From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Review of "The War for the Union" (was RE: VGs Civil War question(s))
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.172639.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes...
>I've read a few questions about this, my favorite Civil War game, and
[...long review of Victory's The Civil War omitted]
>In my opinion, the best CW game I've seen.
>the words of Dave Casper "the only CW game worth playing."
                           ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Did I really say that?  A House Divided is good too, but is aimed at the
beer-n-pretzels crowd.  I usually recommend it to newbies.

If I did say that, I have to amend it - about a month ago I got Clash Of Arms
Games "The War For The Union" (TWTFU), and I have to say it looks better than
TCW in many ways.  I've been meaning to post a first-impression review of the
game, so now looks like a good opportunity...

First, the only word for the graphics in the game is "stunning".  The map,
covering exactly the same area as TCW, is extremely colorful, and simply a
work of art.  The four-color counters (the game is strength point based, like
TCW) are likewise extremely attractive.  Land strength points are either
miltia, volunteer, or veteran, in order of increasing experience.  The counters
show a soldier, in a variety different stances and different uniforms. The
miltia counters show a soldier at attention, wearing the various outlandish
uniform styles prevalent early in the war.  Volunteers are standing at port
arms position, with a generally standard looking uniform (there are still a
few Zouaves though!), but still the counters are not cookie-counter.  Veterans
show a soldier standing at ease, carrying a large bedroll and generally with
a beard.  The cavalry counters are likewise all different.  In contrast to the
Union soldiers in their sharp blue uniforms and forage caps, the Confederates
look rather more ragged, with butternut coats and many different hats.
As if that weren't enough, the army commanders (a couple dozen per side) all
show a nicely-done portrait of the leader in question!  Even the informational
markers are fancy - forts show an earthworks with the appropriate flag flying
over it, and shore batteries show the view from a parapet, with a ship (target)
off on the horizon. In short, the physical components blow away VG's The Civil
War, I'm afraid.  In fact, much like World/Planes in Flames blows away
Europa...but I digress. 

Turns are months (two months in winter), compared to two months (four in winter)
for TCW.  The rules are generally more detailed, especially in the areas where
TCW is highly abstracted like naval and ship/shore combat.  Cavalry is also
given scouting and other abilities, whereas it is sort of an afterthought in
TCW.  There are now three levels of fatigue, compared to the analogous state
of Demoralization in TCW.  ZOCs exist in TWFTU (which makes some sense given
the shorter time scale), and combat is between adjacent hexes.  There are no
ZOCs in TCW, and combat occurs in the same hex.  The supply rules are similar.
There is also a sort of production system in TWFTU, which forces the
Confederate to choose between using his heavy industry to produce
fortifications or ironclads.  TCW accomplishes the same thing in a more
abstract way. It should also be noted that in TCW, manpower is rigidly fixed,
and doesn't depend on how much of the Confederacy is occupied.  In TWFTU, man-
power is raised from specific cities, and can vary.

Obviously any Civil War game must account for command.  Here the two games
take rather different attitudes.  Brian summarized the system used in TCW in
the original post, and I won't repeat it in detail here.  TCW is somewhat
reminiscent of World In Flames in that the turn length is unpredictable and
and there are repeated opportunities to move short distances.  I like TCW's
command system a lot.  TWTFU on the other hand, has no command points.  Each
leader can move once each turn.  On the other hand, the dangers of going into
combat with an incompetent leader are probably much higher in TWFTU, so you
still want to be careful about moving your bad leaders where they can be
pummeled.  Rather than modelling the effects of army leadership as an ability
to reroll a combat die roll (as TCW), TWFTU models leadership as the ability
to use strength points effectively - hence a bad leader may only use 50 or 80%
of the strength points he commands.  Corps commanders have the same effect.  In
contrast to TCW, where division leaders are also represented, there are only
corps and army commanders in TWFTU.  This is probably justified, since division
commanders' performance were largely dependent on their corps commanders, and
also, it avoids the problem of getting Sherman or Jackson killed-off early
in the war.  Aggressive leaders are able to attack twice in a given turn.

I think both systems have merit, and not having played the game yet, it is hard
to judge whether one system or the other is better.  In reading over the rules
several times, I found no glaring flaws in the system. I suspect players who
are put off by variable turn length and impulse movement systems like WiF and
TCW will like TWFTU better.  In any case, the designers have my respect for
trying a different approach to the problem.

TWFTU has a basic rules set, and an entirely independent advanced rules set -
the basic rules are a subset of the advanced, but it is not necessary to refer
to the basic rules once one moves onto the advanced.  I hope Avalon Hill will
learn from this - I find their tendency to give a basic rules set and advanced
rules under separate covers, requiring reference to both during play, extremely
annoying.  There is a basic scenario, and 5 advanced (1861, 1862, 1863, 1864,
and Campaign).  There are also a couple pages of optional rules adding chrome
and a fairly lengthy (~4 pages) historical survey of the Civil War.

So, to summarize, I think TWFTU is another Civil War game worth playing -
similar in scope to VG's The Civil War, but much more attractive and more
detailed in many aspects.  The command system, while different and perhaps more
predictable, is probably neither better or worse than TCW's, just different.
I'd recommend it to Civil War buffs.


Dave