STRAIGHT A'S FOR "A5A"

 

ACROSS FIVE APRILS by ERIC LEE SMITH

 

from VICTORY GAMES

 

2 22"x 32" mapsheets; 352 counters; 2 Rules booklets; 2 Player Aid Cards; dice; boxed. Victory/AH, 4517 Harford Rd, Baltimore MD 21214 $2?

 

Reviewed by RICHARD H. BERG

 

Eric Lee Smith has been absent from the wargame scene for far too long. After working on some of Victory's more intriguing titles in the mid '80's (such as the interesting, but rarely played Moseby's Raiders, and the immensely popular Civil War ), he retired to Philadelphia to make money, something virtually unheard of in this industry (making money, that is). But, after several years of getting in touch with Reality, he's back … and he's back with a vengeance. His "pentagame", the rather opaquely titled Across Five Aprils, is easily the best "simple" game I've played in a decade, and the perfect retort to those designers of similarly "simple" games who feel that "simple" = devoid of creativity.

 

The last year has seen several attempts, virtually all desultory at best, to publish/design a game that is easy to learn, fast and simple to play, yet is challenging to the mind and, dare I mention such a prospect, instructive to the inquisitive. The most obstreperous attempt was the Bagget/Decision answer to the LeBrea Tar Pits: that quicksand of simple-mindedness, The Ancient/Bag Quad. 3W put out a couple of games that appeared to be reaching for the Quick Play audience, but only those from wargaming's own Rabbit in Heat, Rob Markham, even approached playability. The Gamers had some success with Stalingrad Pocket, but, while StalPock is easy to play in the end, it does take some time to both get into and finish. Excluding a host of False Dmitris from both "S&T" and "Command", games often less simple than they proclaimed - and sometimes less interesting - there wasn't much else to answer that clarion call of Classic Simplicity … not even AH's own Smithsonian Collection games, which are often far more complex than AH seems to care to admit. Each of the pretenders, above, failed to answer the bell for at least one of the following requisites: Easy to Learn, Fast Set-Up, Equally Fast Play, Some Historical Insight above the level of a TBS movie, a system that revealed some sort of Creativity,  and a situation Challenging to the Players. It is thus with no little satisfaction - for I have done much work with Eric and know how creative he can be - that I state that his A5A not only successfully meets the standards of all of those categories, but it shines in the most important one. It is a whole lot of Fun.

 

A5A is a multi-game in the venerable Blue & Gray mold, but with a deal more pizazz. There are, as the title would suggest, five battles in the box: 1st Bull Run, Shiloh, Pea Ridge, Gettysburg, and Bentonville. 1864 seems to have gotten the back of the hand here, although, when one thinks of it, other than The Wilderness, name a battle from that year that IS gameable. Bentonville isn't much of a battle either, and one wonders why this sorry affair was included over other similarly-sized battles. On the other hand, aside from a privately published Bentonville of over a decade ago that would please only the hearts of true collectors, it IS a battle untouched by human dice. Unfortunately, there is a reason for that.

 

The least imposing aspect of A5A is its rather drab box cover, even with the Troiani painting adorning it. The game title is too small, and, as both the painting and its border major in Deep Blue, the effect is more of depression. The back of the box is actually nicer looking than the front. After that, though, no complaints. The maps are similar in style to those seen in Stonewall Jackson's Way, although they are not as crisp, evocative or impressive. They're nice, though. Interestingly, Victory chose to put Gettysburg on one map, and the rest of the battles on the other map (two on each side). Not important; just interesting.  The counters are clear, readable and color-coded for Organizational identification, which is quite important in play. The rules books are easy to read - big typefonts help - and the Players Aid Chart  and extremely handy counter-tray complete the professional package. 

 

The most interesting aspect of the A5A design is that, while it is quite simple and all of the mechanics seem quite familiar, it as anything but your basic Igo-Hugo, 3-1 or die game. The Sequence of Play and the application of combat results are not only both rather unusual, but their innovations serve to give the games a solid jolt of fun jot while keeping game-play at a constant level of tension. And that tension, that "what's-going-to-happen-next" feeling, is what makes A5A so playable and so successful.

