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.

2010 game purchases in review

I bought an unusually large number of new games in 2010 -- at least a baker's dozen -- and even more unusually, I played the majority of them! This is a welcome change from years past when i had high levels of purchases that didn;t make it to the table. Its been my experience that a game that doesn't make it to the table the first year I have it rarely make it later on.

In alphabetical order here are the complete new games I bought in 2010:

Arnhem: The Farthest Bridge - 0 plays. This is part of the new series of folio games published by Decision Games that are basically remakes of old SPI classics. The maneuver unit order of battle and map are identical to the old 1975 SPI Arnhem game, but there's a new game system with some significant rules changes. I bought this one in order to get a sense as to whether these represent enough of an improvement over the old game to warrant a purchase. I picked this one because I have more than a hundred Hexwar.com games under my belt using the old game for comparison. I like how some of the new rules look but final evaluation depends on getting this rather old-school hex-and-counter game played.

Axis & Allies Europe 1940 - 3 plays. I've only played this in conjucntion with last year's A&A Pacific 1940 as part of the epic Global A&A 1940 scenario but I've had a blast. I think the global game is big enough to mitigate some of the gamier aspects of the A&A system and yet simple enough to be a viable gateway, club, convention and game store experience. I expect more plays in 2011.

Battle Above the Clouds - 0 plays. This is the latest interation of the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series, moving to the Western theater. I'm not entirely sure I like the new graphics, but until I get a chance to play it I can't be sure. This game was gifted to me by the widow of my good friend Mark Perry who died late last year. He had pre-ordered this game and when it arrived his wife decidedto give it to me rather than send it back. I do hope I getthe chance to play this one this year.

Battle Cry 150th Anniversary Edition - 6 plays. This update of the original Commands & Colors system game is one of my favorites for the year. I think it hits a sweet spot for gaming with newer and more casual wargamers and is an excellent intorduction to the system. This will undoubtedly hit the table a lot over this coming year as we start moving into the 150th anniversary era.

Battles of Napoleon: The Eagle and the Lion - 2 plays. This is one of the interesting trio of Napoleonic battle games that game out this year. It's probably the most involved of the bunch and has a real miniatures feel to it. I expect to get more plays in with this one over the coming year, although probably not qite as much as Napoleon's War and Commands & Colors; Napoleonics due to the lengthier playing time.

Commands & Colors: Napoleonics - 4 plays. This highly anticipated Borg title was well worth the wait. There are a lot of interesting twists to the system and it's a blast to play. The rules for squares in particular are interesting. Guaranteed to see more plays this year.

Cthulhu Dice - 0 plays. This trivial filler game surprisingly hasn't hit the table yet because thematically it's a little problematical for family play or with some of the more casual game groups I play with. I do expect to get a play or two in but it probably won't be played as much as it might have with a less grim theme.

Fires of Midway - 0 plays. I'm also surprised I haven't gotten this played yet. The stars just haven't aligned right, I guess, although that would probably be a more appropriate excuse for Cthulhu Dice. Still, it's one of my favorite topics and seems fairly quick to play, so I think it will get played before too long.

Gettysburg - 4 plays. This might be the surprise hit of 2010, getting played four times on three different sessions. It's slightly more approachable than Martin Wallace's Waterloo, which is similar. I expect to play this again this year as well.

Heroscape Master Set - Battle for the Underdark - 5 plays. It's hard to believe, but Heroscape started off the year with a new master set, pumped out three new Dungeons & Dragons-themed expansions -- and then died! It's too bad, but there's enough Heroscape stuff in my closet to keep me busy for years, the D&D foray added some interesting new rules (treasure glyphs, shadow spaces and Uncommon Heros) and I'm not even convinced that Heroscape is gone for good.

King Philip's War - 2 plays. This game prompted an unusual amount of mainstream press attention for a standard wargame when a newspaper journalist ginned up a little controversy about the game's topic among New England Indian tribes. The game itself is a nice little design with some interesting strategic decisions for players and opening a window to view an important, if obscure, episode in U.S. history. I hope to play it a few more times this year as there are some strategic lines I'd like to explore.

