GIVE ME LIBERTY was, which is to say, not at all. That's a shame. HANNIBAL, for instance, was a pretty nice looking map. Another problem with the map is that the border lines to differentiate the states are almost the same color as the terrain, making them quite difficult to see. A small saving grace is that state abbreviations are printed inside the boxes. Still, it would not have been difficult to make it easy to see state outlines. There are some strange things about the map. The strangest, in my opinion, deal with South Carolina and Louisiana. Boxes in the game start out either Union controlled, Confederate controlled, or neutral. However, there are a handful of boxes which are Confederate controlled but pro-Union, which have a few rules attached. Most of these boxes are the usual suspects: East Tennessee and Western North Carolina. However, three of the boxes (as opposed to just one for North Carolina!) occur in SOUTH Carolina, the single Confederate state which never raised a significant white Union unit during the entire Civil War. There are entire areas of North Carolina into which Confederate authorities were afraid to go, yet this game makes it seem as if SOUTH Carolina was the hotbed of resistance. It is, to me entirely inexplicable. The second egregiously strange thing about the map is New Orleans. A number of Confederate boxes are Confederate resource spaces, the loss of which can have important political effects. Most of these spaces are understandable: Richmond, Memphis, Nashville, etc. However the city of New Orleans, the single largest city in the entire Confederacy, its largest port, etc., etc., is not a resource space. Nothing. Even Marshal, Texas, is a resource space! But not New Orleans. It is little different from Pittsburg Landing! I cannot fathom it. Counters: Two sets of countersheets come with the game. The vast majority of them are simply markers or troop strength markers. In general, the counters are very bland--this has been a major failing of Avalon Hill games in recent years (the beautiful maps of HERE COME THE REBELS and the bland counters of the same game making a noticeable contrast, for instance). The key counters in the game are the leader counters, of course, and this is what everybody wants to see. Leaders basically have three ratings. The first is the strategy rating, where the lower is the better. Basically if you have a low strategy rating it means you are aggressive and easy to activate. If you have a high strategy rating, they have to light a fire under your butt to get you to move. The battle rating is the reverse: a high rating means you are a Napoleon, a low rating means you are a Lord Gort. The third rating, not seen in previous games in this series, is the political value, which essentially means how hard you are to remove. The surprising thing about the leaders is how few of them there are. This is bound to disappoint some people. Perhaps Avalon Hill will make an expansion set--there's a lot of chrome you can add to the game. But the Confederates only get 20 leaders and the Union only gets 22. As for the ratings, most of them are by-the-book, with few surprises. Since there are so few leader counters in the game, I can reproduce them here for your viewing pleasure. UNION Name Strategy Battle Political McDowell 3 1 6 McPherson 3 2 1 Curtis 3 0 5 Thomas 3 2 1 McClellan 3 0 8 Rosecrans 3 1 2 Buell 3 1 5 Hooker 2 0 4 Burnside 2 0 6 Meade 3 1 2 Pleasonton 2 1 (cav) Sheridan 1 3 (cav) Stoneman 2 1 (cav) Banks 3 0 10 Halleck 3 1 6 Butler 3 0 10 Pope 2 0 4 Sherman 1 3 1 Grant 1 3 1 Fremont 3 0 10 Reynolds 3 1 1 Hancock 3 1 1 So, any second-guessing? Curtis, with a battle rating of 0, seems somewhat slighted. It is also strange that McClellan's political rating is not a 10. Hooker has a 0 battle rating, despite a good record as a corps commander. Sheridan seems somewhat overrated, but that's the conventional wisdom, I suppose. The others all seem pretty reasonable. People looking for a McClernand, a Sigel, a Lyons, or a Howard are doomed to disappointment. CONFEDERATE Name Strategy Battle Political Lee 1 3 6 Bragg 3 0 10 Hood 1 1 3 Pemberton 3 0 3 Jackson 1 3 1 Longstreet 1 3 1 Smith 2 1 8 Price 3 0 4 Hill 2 1 3 Early 1 1 2 Stuart 1 2 cav Wheeler 1 1 cav Forrest 1 3 cav Morgan 1 2 cav Ewell 3 1 4 Van Dorn 1 0 5 Polk 3 0 7 Beauregard 2 1 5 AS Johnston 3 1 10 J Johnston 2 1 8 A few oddities here. Bragg somehow has a strategy rating of 3, yet he was one of the most aggressive Confederate commanders. Price's political rating is probably undervalued, as is Polk's. Wheeler is generously endowed, probably too much so. And Beauregard also has an undervalued political rating. Fans of Pillow, Gordon, Holmes, Hindman, Taylor, Lee (any Lee other than old Rob), or DH Hill are going to be disappointed. Lastly and certainly not least--how on earth did Joseph Johnston get a 2 strategy rating? Jefferson Davis must be spinning in his grave. That, by the way, would have been an interesting optional rule (of which there are none in this game): give Jeff Davis a leader counter (I'd give him a 2-2-10). The other interesting thing about the counters, though sadly this is not really used enough, is that there are a few "hidden leader" rules. Although the rules are not 100% clear (a problem more than once in the rulebook), it appears that although leaders become available on a certain turn, they are randomly picked and placed upside down on predesignated locations. Only in battle or some similar situation will they finally reveal themselves--and then you discover you put Benjamin Butler in charge of the Army of the Potomac. This is a rule that would have benefited greatly from a much, much larger leader pool, so that there would be no guarantee in any particular game that you would get every general. Cards: Well, the heart of the game is not the map nor the counters but the cards. They are attractively designed, although some of the card titles are bizarre. As in Hannibal, but not We the People, each card is both an event card and an operations card. This means, for those of you unfamiliar with the trick, if you play a card you can EITHER use the special event on the card OR use the card's ability to help you move your forces. Not both. So you have to choose wisely. The cards tend to represent small events that the game cannot simulate, as well as larger political events (the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance). Some noteworthy cards include: "Cigars" (a la Antietam; allows you to make a big interception); Dorothea Dix (who brings people back from the dead, evidently); Red River Campaign (which the union is forced to conduct); Pro Union Secessionist in Tennesee (which despite the oxymoronic title helps the Union player); Brazil Recognizes the Confederacy (???): Lincoln Declares Southern Blockade (which does not start the blockade, somehow, but simply augments it); Great Sioux Uprising (which allows the Union player to remove a general); Southern Religious Revival (a nice touch; many people are unaware of it); Confederate Torpedoes (damn them!); the Emancipation Proclamation; Quaker Guns; Mud March; Mosby's Raiders; Choctaw Indians (which somehow are important enough to make the Union player lose a strategy card when they declare for the Confederacy!!); and Draft Riots. Missing are: Angry Husband (to kill Van Dorn); Confederate (or Union) Draft; Stragglers/Deserters; Fort Pillow; March to the Sea; Mandate to Save East Tennessee; Confederate Peace Movement (North Carolina, etc.); Obstinate Confederate Governors; The Crater; etc. Oh well, maybe in the sequel. The Rules: I obviously can't go through all the rules, but I can make a few passing comments: 1. Force sizes and structures are elegantly handled, along with subordinate generals, etc. There are also rules for removing generals. 2. You can create forts, but for some reason the Confederacy is limited to 5 forts in play at one time. 3. Players start off being dealt only 4 strategy cards a turn but quickly (perhaps too quickly) work their way up to seven. 4. The cavalry rules are generally good and help with interception, retreat, battles, etc. 5. The supply rules are unfortunately not all they could be. It is easy to maintain armies where historically they simply could not really stay. 6. The Naval system is generally good. 7. The Battle system depends far more on die-roll modifiers than odds, which is a little strange. Herman contends that "force ratios" played a "very small role" in battle outcome; consequently you have to have 3-1 odds or better before they can help you. This seems to be a very odd proposition which doesn't quite square with the reality of the situation, for two reasons: 1. There aren't very many examples of major battles with really significant force disparities, primarily because leaders who had incredibly inferior forces almost always chose not to give battle. So there are only a few battles, such as Chancellorsville or Antietam, where there were big disparities, such as 2-1, which did not seem to have too much of an effect on the battle. But this is because of the second reason: 2. Many battles in which there were, say, 2-1disparities only did NOT have a significant effect on battle simply because not all of the army got into battle. In neither Chancellorsville or Antietam, for instance, was a significant portion of the Union force engaged. One might think that a 2-1 or better advantage for Grant would be significantly more dangerous than the same for McClellan. Consequently I am not convinced that there is no real difference between 1-2 odds and 2-1 odds. However, your mileage may vary. 8. Reinforcements are standardized for the Union (too bad; they could have been tied to the political system) and are for the Confederacy dependent upon its fortunes in battle, in that states conquered by the Union reduce Confederate reinforcements. As in War for the Union, Confederate reinforcements are split among the states, but unlike that older (and seemingly inferior) game, the Confederate player can more easily arrange them into armies, etc. 9. The political warfare section unfortunately does not affect the game directly as much as it might. One thing that will upset any person who likes to play the Confederates is that once the Union conquers a Southern state, by God, it stays Conquered, and the Confederacy can never get its points back. So much for the notion that the South shall rise again. Another strange thing is that some states become "Union controlled" even if the Confederacy still controls a majority of the spaces in the state. 