Stonewall and Little Mac, a study in contrasts from 150 years ago

Battle of Williamsburg from The Civil War Preservation Trust

During the first week of May, 1862, 150 years ago, two military campaigns were unfolding in Virginia that offer and interesting study in contrasts. Although about 175 miles apart as the crow flies -- and considerably further as the soldier marched -- Maj. Gen. George B. "Little Mac" McClellan's Peninsula Campaign and Maj. Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's Valley campaign were intimately related and, before the campaigns ended, became intertwined.

Detail from OTR map showing the area around Williamsburg

The two campaigns are each the subject of a game in the classic Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series from Avalon Hill. Stonewall in the Valley, Volume IV in the game series, covers "The Full Campaign in the Shenandoah from March to June 1862. On to Richmond, Volume VI in the series, covers "The Peninsula Campaign April-July 1862.

The first thing one notes about these two game is the extraordinary length of time they cover in a game system that otherwise typically deals with campaigns measured in a few weeks. While each contains a number of scenarios depicting specific phases and incidents in the long campaigns, the grand campaign game needs to cope with not just a long period of time, but also the fact of the other campaign. One solution is to play both games simultaneously and that is an option covered -- but that takes up  a lot of space (five 22" by 32" maps) and time (SIV up to 14 hours and OTR up to 2 days).

More practical is to play each game on its own and use the in-game rules that account for the influence of the off-map campaigns.

Jackson's valley campaign is generally considered a masterpiece of maneuver warfare, as he tied down larger Union forces for most of the time and in the end was able to redeploy to the Richmond are to take part in that campaign as well. While Jackson didn't win every fight and he didn't always live up to expectations once he arrived with Lee's army, for the most part the key characteristic of his conduct was energy. 

In contrast, McClellan's defining characteristic, I think, was not so much lethargy as detachment. One thing that has always struck me about McClellan's conduct on the battlefield was how rarely he seemed to actually be near the fighting. I see no reason to think that this had to do with a lack of never but instead I think it reflected McClellan's view of his role -- as an overall coordinator and policy setter rather than a tactical commander. I don't think he was necessarily wrong in this as he was overzealous about it.  He usually seemed to be too far from the action to properly do the coordination part of his job and his corps commanders were, as  a result, pretty much on their own. The Battle of Williamsburg on May 5 illustrates this. While his subordinates fought a sharp fight, and several of them started to make their reputations here (Hooker as a division commander, Hancock "The Superb" as  a brigade commander) Little Mac was miles away and had little control over what was happening. As a result the Rebel arny managed to extricate itself from what could have been a tight spot.

In early May, however, these defining characteristics had not yet manifested themselves entirely.  Jackson was just starting his series of marches that would take the breath away from his opponents and earn his troops the sobriquet of "foot cavalry. And, while McClellan was already showing the "slows" that would come to define him to posterity, it wasn't yet clear how many opportunities it would cost him and the nation. After all, Johnston retreated from Williamsburg and McClellan's plan to get to Richmond seemed to be working.

Stay tuned.

Battle Above the Clouds preview

Check out this excellent preview of Battle Above the Clouds.

Very bad move, MMP

This "interesting" news from MMP, taken from a BGG Geeklist on the P500 staus for April.

In other news, and perhaps best put under the heading NOOOO!, MMP staff (SCS/OCS designer Dean Essig I believe) posted that the company would not support (or even allow others to make) electronic versions of its games. Needless to say, the CSW forums filled with even more ... "witty banter" then usual. And rightfully so, it's one thing in this reporter's humble opinion to not create online modules for games, quite another to exercise your right to restrict others from creating them.

My initial reaction to this is negative and I'll explain why. I'm a big fan of several systems published by MMP, namely TCS, GCACW and ASL. What they all have in common is that they are A) very 'grognardy' B) expensive and C) time-consuming to play . What all these features add up to are an extensive collection of games that have a real hard time hitting the game table anyway. So creating a barrier to online play doesn't seem very customer-friendly to me. While I may very well keep buying these lines (TCS and GCACW anyway, I've already bailed on ASL) I definitely will think twice before buying into any other systems.

Now, if this proprietary system turns out to be very easy to use (like Hexwar.com) AND not too expensive (don't make me buy the damn game twice!) then I might be mollified. On the other hand, I may very well just say to heck with it and spend my money elsewhere on games I'll get to play more.

There's no doubt MMP is within their legal rights here. But if they don't impart sufficient added value then they may just kill off the customer base. Some of their games are pretty popular (ASL, OCS, SCS, GCACW) by wargame standards but none of them are wildly popular by any other measure and they can ill-afford to turn off dedicated players.

On the other hand, if they offer a very good product, then they may have something there. VASSEL and Cyberboard are very good for what they do, but their strength is also their weakness. They are generic enough to have the flexibility to handle most any game, but that also means they can't focus on providing a hassle-free game experience. I find that VASSEL and Cyberboard games take a significant time commitment, although not an unreasonable one. But I find it worthwhile to subscribe to the Hexwar game service because it's easy to play a lot. And I do that even though I'm not otherwise a big fan of the games they offer (mostly old SPI quads)

Bottom line is that I'm skeptical, but could be convinced. If, on the other hand, it starts to smell like just a way to wring a few more bucks out of players without offering them anything they can't get elsewhere for less then I'm outta there.

GCACW: Balkoski to Beach

Great Campaigns of the American Civil War is an unusual example of a game system started by one designer that's been almost wholly taken over by a player-fan who has become the de facto lead designer in the series.

Joe Balkoski started the series with Stonewall Jackson's Way in 1992 by publisher Avalon Hill. As conceived of by Balskoski SJW is a full-bore, 1/2-inch counter, small-hexed, chart-heavy, scenario-laden, tweezers-needing wargame untouched by any euro-ized elements.

During the design process it became clear it would be useful to divide the project in two, spawning Here Come the Rebels as an automatic sequel and starting a hoped-for series. HCR appeared in 1993, followed within the year by Roads To Gettysburg (which made some key rule changes that were eventually abandoned and required a new set of counters later.) RTG made the series "official" to the public, with box art christening it "Vol. III" in the "Great Campaigns of the American Civil War."

Two years later in 1995 Vol. IV appeared, the ambitious Stonewall in the Valley which was a very long game coverin all of Stonewall Jackson's Valley campaign. Up until this point the project was entirely in Balkoski's hands, but player Ed Beach was already working on Stonewall's Last Battle (Vol. V) about the classic Chancellorsville campaign, which appeared in 1996.

Balkoski and Beach collaborated in the sixth game in the series, On To Richmond, which was another lengthy game showing the entire Peninsular Campaign, published in 1998. It turned out this was the last of the series under the old Avalon Hill, as the company was sold just a few months later.

Hardly a beat was missed, however, as the series was one of the first picked by Curt Schilling's Multi-man Publishing (Of ASL fame) with the 1999 publication of The Skirmisher No. 1, edited by Beach and Balkoski. This featured a set of "Standard Rules" that regularized things over the series and included new counters for RTG to bring it in compliance with the series standards. The magazine doesn't say, but internal evidence in the form of standard artwork and the overall look imply that the Skirmisher was designed using artwork from the old AH art design staff.

In 2001 Grant Takes Command was published by MMP, and this, too, credited Beach as the sole designer, making the transition nearly complete. Beach mentions that Balkoski (who was staking out a career as a writer of popular history) didn't have much time for the project, providing some overall guidance.

The appearance of Skirmisher No. 2, in 2003 from MMP showed that the GCACW was completing the tranistion from one designer's baby to a more fan-supported approach. While Beach was the overall editor, most of the new content, including two full-sized game scenarios (Rebels in the White House and Burnside Takes Command) by teams of new designers. These new scenarios could easily have been stand-alone games as they have their own unique counter sets, but because their action takes place on existing maps and could take advantage of the standard rules and common market sets they could appear in this less-expensive format. They really are, however, functionally new games in the series. Perhaps they could be considered volumes VIIb and pre-V.

It's interesting to see how Beach was able to move into the lead design slot so seamlessly. The essence of the Balkoski design has been retained throughout and it's hard to pick out any obvious changes by Beach, especially because the entire series has turned into a very collaborative affair over the years with many changes incorporated from playtester and player input.

With the exception of the First Bull Run campaign, which will probably appear as another Skirmisher--style module at some point. the entire Eastern Theater is covered by the series, so the next one is supposed to be in the Western Theater, although the sedate publishing schedule of MMP means it's hard to know when that may happen.

It's an automatic buy as far as I'm concerned, though, whenever that may be.