Napoleon's War - The 100 Days - 5 plays. The first out of the gate among the 2010 crop of Napoleonic battle games, this one builds off the popular system used in Hold the Line and the Wars for America series. Similar in scale and playing time to C&C: N, it will be interesting to see if it can hold its own now that the Borg game is out. It does have an advantage in set-up time over CC:N with the pre-printed maps and some find Borg's card-based section-restricted command system too artificial. I expect to get some more plays of this in as well, although I have to admit that CC:N has the edge with me.

Persian Incursion - 0 plays. By far the most serious wargame I bought in 2010. Persian Incursion examines the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program. This arrived late in the year but I'm trying to get a couple of plays in soon. While a stand-alone game that doesn't require Harpoon 4 to play, it's still pretty involved and not just a casual sit-down game.

Grant's flaw

I'm a big fan of Ulysses Grant. I think he was truly the outstanding general of the U.S. Civil War and a good case could be made that he literally saved his country.

I think he was the one general who really understood the changed nature of warfare during the Civil War, especially that battles had lost their ability to decide campaigns in one fell swoop. Instead he treated battles as the incidental consequences of his maneuvers, which had higher strategic goals. For a long time I don't think he got his due, especially in comparison to Robert E. lee, who during his lifetime and after was beloved and revered. Grant had the misfortune to live long enough to have a second, rather less successful career as president -- although here, too, I detect a re-appraisal under way that is elevating his reputation a bit.

And Grant seems to have been a thoroughly decent man with personally admirable qualities.

But, like all men, he did have his flaws. And I think his most singular flaw was being an abysmal judge of men. This most famously got him into trouble as president, but it also marred his generalship as well. Grant seemed to have difficulty separating his personal affections from his professional judgments.

He was a big fan and great friend to Sherman, for example. While I don't think Sherman was a bad general, by any means, I think the evidence for him being a great general is slim. While he was able to capture Atlanta, for example, he did have both a substantial numerical advantage as well as a qualitative edge. His truly noteworthy campaign was his March to the Sea and he deserves full credit for that, but his opponents were unable to mount a credible defense against it.

On the other hand, Grant seemed to have a dislike for George Thomas that's hard to fathom. On the one hand, Thomas was slow to act, but that hardly set him apart from the vast majority of Federal commanders. Indeed, one of the undoubted talents of Grant, Sherman and Sheridan was their relative alacrity. But those three aside, most of the top generals on both sides were pretty slow. (Speed was the secret to Stonewall Jackson's success and reputation as well, so it wasn't just a Union thing). And Thomas was clearly an effective and successful general, yet reading Grant's memoirs one definitely sees that Grant was no fan of the man and came close to relieving him of command more than once. Meanwhile dolts such as Butler, Burnside and Sigel were allowed by Grant to stay in command and were given important tasks to fulfill.

So yes, Grant was a great general, but he was also a flawed one.

Battle Above the Clouds component review -- a new look for GCACW

Up to this point the "look" of the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War has been remarkably stable since the first game (Stonewall Jackson's Way) appeared in 1992, even despite the demise of Avalon Hill and the migration of the GCACW line to Multi-man Publishing. The first volume of the series to appear under MMP, Grant Takes Command, was fully consistent with the AH versions, as were the supplements Skirmisher No. 1 and No. 2.

So I'll admit I was pretty surprised by how extensively the look of the game changed with Vol. VIII, Battle Above the Clouds. It's important to note, however, that nearly all the changes are cosmetic, with only minor changes in the Standard Rules that cover all the games in the series.

First off, the box is different. Grant Takes Command was a direct copy of the standard Avalon Hill bookcase game format in every way. Only the MMP logo was different. The new Battle Above the Clouds box is thinner and slightly wider than the old box, so it will stick out a bit on the shelf. It appears to be the same size as other MMP boxes, so I suspect this change was made for ease of production.

Inside the box, almost the entire graphic approach as also changed. The paper is glossy, rather than matte. Color is used liberally and the type is slightly smaller, with some differences in fonts and layout that mark a break from the past. New rules are shown to the left, old style to the right.

All the player aids are also on glossy cardboard and overall there's been a number of changes in presentation that give the rules a little more of a more modern look and easier to read. Overall the effect is enough to give BAC a distinctive look, but not too different from what has gone before.

On the other hand, the new counters are a big departure from what has gone before, featuring much bolder use of icons and type. With perhaps greater confidence in the quality of their die-cutters than the old Avalon Hill had, the new counters fill out a bigger portion of the available space, resulting in the markers being easier to read.