10. Lastly, I should mention a very strange little rule. Mark Herman evidently subscribes to the "Why the South Lost" theory of Confederate guilt over slavery, because once the Emancipation Proclamation is issued, the Confederate player loses 5 strategic warfare points per turn for "Confederate War Guilt." Most historians do not really buy into the notion that Southerners felt guilty about slavery and this somehow affected the war effort. 11. Did I really say Lastly? Heck, let me add one more odd little thing. The army vs. army battle rules are skewed in favor of the Confederacy, in that the Confederate player always gets full advantage of his subordinate commanders, but the Union player gets dicked around if the Confederate Army commander is better than the Union Army commander. The rationale for this is not clear and I don't like it. There are four scenarios, 1861, 62, 63, and 64, plus a campaign game, which is what most people will want to play. The scenarios have basically no special rules and there are no optional rules in the game. Bottom line: This is the first real strategic level Civil War game to come out in some time, if you don't count "block" games. It has considerable detail despite its simple system. It is not hard to learn; you can be up and playing in no time, although some of the rules are poorly worded and may confuse. The components are not what they could be, except for the cards, but the design mostly seems good. It looks like it will compare favorably to War for the Union and avoids many of the mistakes of the much older Victory Games Civil War, while being easier to play as well. It wasn't quite all I hoped it would be, but it seems plenty enough. I think any Civil War buff will want to have a copy of the game, and most other gamers will at least want to give it a look. I do hope some sort of expansion kit will be offered, providing more leader counters and some chrome or optional rules. Dr. Mark Pitcavage, sparky@militia-watchdog.org The Militia Watchdog: Http://www.militia-watchdog.org From: "Robert R. Leonhard" Subject: For the People This is a very preliminary preview of AH's new title, For the People. I received my copy in the mail, and I've solitaired a few turns. Here are my observations: 1. Overall, very positive. Looks fun and intriguing. 2. Nice components. When I first saw the map, I thought they had mistakenly sent me a copy of "A House Divided". Map is bigger but very similar. 3. Rules. There are no actual glitches that I've seen so far, but there are a few vague points that will require further explanation by AH. I'm looking forward to a replay in the General, in order to better understand some of the dynamics. 4. Play of the game. As with many Civil War games, there seems to me to be too many things to do at the start. There are so many things that need done that you feel after each play as if you've not accomplished anything. The CSA have so many vulnerable points all along their coastline and frontier that they almost have to attack simply because a defense isn't feasible. 5. On my first game, the Confederates used a card to reduce the Harper's Ferry garrison by one half, and then attacked with Beauregard. After seizing HF, Beauregard then marched into Pennsylvania and dropped strength points (SPs) from Uniontown to York. This effectively isolated Washington, which resulted in the Union losing half of their expected reinforcements on Turn 2. I felt that this play was unrealistic. 6. On the second game, Beauregard attacked Washington directly. He lost--big time, as it turned out--but the very fact that an attack was conceivable concerned me that it might be too easy to seize the Union capital on the first turn. The Union would lose almost a third of its strategic will if that happened. 7. The card play is central to the game. Whatever you are dealt pretty much dictates your actions for the turn. My initial impression is that the card play is less fun than I thought it would be. The advertisement talked about Lincoln having to "battle corruption in his own cabinet," etc. But what this boils down to is the Confederate player simply playing a nasty card--which the Union can do nothing to stop--that subtracts a few strategic will points from the Union. Big deal. 8. I don't want to prejudge, though. I'm certain there are nuances that I'm missing. A good series replay will probably help us "Joe Averages" to better comprehend the strategic flavor. We'll see. 9. In conclusion---so far I like it, but I didn't get an immediate grasp of the ebb and flow of the game. Bob Leonhard