From: "David S. Bieksza" Subject: Re: 1862 (was: 3DoG as a System) On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Randy Moorehead wrote: > It is interesting to note that Glory (another Bergster) also uses the LIM > chit pull system, which makes even this "simple" game take a loooong time > to play. On a related topic, anyone have any thoughts on why SDI/GMT's > 1862 and 1863 system never took off? Speaking only about _1862_, I would say it was a case of good ideas wasted by miserable implementation. The first good idea was the concept itself: ACW quadrigames at a more sophisticated level of design than the old SPI "Blue and Gray" series, but retaining quick play and moderate rules length. Alas, in the final product the rules were short only because they had holes big enough for the entire Army of the Potomac to march through. My "personal errata sheet" went on for page after page after page . . . (Digression 1: Some of the design features that elevated _1862_ over the Blue and Grey games were step reduction, command considerations, facing, a distinction between fire combat and melee, and a simple morale system.) (Digression 2: The Turn Continuation Table was the centerpiece of _1862_, but with a big improvement over SDI's regimental-level titles: the player couldn't concentrate all his Actions in a few formations [such as the Stonewall Jackson Panzer Brigade in _First_Blood_]. Each formation [division or corps] could activate at most twice per turn; furthermore no formation could activate a second time until all other formations on both sides had had the opportunity to activate, with the rare exception of outstanding leaders.) The second good idea was to choose some of the less-famous battles of 1862 for the quadrigames: - Fort Donelson - Stones River - Fair Oaks/Seven Pines - Antietam. (OK, so Antietam is one of the biggies. I'd still include it because in my collection the only alternative to it is _A_Gleam_of_Bayonets_.) Alas, in the final product the maps were masterpieces of ambiguity. (It appears that the overprinting for woods and roads got shifted as a whole by up to a centimeter.) Despite all the problems the chance to explore these "obscure" battles motivated me to play _1862_ at least a dozen times -- solitaire, of course: not only were the rules incomplete, but _1863_ came with an enclosure backfitting *its* rules to the earlier game. I doubt any two people on this planet would play _1862_ in exactly the same way. As for _1863_, well, it's in my collection but not played yet. For completeness, I believe Clash of Arms also had a swing at this system (alert: baseball metaphor) with _Chancellorsville:_Pinnacle_of_Victory_. That's on my backlog, too. ------- Dave Bieksza // "Peace Through Superior Firepower" bieksza@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu // ST:TNG, _The_Arsenal_of_Freedom_ From: Robert Markham Subject: Re: 1862 Since there has been some discussion about 1862, I thought I'd add a little background to the game. When I designed the original game, it had a chit pull system by which divisions were activated. Each divison had two such chits and when certain conditions were met, a "turn ends" chit was added to the mix as well. This meant that there was no guarantee that all units would move. Richard was interested in the design but wanted to use the TCT system instead of the "chit pull" system (at the time he was definitely taken with applying the TCT idea to as many situations as possible). The end result never seemed as successful as it should have been. One of my goals was to create a more sophisticated quad game and in that vein I was partially successful. My other goal was to do some off-beat battles as well. If the system had continued there might have been a Fisher's Hill, Third Battle of Winchester, Spotsylvania, and other untouched or underdone battles. Antietam by the way was the battle I used to test the original system, which worked much better with the chits in my opinion. I still think the Seven Pines battle works well, once you come to terms with the system. It just goes to show how important developers really are. People like Don Greenwood and Jon Southard (a damn good designer as well) really are underappreciated for their contributions in the area of game development. Having had designs developed by both, I put them at the top. Jon's insights and care were truly impressive. Of course, Joe Baloski is someone who has the ability and discipline to do both extremely well. Lucky guy! And to Allan Rothberg you may use this message to beat me about the head when we argue about the final rules for Jena/Auerstadt. Rob Markham