The new counters

On the other hand, my initial impression of the unit counters is not as positive. They appear rather too "busy" to my eye, compared to the uncluttered look of the old counters. The bold typeface used is also no easier to read than the older lightface style, so players will still have to peer closely in order to see which unit is in the hex.

Map detail around Chattanooga

On one critical piece of game equipment, however, BAC does not innovate -- the map. Charles Kibler continues as the map artist and the map in BAC retains the same style that GCACW players fell in love with. This was a wise decision, because it's the exceptional maps that first captured player attention and gave them the incentive to discover the beauty of the underlying rules set. Aside from some changes required by the rougher topography of the region changes to the look have been minimized. About the only noticeable change is that the map, like all the other paper components, is not printed on a glossy paper, instead of the matte finish used for the eastern maps. As these maps will never overlay each other this is unimportant.

A welcome return feature is the Gazetteer, not seen since Vol. III (Roads to Gettysburg), exploring cats and trivia about some of the locations on the map. There's also a very extensive Game as History section, which may very well be the longest published so far in the entire series. This is due in no small part to the fact that Battle Above the Clouds is basically two games in one, as it cover both the entire Chickamauga campaign from Aug. 29 to Oct. 6, 1863, but also the Chattanooga campaign from Oct. 28 to Dec. 6.

Overall the components seem first-rate in every way. I think some long-time players may not care for the changed look, but none of the changes affect game play and the maps are the same, so I don't think this will be a big issue.

Happy July Fouth -- Musings on July 4th, 1863

The Battle of Gettysburg was a very hard-fought three-day battle, so it's not surprising that the fourth day was quiet. Both armies were exhausted.

But they were in very close proximity, and disengaging was going to be a tricky affair. And there was always the possibility that one side or the other might try for the decisive victory that had eluded them so far.

Lee, in particular, apparently hoped that Meade would move onto the offensive on July 4th and provide Lee with a chance to strike a counter blow as he had done so often in the past.

Meade, however, was content to sit on the victory already won rather than risk it with some sort of counter offensive. He was still new to the command, of course, and while he may have suspected that the Rebels had been badly hurt, he knew for a fact that his own army had been severely damaged. Several corps commanders were dead or wounded. A couple of corps were shattered and a number of units were jumbled up after three days of parrying blows. It was true that he had a fresh corp, the Sixth, and it was the largest corps in the Army of the Potomac. But it represented his last fresh troops and Meade was undoubtedly unwilling to throw in his last reserve unless it ensured victory.

On the Rebel side, Lee's artillery had fired off the bulk of the ammunition brought north and no resupply was possible until he returned to Virginia. On the other hand, he did have enough ammunition for a defensive fight. So Lee elected to stay of the field while his trains of supply, loot and wounded prepared to head back south.

Gettysburg is one of the most simulated of battles in wargaming. The very first historical wargame was about Gettysburg, and just about every wargame company and designer has taken a stab at depicting the battle.

But relatively few have tried looking at a possible fourth day's battle.

One of the ones that includes a possible Day Four is the exhaustive This Hallowed Ground game from The Gamers, which shows the battle at the regimental scale, but I'm not sure how many people would be tempted to set up that giant game to play out that special case. I suspect that most people who make the effort to get that monster set up do it to play out the entire battle and not a hypothetical Fourth Day. The historical orders listed for all the corps on both sides are defensive in scope and it starts to rain at 2:30 p.m., meaning that the chances of pulling together something decisive under the rules are not good.

Perhaps a better depiction of the July 4th situation is found in the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series supplement The Skirmisher No. 1, which includes a Fourth Day scenario for Roads to Gettysburg. A portion of the map area for this scenario is shown above.

Actually, it's two scenarios. Variant A is the historical scenario. Lasting two days (July 4th & 5th) it covers the beginnings stages of Lee's retreat, and the major measure of Rebel success is getting the wagon trains away.

Variant B assumes that Lee retained enough ammunition to make a serious fight on the Fourth. This is a straight up fight, a final showdown that will leave one army or the other destroyed.

Time is short in both scenarios, however, because the rain is still coming. In deed, the second day of the two is a whole day of rain, and it may start on the first turn. Players track how many times they tie on their initiative rolls. The fifth tie brings the rain.

I think it's an interesting situation to test out. Was Meade wise to hold back, or did he miss an opportunity to win the war.