From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Review of "The War for the Union" (was RE: VGs Civil War question(s))
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:33:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.204811.21876@news.eng.convex.com> roan@convex.com (Russell Roan) writes:
>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.

We fixed this in TCW by requiring subordinate leaders in army commands
in order to use all of the strength points in armies in combat (no,
we didn't borrow this from WFTU; we just made it up).

>	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.

We fixed this in TCW by not allowing construction of a depot in an
enemy army ZOC unless the depot site was also in regular supply
(i.e., by water/rail).













>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.

>	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.

Thanks for the warning.
  
>	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.

Leader ratings are obviously subjective.  It occurs to me that
The Civil War might play better if Grant and Sherman were given
lower tactical ratings; both these guys were great strategists,
but I wouldn't give them high marks on the battlefield (others
may disagree).  Those who find the game unbalanced in favor of the
Union might want to try this out and report how it works.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu