From: Chuck Lietz Subject: Objective Atlanta (was AH Game Reviews N-O) Objective Atlanta Missed one and it was sort of an easy one to miss. AH bought Battleline and got Objective Atlanta and Shenandoah as well as Fury in the West. FitW was redone in AH bookcase style but the other two were briefly sold from the leftover stock that came in the acquisition as that was where my copy came from. I sold my copy many years ago and nostalgically wish I hadn't. However, when I start to remember it more clearly, I guess I really don't miss it too much and here's why. I really liked Fury in the West and I really wanted to like Objective Atlanta too. It had a nice set of components for its day and was generally the Fury in the West system modified mainly by the timescale (I think turns were days in OA) to reflect the change in scope from a grand tactical to an operational scale. The other big change was to add entrenchments and the fortified line concept. The game covered pretty much the campaign from Kenneesaw Mountain (sp?) to the battles in and around Atlanta after Hood took command. There were a lot of smaller scenarios but we mainly dove right into the campaign game as the scenarios were all linear affairs where one fortified line was either assaulted or flanked. The game used the off map strength point charts used in FitW but I can't honestly remember if stragglers were used. At this point in the war, I don't think it was as big of problem than at Shiloh and again, the scale is so much different but it might have been there too. Can't remember too much else about the mechanics but it seems to me that combat was fairly bloody and strongly favored the defender as it should be. Things I liked: Map: I remember the map being very expansive for the amount of units on the board. I remember the first and only scenario we played used only about the top 1/8 of the mapboard. There also was plenty of room on the east and west sides as well which was important. Hidden Unit Values: I always like a some amount of fog of war and the off map strength charts while somewhat of a pain still do a pretty good job in this area. Obscurity: The only game (at least at the time as far as I know) on the subject at this scale Cavalry Raids: I remember that cavalry raiding was common on both sides as the Confederates burned supplies, cut rail lines and the like, while the Union cavalry tried to disrupt the construction of new fortifications. Things I didn't like: Well, where to start. Simply put, I found the game very boring. To express why, I need to go into a little more depth. First, the situation. Sherman was moving south along the rail line that went from Knoxville/Chattanooga (?) to Atlanta. The reason is that as near as I can tell, the northern part of Georgia is pretty mountainous terrain and the rail was the easiest path for moving men but more importantly, the large amounts of supplies needed for Sherman's army. To counter this, the Confederates built up many fortified lines running east-west across the rail lines. In game terms, here was the basic situation. The rail line runs from the north edge of the map pretty due south until it hits Atlanta about two-thirds of the way down. About the whole northern third of the mapboard is hills and other terrain not suited for marching anywhere else quickly. The Union task is quite simple, get to Atlanta. However, supply considerations don't let you shift your main axis of attack far from the rail line and so you end up having two choices as the Union; either assault the Confederate fortified lines in Grant-like fashion or perform an opererational flanking move similar to Halleck's capture of Corinth. The rub is that supply and manpower considerations pretty much only allow you to flank one Confederate line at a time so you can't go haring off around a flank all the way to Atlanta or you won't have any troops left by the time you get there. The Confederates, while inferior in numbers are defending in terrain well suited to defence and have a CRT that favors this as well. Counter-attacking can be useful only if the Union forces are really way out of position as jeopordizing the defence of a fortified line is generally not worth the risk. The bloody CRT also discourages rebel counterattacks in that they cannot afford to trade losses equally. The net result is that the Union forces end up moving and attacking painfully slowly showing very little overall progress in the majority of the game. Most of the time, we tried some combination of flanking and a frontal assault to wear down the rebel forces and force the retreat from one line or another. (I think there are about 6-7 lines in the northern part of the board that can be constructed and used by the Confederates and more in and around Atlanta) While this is probably a very good representation of the actual campaign, it does make for a sluggish game. The upshot that really condemns this one for me though is that the Confederate has very little margin for error. The Union side, while still having a fairly tight timeframe, can afford to make some mistakes and still make up for it due to their superiority in numbers and the luxury of time. One poorly executed Confederate counter-attack or failure to construct a line fast enough and the Union will break through the northern mountains and stroll through to Atlanta with little or no trouble. Is this realistic? Probably. Does that mean then that this game's play is balanced? Probably not. The situation also led to some unrealistic defences of some of the northern fortified lines. In reality, the South was forced to husband its meager forces and at this point in the war, valued the strategically favorable retreat over fighting to the death. In OA though, most of our games were decided early on in the game as the Confederates had no incentive not to fight to the last man in the north until a defensive line was completely untenable and as long as the loss ratio was in your favor. So you ended up with a Stalingrad-like attritional battle going on at some point and either the Rebels held out long enough to retreat orderly and inflicited more casualties in defense than they took or the Union punched through either frontally or on a flank fast enough to allow them to move into the open ground. So when it is all said and done, if you like a very positional, attritional type game boy you'll love this one. You also need to have one player who loves to defend for pretty much an entire game to play the Confederates as I always felt pretty limited in my options when I played that side. Writing about it though still gives me that nostalgic feeling though and I would like to play it (anyone have a copy that want to part with?) again someday but give me the boys in blue though. ;-) Chuck