SPLIT PERSONALITY

THE GAMERS CIVIL WAR BRIGADE SERIES: BLOODY ROADS SOUTH, PERRYVILLE and EMBRACE AN ANGRY WIND by DEAN ESSIG and JIM EPPERSON (BRS)

from THE GAMERS

Each game has either one (PV) or two (BRS, EAW) 22" x 33" maps, 280 (PV, EAW) to 560 (BRS) counters, Series Rules book, Game Rules book, dice. Boxed. BRS: $32, PV: $22, EAW: $2?.The Gamers, 500 W. 4th St., Homer IL 61849

Review by RICHARD H. BERG

The Gamers' Civil War Brigade Series has been out and about for about five years now, and, for a variety of reasons, I have been somewhat quiet about them. However, these games - which are now some of the most handsome on the market - are too prevalent and, dare I say, important, to ignore. They garner a lot of design arguments, much conversation, and a fairly large number of adherents. They also have their detractors, as do all games. But, in terms of design creativity, these are water-shed games, especially now that they are in their second rules version (revised … which I guess means the 3rd edition). And, as much as any games that Les Frères "D&D" (Dean Essig and Dave Powell) produce, they reflect what is both good and, if not 'bad', deficient about many of The Gamers' products.

With a large pile of CWBers sitting on my shelves, I chose to tackle the three most recent incarnations: Bloody Roads South (The Wilderness), Embrace an Angry Wind (Spring Hill and Franklin), and Perryville (Perryville). I would have limited it to the last two had Big Brick Sasko bothered to send in his review on the first, but, as we have all learned, Texas millionaires tend to drop out of projects for which they've they signed up. The CWB series is noted for two things (at least at this point in its career): magnificent, lush graphics and a mind-boggling, minutiae-oriented Command system that far too many gamers debunk without having tried. The CWB series does not appear to be something that will attract the full spectrum of gamers, but it's not for lack of trying. And in that attempt, therein lies most of the problem.

Graphically and visually, there are certainly no problems. The original volumes of the series suffered from a case of pallid jaundice. However, D&D seem to have used up that large supply of yellow paint and traded it in for their now, virtually trademark blue-green-gray shades. Even so, the maps in all three games under discussion are excellent, although the use of a medium gray hexgrid often causes the hexes to get lost in the thick woods. The counters are even more lush; they're almost like a Victorian parlor, so thick with deep maroons, heavy blues and vibrant yellows are they. It's almost a rococo riot of colors - some applicable, some a bit much - but all eye-pleasing in a rather soothing way. Like a Victorian sofa, you just want to sink right into them.

As for the rules, well, Dean is never going to be a Raymond Chandler. Short and terse is not his style. He's more the James Michener type: fat with fact and over laden with heavy prose. I'd say an editor with a metaphysical machete could work wonders herein, although the prolific examples and explanations do help. One hopes, though, that they could be separated from the text that counts. And there seems to be an ongoing contest between The Gamers and GMT to see who can come up with the smallest font. So far, it's a flat-out, retina-wrenching tie.

One major plus for these games is the product and customer support provided by The Gamers. They are accessible, responsive, and market-wise. If this is a factor you consider when buying a game, know you are buying the best in that area.

And you'll need that support, too, because, despite the umpteen revisions this series has gone through, it still has more holes than a wheel of Emmenthaler. It's not for lack of trying that these anomalies exist; it's mostly because of channeled focus. Overloaded Emphasis could actually be said to be the motto that graces the Gamers' family escutcheon. It shows up in virtually all of their games. Either Dean or Dave get so wrapped up in one design aspect that they expend most of their not-insignificant creativity producing a multi-layered series of rules for that area that reveal it in all its glory. With Omaha it was artillery barrage; here it is "command".

Shorn of its Command rules and multi-tabled combat resolution, the CWB series is a fairly simple game. Too simple. The units are brigades, with artillery in battalions. Scale is usually 200 yards a hex. The sequence of play is for Player A to move his units and then resolve any close combat (melee). After that, there is defensive fire followed by (and the phrase "followed by" is important) phasing player fire. One curiosity is that, with the State of the Art moving so fast away from rigid sequences, exactly who player A is is fixed; there is no individual turn initiative. One wonders why. Add in the usually rally stuff and you have the "action" part of the game down. Getting to that action, though, is where the CWB games are different, and that trip is one hell of a bumpy journey.

I must admit that part of my reluctance to delve into these games was the fable, rumor, inuendo and plain horse-hockey that had built up around their somewhat infamous Command system. Well, it's everything everyone says it is - and less. It's not the Gorgon from Beyond many seem to feel it is; it's just that, in order to show you why Command Control was so difficult and so frustrating, they have eliminated nary a step. You experience it all. An indication of what you're dealing with is that there are seven (!!) charts used to simply send an order.

It's like wanting to go to the movies. Usually, you get into your car, turn the ignition, and you're off. Here, though, you have to ensure and oversee every step of getting the car started, from connecting the ignition wires to hand-pumping the fuel into the distributor cap.By the time you get the car started the show ended an hour ago. And that's what it's like sending an order in these games.

Fortunately, however, while this is pretty much like determining how large a forest is by counting the trees, it is laid out clearly and, amazingly, it all makes a lot of sense. More importantly, it truly and accurately portrays the difficulties of command - especially in a place like The Wilderness. In Perryville, where both sides seemed to be attending a convention of The Generals From Hell, I think it is mathematically possible (not probable, but possible) that no one will ever move!! There are ways to circumvent the full Command process, although the mathematical odds to successfully do so are not strong in your favor. Also, it doesn't appear that you need a specific order to slam into an enemy force right in front of you, unless your last set of orders says otherwise. (At least that's how I interpreted it.) It is clear after a few turns that this is perhaps the most accurate, most intelligently thought-out, and most overwrought command system in all of Simulation Land. If that's what you want, if Frustration is your game, then you'll be in Simulation Heaven. If not, you've been warned.

Aside from this vaunted Command System, what else have we got? A somewhat mixed, albeit playable, bag is what you got. The system has a very interesting set of Fire Combat mechanics in which absolute numbers mean little; relative numbers mean all. In other words, the game recognizes that if you have 1000 men and 900 get killed, the 500 of these that were firing in the first place will still be there (the lost 100 having been replaced by an extra 100), still firing. It's only when a unit starts to take serious losses that it looses firepower to a great extent, or sinks to one of the three levels of lesser morale: Shaken, Disorganized and Routed. Familiar mechanics and numbers are used to produce the losses on the Fire Table, as well as a very interesting Morale Check table in which you can actually increase your morale level if sufficiently annoyed by enemy fire. That check also produces one of the systems great bugaboos: Stragglers.

Few players like stragglers; and no one likes to keep track of them. (I found that out with Bloody April, at least.) They ARE a definitive part of the warfare of this (and almost any) era and a major problem for commanders. But they are NOT a major result of fire combat, as is portrayed herein; most straggler problems result from either too much walking or too much routing. The number of men who cut-and-run as a result of enemy fire (without a rout result) in this game is simply not supportable. You can lose more men to straggling from one round of enemy fire than you can to bullets. Is there straggling after rout? No. Is there straggling from excessive marching? Not unless you use Forced March. But it's easy to lose one-third your strength to stragglers in one hour of combat. - and that's each unit! I'm not saying straggling in great numbers didn't exist; I simply maintain they didn't occur here. To add to this through-a-glass-darkly view of the problem, recovering stragglers is far to generically simple, probably a result from a desire to keep the rules complications cavalry entail to a minimum.

And then there are what I call the "Subjective" Tables, such as the Status Change Table. Each player has to decide, each turn, how he's doing. Literally. Sort of wargaming's answer to "I'm OK, You're OK." Now even the rules recognize that anyone who is smarter than Burnside will realize that you can stay out of a mess of trouble (Army Panic dierolls) simply by saying, "Hey, guys, everything's just Okee-Dokee." They recommend you be objective about your subjectivity. Sure. Obviously not a game for those of a competitive bent.

Even more ridiculous - and more indicative of the skewed creative energy - are the facing rules. It costs a brigade - even a brigade with an Extended Line of 600 yards sitting in the Wilderness - absolutely NOTHING to change facing, even if such units are in an enemy ZOC! They don't even get fired at!! I had such a brigade perform a parade-ground maneuver that even Scipio at Ilipa would have drooled over. Not a hair was mussed - well, they were a bit Shaken, but that counted for naught - and each counter (the combat unit and its two "extended" markers) managed to each adroitly spin place, sort of like the Amazing Gazonga Brothers, sashay off to the left, wheel right, turn around - all in full enemy view - and then flank a fully extended enemy brigade. It was better than watching the halftime show at the Super Bowl - and just about as dumb. With such detailed command rules, why are players treated to such off-handed, who-cares minimalist rules-writing.

Even so, once you've beaten the Command System into the corner and decided on what house rules to use to fill in the obvious blanks and dumb spots, these games somehow have a higher level of fun than most … a level that does, however, vary with the battle being portrayed.

Forget Perryville. It's a game that succumbs to the system, because it's a battle that is terminally linked to command problems. The only thing worse - or to less effect - than sitting around trying to get these Zombies in Blue and Gray to move is running through an artillery barrage in Omaha. It's Buell vs Bragg, both at their worst. Whad'ya expect?

Bloody Roads South is well worth the effort, although it is a game that, because of the horrendous terrain and the concomitant command problems, is pretty well channelled down the roads. There are opportunities to do some unusual cross-country flanking maneuvers, but, ultimately, history pretty much runs its course here. Both players, though, are severely tested and the game's historical insights are excellent.

The most fun is Embrace an Angry Wind, if alone for the excellent, only partially-tongue-in-cheek John Bell Hood rules and Addict Table. John Bell Hood was a man driven by personality and pain so far from the edge of reality that his present, somewhat elevated, status in the Confederate pantheon is rather difficult to understand. (I always think of the knight in the Monty Python "Holy Grail" movie, the one who keeps getting his limbs lopped off but still comes returns to attack again and again. That's Hood.) Anyway, EAW covers the battles of Spring Hill and Franklin. The latter is, of course, a major CSA disaster … and even the most astute player can't salvage a rebel frontal attack. Solitaire play only, and enjoyable only in "northern" precincts. Spring Hill, though - the prelude to Franklin - is fun. It's a meeting engagement that starts with almost no one on the map and proceeds tp show off the system at its best. Unit numbers are few, the map is fairly open, there is room for maneuver and, although you are again dealing with yet another futile gesture by Hood, at least there's lots of wheeling and clouting… and lots of Bedford Forrest. It's also a good game to get if you want to sample the system, as it has few special rules.

Ultimately, although I had a pretty good time testing this series, I was really frustrated playing the three battles. Not frustrated by the Command System; that I sort of liked (if not really enjoyed). I certainly appreciated it. I also have no argument with the game's infamous "No Woods Benefit" rule, especially at brigade level; there's a lot of truth to what Dean argues therein. And once you've played a turn or two, you do find yourself playing the situation, and not the rules. I was frustrated, however, by playing a game that ran the gamut of reality from A to ZZZ: Afrika Korps meets CNA. Why?

There's a nagging feeling that much of what makes up the CW Brigade Series results from a basic desire to "…do something different, and to do it differently." After all, this is not the first brigade-level ACW system we've seen, and it surely won't be the last. It is the most detailed, though, and truly the most unusual. And it is definitely the most frustrating, often by design … but sometimes by a lack of it.

CAPSULE COMMENTS

Graphic Presentation: Lush, beautiful, eye-catching. Excellent.

Playability: Once (if) you get the hang of the Command system, playability is not that much of a problem. It is not the game's strong suit, though. Solitaire is possible, but heavy hat-changing is required to incorporate the Command system.

Replayability: Moderate, and mostly for those interested in either the system's command aspects or the what-if, historical aspects of the games.

Historicity: Here the series has a truly split personality. In some aspects, including OB and leader usage, its historicity is quite high … exceptional in spots. Then, turn the page, and your only brush with reality is the name of the battle.

Playing Time: Depends on how long you take to write out all those orders. Higher than most games at this scale, certainly a long evening at best.

Comparisons: Let's ignore the random, individual battle games that abound as well as the ultra-simple brigade systems. In terms of portraying command, the CWB games are far superior to anything going. That aside, what have we got? The Markham/Berg 1862/63 series has little of the detail but is far simpler and more "competition" oriented. The obvious comparisons are to the the regimental-level GBACW games, which are more concerned with the effects of Chaos and inability to control "events". Both are fairly complex, involved systems. Withal, the two systems are remarkably similar in both mechanics, effect … and the fierceness of its adherents.

Overall: Although the CWB Series is probably the best brigade-level simulation going, it is not without problems. And its problems are those that seem to afflict most - if not all - of The Gamers "in-house" designs: concentration on 2-3 areas, ignorance of (and in) several others. Given the graphics and the possibilities, definitely worth a try to see if you'll buy into it.