 

Basically, what Smith has done is to go a step or two further with what I, personally, feel is the major system innovation to be put into pandemic use over the last two years:  picking chits to see who goes. This is an idea that was almost accidently invented by Victory's departed editorial wizard, Michael Moore (whose other claim to fame is Victory's Cooking Game), and immediately adopted by Smith (in Civil War, in somewhat different fashion). It's been used to great effect elsewhere (cf. Mark Simonitch's Legend Begins, among others) and is so good that it will be used by me (Ed. e.g., in the upcoming IV Against Rome and Gringo, among others … this has been a Paid Political Announcement). Smith, though, has added some unusual refinements. Each organization, usually a division or corps, gets a Movement Marker. Some get two, but they can only move on one. And each player gets a Combat Phase marker. So, into the hopper go a bunch of Movement markers and two Combat markers, and the order in which they're picked is totally random!  This not only means that when your guys get to move is totally unknown (at least until the end of the chit picking), but it means you never know when you will be able to attack!! If you pick your Combat marker before you've moved, and you have no one in your ZOC, then you can't attack (except for artillery bombardment).

 

It actually gets a bit more subtle than even that. If your combat marker is picked, you must attack everyone in your ZOC. However, you can also retreat any unit that you do not wish to so use. Players quickly acquire a system-enhanced caginess, in which they will move units into enemy ZOC's z after their combat marker has been chosen, because they know that when their opponent picks his, unfavorable odds may force him to attack badly or, more likely, retreat. Thus, the system produces bloodless, non-combat position exchanges, as well as the inherent tension of not knowing whether the marker you want will actually pop up in the "right" order. After a while, and when the units become quite intertwined, as they do in almost all of these games, most movement consists of such attempts to "bluff" the opponent out of position. The great part about all of this is that, with rules so minimalist Philip Glass would love them, the principle - if not the subtleties- of all this are grasped almost immediately.

 

Combat, while basically your good-ole odds/ratio, has just enough quirks to make it interesting. Both defender and attacker have their own CRT, each one almost - but not quite; defender gets a slight advantage - a mirror image of the other. Terrain produces column shifts, but the unit's Morale Ratings, from the Bull Run-laden "-1's" to the Stonewall and Iron brigades' "+2", are used twice: as a dieroll adjustment per the unit chosen to lead the attack/defense (and, of course, to take the casualties) and to affect any Morale Checks upon step loss. Most units have two steps, and the CRT can be most unforgiving in the middle ranges, so players quickly learn that the position warfare allowed by the Attack Retreat rule and the marker system can often produce better "results" than slamming ahead.

 

All of this is covered in about 7-8 pages of rules which are assimilated and ready for application in less than 10 minutes. Each battle has its own special rules, usually a couple of paragraphs, none of which are particularly overwhelming. (Well, to be honest,  the Union Reserve Artillery rule for Gettysburg is extremely artificial, pretty much the only over-written section in the box.) To see how the game worked out of the box, we chose 1st Bull Run, a battle unlike any other in the war, and one that has successfully challenged - and defeated - many a game designer. Now, while it didn't highlight many of the features of this interesting battle - piecemeal attacks, massive confusion, unfamiliarity with the new weapons of war - our game managed to mirror history rather interestingly. It was also nip and tuck all the way, even though Tyler's Division got across the Stone Bridge with little trouble. Stonewall's brigade proved to be a godsend, actually pushing the Union right off Henry House Hill and holding it for the remainder of the game. The CSA just held on for a very slim victory … and it was a tense, fun game. It also took 55 minutes to play - and that's including kibbitzing and commentary.

