From: roan@convex.com (Russell Roan)
Subject: Re: Review of "The War for the Union" (was RE: VGs Civil War question(s))
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:48:11 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <BzD4yt.DsK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>Please -- anybody out there who has actually PLAYED both games who
>can do a comparison?

	I'll do a very quick one.  VG's TCW is one of my all time favorite
games.  However, my playing of the game has tapered off because I think
there are parts of the game that are simply ahistorical and unrealistic.
(See below).

	I bought WFTU when it first came out with high hopes.  After
reading the rules, I concluded that it handled many things better
than VG's TCW.

	For example, naval combat is handled in much more detail than
in TCW.  Also, I like the economic flexibility presented in the 
WFTU.  Only having corps and army leaders is a good idea, I think.

	WFTU also solves a couple of problems I have with TCW.
First of all, due to the lameness of some of the leaders in TCW,
in some cases it's better to have no leaders at all rather than 
use the ones you have.  In WFTU, the size of your armies depends on 
the number of subordinates ( corps leaders ) an army leader has.
Thus, in the early stages of the war, you have to use your Ben
Butlers and your Fremonts if you want to have a large army, thus 
preventing the absurdity ( which often happens in TCW ) of piling up
your bad leaders in out of the way places while having an army of
100,000 men commanded by a single army leader with no subordinates.

	The other problem I have with TCW is the absurdity of some
of the fortress combats that occur.  A classic example
is having a southern fortress cut off from supply but with a depot, with 
a Union army parked in an adjacent hex.  Here's what typically happens:

	{
	(1) die difference of 3-5
		union player attacks fortress, demoralizes self
			and southern army, and uses the southern depot.
		southern player builds a depot
	(2) another difference of 3-5 (sometime later)
		northern player rallies
		southern player rallies
	(3) repeat ad infinitum
	}

	This is solved in WFTU by using siege tables to slowly force
a beseiged fortress to surrender.


	The troop quality difference and poor leader in the early part of the
war virtually assures that the Union commander, despite overwhelming
odds, will attack at a disadvantage.

	The combat system has a rather complex method of computing combat 
odds that often had us breaking out the caluclator.

	In summary, in many ways, WFTU has a superior way of handling almost
all of the complaints I had about TCW.

	However, having played about 1/3 to 1/2 of a campaign game this
fall ( before grad school kicked in and shut down my gaming ),
I will say that I will never again play the game because of its terrible
command and control system.

	Basically, the designers of the game have learned nothing
from the command and control systems developed in the last n years
in the gaming hobby.  Tellingly, the game does not list 
TCW as a gaming reference in the bibliography.

	What we have is a 1970s style action phase that goes:
(1) Person 1 moves every conceivable piece he wants to move
(2) Combat
(3) Person 2 moves every conceivable piece he wants to move
(4) Combat

etc., with fixed length turns.

	This led to all kinds of absurd situations, including the following,
which was the last turn that we played because it disgusted us:

	The Army of Northern Virginia leaves a garrison at Richmond
and launches a counterstrike against a corps of the Army of the Potomac.

	On the next turn, the northern player does the following:

	(1) Marches a corps led by Ben Butler to Richmond
	(2) Marches the Army of the Potomac led by McClellan 
		to Richmond
	(3) Marches a 3rd independent force up the Peninsula to Richmond.
	(4) Rails troops to near Richmond, who disembark and march to
		Richmond.
	(5) Ships by Naval movement troops from Alexandria to the
		James, and then marches to join the troops in front of
		Richmond.

	Meanwhile, the Army of Northern VA, led by Lee and Jackson,
sits idle while 5 independent forces of the Union, led by the
likes of Ben Butler, converge in perfect coordination 2 hexes away.

	The union manages to get 4:1 odds in this way.  The union assaults
the garrison.  Netither side takes any casualites.  Combat over,
with no advance from the Union hordes.

	This was so ridiculous, that we immediately put the game away, 
never to be seen again.  We ended the evening by switching to 
_Lee vs. Grant_, which was a breath of fresh air by comparison.

	Finally, I have one more bone to pick about this game.
The ratings of some of the leaders was ridiculous.

	Albert Sydney Johnston, whose only wartime battle was 
a draw at Shiloh, gets the 2nd highest rating on the board,
a +1 strategic, +1 tactical, aggressive.

	There isn't an army command side for Pope, which is ridiculous
considering that they have army command for W.F. "Baldy" Smith.

	In short, despite the superiority in many areas over some of
TCW's flaws, I would not recommend this game because of its Stone Age
command & control system.

				-Russ
-- 
Russell Roan	  |"Less food on the table ... Less clothes on the kid's
roan@convex.com   | back (sic) ... less money to go to the doctor ...
Vox: 214-497-4841 | just less of everything."
		  |  - The most obnoxious woman in America.
Newsgroups: rec.games.board