From: randym@triton.unm.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A Gleam of Bayonets
Keywords: Antietam, Civil War problems
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:28:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx._8rjxgk
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <8APR199217314326@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>
>I wonder 1) if this Union attack can be dealt with somehow and 2) if it was
>ever considered in the historical battle.
>
Yes these problems you describe happen in most Antietam games. Some thoughts
on the 2) part of your question:

A. What you are dealing with is an attempt to recreate the mindset of the
opposing generals (with the command limits, especially on the Union player).
I do not know of ANYONE, even McClellans biographers, who have been able to
do this. McClellans own accounts of the battle do not compare well with other
accounts - we simply do not know what he was really up to. Read Stephen Sears
biography of Little Mac: even he cannot explain what was going on, other than
say that McClellan was having problems with command (the Burnside/Cox squabble,
the geriatric Mansfield, Hooker getting wounded, etc.). We know Lee would not
have fought at Antietam, except that McClellan was in command, and Lee "knew"
what Mac would do. Well, in any boardgame of the battle, Mac isn't in command,
you are...so the designers must put restrictions on what the Union player can
do, otherwise the Confederates are crushed rather quickly.

B. So, the Union player looks at the map, and sees the weakness of the forces
around Nicodemus Hill. He throws Hookers Corps towards them, and tries to break
the Confederate line. What's wrong with this picture? Well, the reason that
McClellan never considered it was that he did not have the "eye in the sky"
advantage that the wargamer has. He has no real idea of the deployment of
the rebel forces, other that that Jackson's force is on the northern flank.
McClellan has a pretty good idea of the O.B. for the rebel forces (down to
the regiment) BUT has severely overestimated the SIZE of each unit. He is
still basing his unit strength analysis on early 1862 ration counts, in
which each regiment has a paper strength of between 700-1000 men. He counts 
his own force, and considers that he might be outnumbered, otherwise why would
Lee have stayed and offered battle? But the wargamer knows better - he has an
infallible order-of-battle written in the game rules. He knows the score, 
while the historical commander didn't. This is a tremendous advantage. I
feel that any game that attempts to simulate a Civil War battle SHOULD put
the gamer into the historical mindset of the commanders, INCLUDING the 
"fog of war" which is lacking in most boardgames. I will not say that computer
games, including those of SSI, are really superior to traditional boardgames 
BUT - try playing SSI's Gettysburg or Antietam with the limited intelligence
and variable reinforcements. To look at a screen that shows your forces, and
only those of the enemy that are in a line-of-sight, and to not know what
is behind that treeline, is a step closer to recreating the mindset of the
commander. Being a veteran of many JOHNNY REB miniatures games, I can tell
you that playing with limited intelligence and an umpire is a far step
closer to the "real thing" than any current boardgame. We may criticize
McClellan for not ending the war in one afternoon, but could we have really
done any better? Probably not.

***************************************************************************

Push the button, Frank...                                   MST3K forever!!

***************************************************************************

Randy Moorehead
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico

Email at randym@hal.unm.edu  (internet) or ILL1@UNMB (bitnet)

Naturally my opinions are my own, and not shared by the powers that be.