Thomas Prowell - 12:45pm Jun 19, 1997 PST (#442 of 462)
Last game: RAF (West End)

Hi all -- I didn't mean to introduce the War for the Union topic and then
disappear, but occasionally my corporate masters do require me to work . . . 

Here's what I like about the CoA game: 1) For me, it has a better historical
feel in every way than VG's The Civil War, which is usually considered to be
the end-all, be-all in ACW strategic-level treatments. 2) It has a far superior
naval system than the VG game. 3) It is a very handsome game to look at. 4)
There's a certain amount of "revisionist chutzpah" in Beyma's design philosophy
that, while you may or may not agree with, I do respect just for the different
tack taken. More on that later. 

Here's what I don't like about it. 1) Some of the mechanics, specifically the
manual upgrading of troop quality strengths every year, are kind of clunky.
2) I wish there were more detailed attention to politics in the game. GWiE-style
chit draws would bring events like the Emancipation Proclamation or the French
Invasion of Mexico to bear. 3) I don't like the preset arrival of leaders and
troops, preferring instead the ability to issue drafts and volunteers calls a
la War Between the States. 

Note that #2 and #3 on the "don't like" list would be quibbles I have about the
VG game too. 

The one overwhelming criticism I've heard of the game is Brandon's complaint,
that you can move leaders too easily. If you've read the game's designer notes,
you know that Beyma did that on purpose -- this is the "revisionist chutzpah"
I spoke of. Since every other popular ACW game, from A House Divided to WBTS to
the VG game, has something that prevents you from moving McClellan when you want
to, gamers expect it to be here as well. 

Well, I'd argue that it is. But it's there in the form of that old saw --
"Design for Cause" rules rather than "Design for Effect". Those other games use
DforE approaches to prevent you from moving McClellan without telling you why
he didn't move this month. In the CoA game, you won't move McClellan every turn,
because he needs to recover fatigue, or he's back in Washington moving up
additional troops to the Army of Potomac, or heck, just because if he moves out
from his secure base the much better-motivated, better-led Army of Northern
Virginia will knock him down and steal all his lunch money. Y'know, DforC stuff. 

Because Union does nothing in its "system" that forces you to halt Mac for the
month, it puts you in a slightly different mindset than the other games. In the
other games, players take the roles of Lincoln or Davis, and they have less
control over their subordinates, as would be historical for that level of command.
In the CoA game, the player is in more of a "corporate" or team position, being
both the president and the general in the field. 

The game does have a very '70s Igo/Hugo feeling to it, as Brandon said, and I
think that might be Rich Berg's major complaint to it as well. The VG game has a
neat "system," where the Beyma game doesn't have anything resembling a
LIM/TCT/pulse cool thang to it. I think that might be where the "1-hex at a time
no movement" feeling comes from (unless, Rich, your reviewer let you down and
only played the 1861 Eastern scenario, where nothing really does move).

That said, I'll point out that in two one-month turns of Union your likely to
accomplish exactly what you would have in one two-month turn of the VG game
(e.g., move twice, fight once and rally). 

(Aside: I notice that the "gee, you can move everyone everytime" complaint seems
directly contradictory to the "gee, nothing moves" complaint.) 

As for Beyma throwing out history, as Rich said, well I really do beg to differ:
I think Union offers far better simulated history than anything else out there. 

VG's game you'd offer as a retort? Hmm, Foote, Catton and other ACW historians
have never mentioned the Great Boggy Depot Oddfellows and Bad Union Generals
Convention Hall, where Halleck, Banks and Buell apparently spent the war looking
for a fourth at Hearts; or Jefferson Davis's strategic decision to not build a
navy at all as that would mean two months less marching for the ANV; or how four
months of summer campaigning in 1864 were brought to an early end by torrential
rains over the entire North American continent (well, that or bad dice, you can't
tell with DforE); or a host of other foolishness. The system in the VG game is
neat and fun, but it doesn't work. Quick example: not much happens in 1861 in
Union for historical reasons -- the militia troops weren't very good and the
command infrastructures weren't yet in place. Yet in the VG game, the first two
turns are statistically likely to be the longest in the game, with the most
pulses, because both players have the most leaders and reinforcements they will
ever receive (more stuff to enter leads to longer turns). 

What else then? War Between the States gives a fascinating view of Mongol cavalry
hordes in America, but fails as history. And A House Divided is a lot of fun, but
I know the twin issues of secession and slavery weren't really just a big
dice-shoving match, decided in memorable fashion during "Pickett's Yahtzee" at
Gettysburg. 

Union may not be perfect, but I do think it is the best one out there. If Rich
thinks the history could be better, I for one believe him -- I'm still waiting
eagerly for him and Mark Herman to finish the GMT monster we've been hearing
about for three years now. Is any of this goading you into action, Rich? ;-)