 

Then it was off to Shiloh, another test of a designer's mettle. Here the game seems to reach its peak, as this version of Shiloh is just marvelous. The Union lack of alertness is easily and simply handled by not giving them any markers until they are attacked. The rebels managed to get all bolloxed up in their movements simply because the Movement markers came at the wrong time, often telling the player to move his rear-line units before his front-line. There was some marvelous risk-taking and some really bad decisions. By mid-afternoon game-time, two Confederate corps simply blew their way through the center of the Union line - as happened historically - but took major casualties in doing so. They ran out of gas in the evening, and then Buell blew 'em away the next day. Actually, Shiloh is a two-day battle that makes a one-day game, because Buell's army simply tilts the balance so overwhelmingly that if the CSA hasn't grabbed the landing and cut off the Tennessee by the end of the day, the CSA is simply not going to win. Fortunately, in this game, they have a truly good chance of pulling it off that first day.

 

Having found Shiloh such a joy, we took a deep breath and flung ourselves into Gettysburg.  Avalon Hill, bless its heart, has tried (and failed) to do this game so many times that you'd think sheer exhaustion - aside from bad design work - would cause them to scream, "No More. Never Again!  Go Away!!"  Well, they can all breath a (small) sigh of relief, for while this GB version is not as good as either the Bull Run or Shiloh scenarios, it pretty much works. Granted, there was some maladroit twisting and tugging, such as giving Buford's cavalry rather high combat ratings so that Heth doesn't simply use them as boot wipers. The Iron Brigade also seems to arrive a mite early for my taste, and, on the whole, the Union does a bit better in the opening rounds than would seem appropriate. Then again, the sheer randomness of the Movement marker selection - Turn 2 saw the CSA player pick his Combat Marker first, and as he had no one in position, he could do nothing against Buford - may have had a great deal to do with this. It's also somewhat my problem; I'm a bit tired of the same old units streaming up the same old roads, doing the same things, with virtually the same results. Ultimately, that great Illusion of Movement - the false feeling that you're actually controlling events - is just that, an illusion … a lie of perception. Even with all that distance to cover, Gettysburg is a channelled battle which plays out almost exactly the same each and every time. So, while this version worked pretty well - the Union actually stands a better chance of holding Cemetery Hill in this game than in most others -  I'm just tired of hiking around all those little tops, rail cuts and undulating ridges. There are few, if any surprises here.

 

As for Bentonville and Pea Ridge, neither situation was one I would care to delve into. Pea Ridge is, if anything, more channelled than GB. And Bentonville? Feh. I'd rather play Bull Run again.

 

The game's simplicities are not without their problems. For example, use of artillery is highly unrealistic, even with bombardment rules, cavalry is handled better when its historical use was poor than in the later battles, and it is not clear what happens (if anything) when units from different organizations stack.  These problems, however, are easy to overlook  simply because you are aware that that's NOT what the designer is trying to show you.

 

Eric Smith is intent on showing you a good time. That he succeeds so well, with such panache, with so surprisingly large a modicum of insight, and with such disarming simplicity is a testament to his creativity. This is a really good one: grab it.

 

CAPSULE COMMENTS

 

Graphic Presentation:  Good, but not great.

 

Playability:  A major asset. Easy to learn, easy to play. 3 of the 5 battles take about an hour; the other two are longer only because of the number turns involved. Excellent solitaire, probably workable PBM, and certainly sure to be a tournament fixture for years.

 

Replayability:  Depends on the battle, but the Sequence and marker system ensure that no two games will be the same. Except Gettysburg, which seems to defy any attempts to alter the inexorable march of historicity.

 

Historicity: Within the limitations of its design and aims, quite good. Certainly not the final word, but the systems and combat are quite era-evocative.

 

Comparisons:  It's sophistication renders the old Blue & Gray games totally obsolete, while its simplicity makes it far more playable than the 1863 and South Mountain systems. At its level of design intent, at least two laps ahead of the competition.

 

Overall:  In its ability to combine simplicity with subtlety, historical insight with ease of play, and tension with fun, Across Five Aprils is a major achievement … one of the best games of the year.