Richard H. Berg - 04:53am Jun 14, 1999 PST (#1705 of 1725)

The Fox and I gave a run at two of the recent Civil War DTPs . . .

FIRE IN MISSISSIPPI [Corinth, 1862] - very nicelyt produced - has some very
unusual mechanics, espercially the sequence of play. Unusual, though, does
not necessarily mean satisfactory . . .and while the mechanic did have its
charm (based on the army's posture - Attack, Defend, or Ready - a comparison
of the two determines which remarkably formulary sequence is used; the sequence
itself runs someting like "A" moves 2 divisions, "B" moves 1 division; "B"
attacks with Div 1 (although the designer uses the word "combats" as a most
awkward verb), etc etc. Each of the possible combinations of posture brings a
different - but rigid - sequence.

That having been said, the rest of the game is quite simple. E.g., artillery
is treated like an old 60's AH game; no fire, it gets SP. (And at c.400 yards
per hex, artillery would have ranged fire . . .but it IS, after all, a simple
game.) The ZOC rule is also unusual, wit, if we could understand it, the moving
unit getting to pick the stationary unit's two hexes of control. (This begs the
question as to how much of a ZOC any unit in the woods around Corinth would
exert. . .).

Commands (about 3 per side) are either effective or non; non means they get to
do zippo, which, given 90 minute turns, is a bit drastic.

Whatever, the game flows fairly historically (which bodes ill for Earl van D),
and is tense enough to be interesting. We did feel that the gaming of the battle
did suffer from the scale a tad, but nothing seriously.

In all, fairly good, with some overwrought (not complex, just unduly over-designed)
mechanics. Worth a look to see if you like the feel of the game.

Then we tackled the latest from The Ivy Hampster, AT ALL HAZARDS, a change of
pace for Ivy, as it covers a weeklong "operation" (Cold Harbor), not a small
battle. Ivy's stuff is always visually pleasing . . . We get all of Cold Harbor
on a 17x22 - which means 1/2 mile per hex), and division-sized units. Hamp uses a
chit-activator, and the combat system is a bit unusual, and not without its charms.
(If anything, it looks like some mad scientist crossed the genes of the BLUE VS
GRAY (cardgame) with the style of JUNE 6!!" Interesting . . .the results of
battles felt right.

Much of the game, and your strategies, is determined by a unit's supply, fatigue
and, later on, stragglers. These are all recorded with a large number of little
colored markers placed on a large play aid sheet, looking like rising (and falling)
stock quotes. Whie it works very nicely in play affect, the use of all these little
markers (close to 100 I think) is somewat clumsy, and certainly not overly elegant.
Hamp trying not to have markers cover up the actual units, I would think. Tis is
not helped by the fact that the initial info on the arriving units must have some
sort of errata . . .it uses a shortand for the above info, and often refers to
Box #4 for Stragglers, when there is only one box. Or is that "S" for Supply? And
if so, why does it list individual supply levels for divisions, and then say all
units in the corps are at Level X (which is different from the individual
ones.) One hopes The Hampster will clarify . . .

A rather interesting situation, too, one that seems good enough to earn closer
(and grander) looks. I would not have started the game quite as early as Hamp
did, but that's his choice.

Pretty good game, aimed mostly at the "easy to play" market. At that level, very
successful (once the clarification of abreviations is forthcoming).

RHB

David Fox - 06:48am Jun 14, 1999 PST (#1706 of 1725)
"The modern-day Oedipus is standing on the corner of 42nd Street, waiting for the
light to change." -Joseph Campbell, HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES

I'd definitely recommend AT ALL HAZARDS, on the Cold Harbor campaign, with lots of
nifty ideas. I liked it better than the old Victory LEE VS. GRANT.

Hampton Newsome - 05:21pm Jun 14, 1999 PST (#1722 of 1725)
Ivy Street Games http://members.tripod.com/ivystreet/index.html

    I'd definitely recommend AT ALL HAZARDS, on the Cold Harbor
    campaign, with lots of nifty ideas. I liked it better than the old
    Victory LEE VS. GRANT.

David - Lee v. Grant is certainly at a different scale than AT ALL HAZARDS and covers
the entire campaign. But I will take the comparison any day given that Lee v. Grant
is a game I like very much. Thanks

Richard - I am glad you enjoyed the game. The meanings for the abbreviations in the
set up are described in the first paragraph in 16.0. The "S" stands for steps - not
supply or stragglers. The relevant sentences read: "Note that in the set up
instructions for each scenario, the 4 digit number refers to the hex, "S" means
"Step," and "FB" means "Fatigue Box." All units are at full supply and 0
stragglers unless otherwise indicated."

Let me know if this doesn't cover the questions that came up.

Oh, and for those who are interested in picking up the game at the introductory
"sale" price, the order form for AT ALL HAZARDS can be found here.

thanks

Hampton