From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: review of Trampling out the Vintage TRAMPLING OUT THE VINTAGE (Microgame Co-op) This is the first Microgame Co-op game that I've played and I haven't got a good impression. If I should evaluate the work of this DTP game company basing my opinion on this project, the result would be negative. But I hope that this game is an exception (as I already have other games from Microgame Co-op in my waiting list). Anyway, Trampling out the Vintage is an operational simulation of the Atlanta campaign of the ACW, with graphics adequate for a DTP game (the map is neat enough, while the counters, on thin paper alas, are not really bad, if not particularly good). A nice touch by the designer is the doubling of all the pieces (you have a sheet of 280 counters, but only 140 are used for the game; the other half are an exact replica of the first ones, as a security copy - and you may need them, as you have to cut and paste the counters to play adequately). You have only a few dozens combat units in play and all the game rotates around an operational system a little bit convoluted in my opinion (and that I don't like particularly), with not enough examples of play to understand really well how it works in practice. There are only eight pages of rules and perhaps 4 more pages with more clearer explanation of the basis of the game would have been necessary, for a little more cost for the company (and even for the buyer of the game if you want). The turn sequence start with a supply check (to be in supply infantry units must be at no more than 3 hexes by a railroad or a leader who is at no more than 3 hexes by the railroad. The railroad must be connected with a supply source: Chattanooga for the Union and east and south map borders for the Confederate player. There is a neat rule for garrisoning conquered railroad stations that forces the Union player to advance with total control of the territory. Then both players roll a die to determine the initiative difference and determine who has Initiative Points to activate his units. You may add to the roll one for each uncommitted commander you commits and the differential in army morale - probably, as this rule is not well explained, as many others are. The winner of this roll may activate units and commanders up to the differential obtained on the previous rolls. If both players roll the same and both supreme commanders are already committed, the operation phase ends. Then there is a reinforcement phase, an entrenchment phase (each uncommitted unit on the map may build a fortification - a favorable shift on the CRT), a random event check (on odd numbered turns) and at last the End phase, where both players check for victory, isolated units and other end turn activities. The heart of the system is the operations phase where the active player moves and attacks with his units: there are different activation costs for committed (i.e. already activated) and uncommitted units, different movement points and different effects for the attack. Probably the system could work even in practice, but the situation and the bad explanation of a few key rules have a unclear effect on the game, which slows down to a costant check of the rules, trying to understand their sense. The combat situation is something like a slow, fighting retreat for the Confederate army who has to decide if risk the all for all on the fortified line on the Rocky Face Ridge, or losing terrain turn after turn till the Chattahoochee River and the city of Atlanta. There is also a rule for cavalry raids with the reference to a Prison Raid Table that doesn't exist on the rule nor the player's aid sheet (another "big" piece of errata that, at least for the moment, has not be cleared even on Microgame Co-op internet site). What more can I say? I don't like the approach of the designer to this situation; I usually like operational level ACW era games, but Trampling out the Vintage is an exception to my tastes: there is too much confusion in the rules and the system itself it's not of my liking. Probably, with a little more effort by the player (I have to admit that my review is based on a few turns try of the game itself) and a much needed clarification by the designer, the game is not really bad, but I don't think that it ever could be a winner. I rate this game 5 out of 10.