LITTLE MAC ATTACK

SEVEN DAYS BATTLES by ROB MARKHAM

from DECISION/OVERLORD GAMES

Two 33" x 22" maps, 400 counters, 4 Rules/Scenario Sheets, Die, boxed. Decision Games, Box 4049, Lancaster CA 93539; $28

Reviewed by RICHARD H. BERG

Any project that has to do with George McClellan is probably going to have something go wrong. Exhibit #1: the box cover for Rob Markham's Seven Days' Battles. Rules typos are one thing; misspelling the battle in large font on the box cover wrong is another dimension entirely. "Frayer's [sic] Farm" is not (I would say "I'm sure", but Decision past-performance makes me change that to "I hope") what was intended. Nor was misprinting the Complexity/Solitaire Rating Box on the back; High Complexity, Low Solitaire is not going to move this out in droves. (Thank God for paste on stickers, eh Doc!) None of this has anything to do with whether this is a fun - or good - game. It does weight heavily in the Getting One's Act Together area, though. That duly noted, on to the autopsy.

7DB is a quasi-quad game covering four of the battles from McClellan's abortive Peninsula Campaign of 1862. One of them, "Seven Pines", is not actually part of the so-called 7 Days Battles, being a sort of prelude to the whole fiasco. I say "quasi-" quad because this is not really four different games in a box. It is more four different battles taking place on four different areas of the same set of maps. This means that many of the units from one battle are used in another, which presents an opportunity to save on counters. Well, when opportunity knocked here, the Decision Graphics Department must have been busy listening to Gwar, because each battle has its own counters … whether they appear in another battle or not. Aside from ensuring that the player has to initiate some sort of succinct filing methodology when putting the game away, there is no mention of which one of a given duplicate to use when playing the "Campaign" game … and they DO have different strengths! (Hint: don't use the 7 Pines counters.)

The game looks fine, except for the poorly designed boxcover. The map may be bland, but it is clear and readable … and, except for trees, this is pretty "bland" terrain anyway. The counters are a mite tutti-frutti (see the NFB review), but they are easy to read and user friendly. The rules are from the Hirohito-Haggadah School of folding (again, see NFB), but they are accessible and clearly formatted. If it wasn't for the box, this would be a nice-looking game.

It's also easy to play … easy, because, as it appears from Markham's designer notes, Overseer Baggett has insisted that the individual battles be Blue & Gray Redux, and nothing more. He wouldn't even allow Markham to use a ten-sided die! "Larry quickly talked me back from that direction, and the rest is history." Well, that's rather dismal English, and it's similarly abysmal history. I mean, when was the last time you saw an AR/EX/DE style CRT? This is SO B&G that the ZOC diagram on page 2 of the Basic Rules has been lifted, verbatim, - we call it "Shrummed" - from Blue & Gray. If you liked B&G, this is fine. If you prefer something deeper than gaming's answer to See Spot Run, you might find little of interest or challenge in basic 7DB.

I suspect most of BROG's readers will dip into this package, if at all, for the campaign version, which puts the two maps together (in a sort of gull-wing fashion) and gives McClellan 80+ turns to take Richmond. No, wait, there's no mention of taking Richmond at all in the Victory conditions. Hmmmm … wasn't that what Little Mac was there for? Appears from this game that Mac's plan was to catch a late steamer out of Harrison's Landing. The game gives absolutely no VP's for the Union Player going on the offensive. Granted, McClellan was an offensive general only to those who had to deal with him psychologically, but he was there to take Richmond. A bit too much of the ole hindsight here, folks.

I played about half of the campaign game. I'll fess up, I liked it. However - and this is a big but (not as big as some of yours, to be sure) - I liked it because I restarted the game and played with my own system. Yeah, I know; that's not fair, but it does point out what a very simple mechanic change can do to an otherwise stultifying game. Using Igo-Hugo, the game has all the allure of the Bates Motel. See, what happens is the CSA Player gets to go first. The Union player is already a bit hobbled by an overlayed Command system, which isn't that well explained but does manage to convey a bit of the command confusion and lethargy considered McClellan's stock-in-trade. There are several avenues of attack open to the Union, but the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-moving Confederate player simply closes them off right at the start, and from there it's just a question of "why am I here?"

Well, I went to a chit-pull system to see how that affected the play. (Again, not fair; I'm supposed to be reviewing Markham's design, not mine. But I didn't like Markham's design, probably because it was really Baggett's thinly disguised attempt to turn the clock back 20+ years.) Well, wadda ya know! The game became fun! First chit I pulled was Porter's V Corps, which I quickly pulled back across the Chickahomony, out of harms way. (In the Igo game, they simply stand and get blasted.) Actually, I should have given the CSA first-chit initiative, but didn't think of that until about turn 20. Well, it went on from there. The Union managed to push a few thrusts west of the woods on the North map, creating all sorts of problems for the rebels in covering their rear. Of course, Union command problems made it nigh impossible for them to attack about half the time, but it was a fairly interesting go, with one Union division even fighting through to the western edge of the map … something that never happens in the Igo game.

The Campaign version, being 80+ turns, is also a game that should not use a Two Steps And You're Out combat system. There is a Reorganization rule, but it is so restrictive - the regrouping commander has to be 2 miles from the front lines!! - and so slow, that it is almost impossible to implement on any scale other than massive withdrawal. In a certain sense, it does recreate the "fight here, withdraw, fight there" feeling of the actual 7 Days. I mean the "effect" is right, but who picked two miles as Regroup HQ? That's a rather arbitrarily lengthy distance, a built-in design mechanic to make sure gamers follow the course of history. It's what you get from designing for Effect, rather than Cause, and then not explaining why you used that particular effect.

Look, you all know that I don't play this level of game too often; I don't play to see who wins but to find out why what happened, happened. There's little, if any, of that in here. But for someone who just wants to push cardboard, roll dice and cart off the counters without spending more than 3 minutes reading rules, this could provide some amusement. The individual battles are straight-ahead bashers, with few tactical problems of note. The Big One has several strategic avenues open, but those openings are only apparent, quickly closed by the system and the Designer's refusal to allow for a Union offensive.

None of this is helped by a set of rules that, while easy to understand on a gaming level, seems intent on slaughtering the English language. Even the errata clubs grammar over the head with a blunt object. I would like to have seen what Rob would have done with this had Larry Bags not been standing over him, bowdlerizing anything that smacked of heresy from the orthodoxy of Blue & Gray.

CAPSULE COMMENTS:

Graphic Presentation: Except for box design, not bad.

Playability: Quite high, Basic rules are 2+ pages; advanced game not much more. Moves along smartly, and solitaire is a big plus.

Replayability: Not a strong point. Simplicity of system, and lack of tactical options in battles straight-jackets this area.

Historicity: Minimal expected, but, within those low expectations, not bad. Don't look for insight.

Creativity: Approaching zero.

Comparisons: B&G Redux, just bigger … and slightly better. Virtually every other low/medium complex ACW, brigade-level game is better. Even 1862, which is about as low as you can go. The old, Yaquinto Seven Days Battles is hard to find but far more interesting.

Overall: Only reason to buy this is because it's the only available game on the subject, or, because it IS so simple, you can easily tinker with it.