Civil War Stratego game

[bmeagher]

Hi everyone,

I work for a company that creates and distributes all of the specialty editions of MONOPOLY (sports teams, Simpsons, etc.) as well as a number of other unique games and puzzles. We are currently working on a new game - an American Civil War Edition of Hasbro's classic Stratego game. I came across this wonderful blog site and am hoping some of you would be able to help me!

I am on the hunt for a few Civil War buffs/historians to help me in selecting which ranks (8 Union and 8 Confederate) to include as the game pieces. I have done some preliminary research on this but really want to get an expert opinion on who should be included. The current plan involves using General Lee and General Grant as the "generals" and keeping the remaining pieces generic with no one's name attached to it (i.e., Colonel, Captain, etc.). My goal is to select the 8 most well-known or historic (for lack of a better term) rank of soldiers on each side. We really want to make this game as historically accurate as possible.

Again, any suggestions you might have for me would be most appreciated.

My email address is bmeagher@usaopoly.com. Please contact me if you are interested in helping!

Thank you!

[tompritchett]

It has been ages since I played Stratego (my brother-in-law never could beat me) but if I remember correctly, the ranks that you used in the original game would be approach. The only change would be, if there was a Scout, I would change that to an Cavalry Private and make the normal private, an Infantry Private.

[Joe Bordonaro]

I'd change the "Miner" to an "Engineer".
-Joe Bordonaro

[Captain of Kopenick]

The only change would be, if there was a Scout, I would change that to an Cavalry Private and make the normal private, an Infantry Private.

Would that be a dismounted Cavalry private or mounted?:D

[sbl]

Instead of the "Snidley Whiplash" spy, use the female spies such as Pauline Cushman and Belle Boyd.


http://www.ludigaume.net/Jeux/S/Stratego/stratego_Pieces.jpg

[DaveGink]

What are the current piece ranks now?

[Rob Weaver]

The Scout that we're proposing as a Cavalryman should be called a "Vidette." Sort of keeps with the role the piece plays in the game, too. I second the idea of making the spy a woman character.

[Gary]

Use "torpedoes" instead of "mines."

[RJSamp]

Brigadier instead of General

3 star General instead of Marshall

Assassin instead of Spy

Colour/Color instead of Flag

And change the wierd millinery already....

Any of you that have the electronic computer version....the bugle calls at the start and end are the real thing.

[hendrickms24]

All the suggestions above sound great!

["Doc" Nelson]

There is a Civil War board game that is out there now; it's very similar to "Risk". It's "Battle Cry" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/battlecry), will this game, that you're referring to, be about the same?

[Sneaky Pete]

Use "torpedoes" instead of "mines."

That gives the game a more naval character and it feels a little out of place to me personally. In the game of Stratego, the "mine" is more of an embattlement that your pieces die when moved against. In fact, mines are often placed in rows like walls - and you need an engineer to dismantle them. I would consider calling them "forts" (as being shorter than entrenchments or trenches).

[Sneaky Pete]

For consideration, how about the following. Note that you would have to rename the pieces appropriately. I think having a few more named pieces would be nice for the Civil War theming - otherwise it is just a standard Stratego game with Grant and Lee.

1) Flags (obvious)
2) Marshal - rename as President (Lincoln and Davis?) not really military figures but nice for a historical game
3) General - rename as Commander (Grant and Lee)
4) Colonel - rename as General (Jackson and Longstreet; Sherman and Sheridan)
5) Major (generic)
6) Captain (generic)
7) Lieutenant (generic)
8 ) Sergeant (generic)
9) Miner - rename as Engineer
10) Scout - rename as Cavalry
11) Spy - keep as "spy" but make the graphic a female spy
12) Bomb - rename as Fort or Fortress

Also, may be obvious, but consider coloring the pieces Blue and Grey instead of standard Blue and Red.

[Gary]

But landmines were called torpedoes (or Infernal Machines) in the Civil War Sneaky Pete. While "torpedo" doesn't have to be printed on the piece, it should be used in the instrutions. Puleaze buh-leeve me.

[bob 125th nysvi]

Without knowing how many different pieces you want to have on each side, I'd suggest

1) Flags (obvious)
2) Marshal = General - Grant and Lee I'd name them on the pieces.
3) General = Brigadier - because they could command anything from a Brigade through a corp depending on whom was available.
4) Colonel - could command from a regiment to a division
5) Captain - The man generally in charge of a company
6) Lieutenant - Lowest ranking officer
7) Private - the boys who did the fighting and dying
8) Miner = Pioneer
9) Scout = Vidette
10) Bomb = Torpedo (that's what they were called during the war)

[Wounded_Zouave]

Please keep Lincoln and Davis pieces out of it. Make it a battlefield oriented game without politicians mucking things up. :)

I agree with making the Spy a female since the most famous spys of the Civil War were women like Van Lew and Greenhow.

Also, ditto making the "Bombs" into "Forts." Landmines ("torpedos") were indeed used in the Civil War but forts were far more commonplace. Forts, like the "bombs" in the game, are immobile and can't be taken by any other piece except the "miners" which for the Civil War game are "pioneers" who can hack through the chevaux de frise surrounding the forts with axes.

....

Side note: I really would like to see a good Civil War board game at the strategic level like the Axis & Allies games. Industry and the economy could come into play. A stategic level game would allow for the use of rail transport, sea power, amphibious operations, new weapons development and even optional rules for foreign diplomacy and intervention.

[No_Know_Nothings]

Side note: I really would like to see a good Civil War board game at the strategic level like the Axis & Allies games. Industry and the economy could come into play. A stategic level game would allow for the use of rail transport, sea power, amphibious operations, new weapons development and even optional rules for foreign diplomacy and intervention.

Ditto! When I was a kid I liked the original "Battle Cry" game which was simplistic but lots of fun. Maybe a more sophisticated version of it would be in order. (The new "Battle Cry" is a tactical, not a strategic game. It's OK, but the market is glutted with tactical level games.)

http://members.aol.com/wergames/myhomepage/civilwar.jpg
The Original Battle Cry

[Rob Weaver]

I still have my copy of the old AH-series "Battle Cry" game and my kids and I pull it out and play it. As you mention, it's simplistic, but it has a couple concepts that made it fun, especially in its time: notably the railroad movement to shuffle troops around. I play the Avalon Hill/Hasbro "Battle Cry" all the time and love it to death. It is a tactical game, however, not on the order of Stratego in which conflict is more stylized. I'd play a CW variant of Stratego, though.

[Chuck A Luck]

Side note: I really would like to see a good Civil War board game at the strategic level like the Axis & Allies games. Industry and the economy could come into play. A stategic level game would allow for the use of rail transport, sea power, amphibious operations, new weapons development and even optional rules for foreign diplomacy and intervention.

Well, have I got just the thing for you, or what? :) Here's a good (albeit not-so-simple) Civil War boardgame -- actually a series of board games. The scale is 1 hex = 1 mile. I did the maps & other graphics for the first few games in the series (Stonewall Jackson's Way, Roads to Gettysburg, Stonewll in the Valley) before leaving AH. Anyway, here's the website:

http://www.gcacw.com/

The series was started by The Avalon Hill Game Company (which I worked for Way Back When), but is now being published by MMP (multi-man publishing). The next game in the series will be about Chickamauga. Granted, these are "operational" level (corps, divisions, brigades), and don't include the entire war or U.S. (grand strategy) -- but they are more than just single battles.

Now, if you instead feel more comfortable with a good computer game about the Civil War (let's say you don't want to read a 16 page rulebook), you cannot go wrong with the "Take Command" series by Mad Minute Games:

http://www.madminutegames.com/index.htm
These are really good CW simulations for the computer! These are tactical-level wargames, btw -- and focus on the battles of 1st Bull Run & 2nd Bull Run, respectively. These are put out by a 2-man (mostly) company, and are trying hard to "make a go of it." If you've any interest at all in a tactical computer Civil War game, you will most likely enjoy this (and they could definately use your support).

[No_Know_Nothings]

I would like to suggest that the images used on the playing pieces not be drawings like in the current game, but rather period b/w photographs. I think that would give it a unique Civil War "flavor." Use actual photographs of men from the war to represent the different ranks even if they are "generic" for lower ranks.


I would also suggest that the gameboard map be similar in design to those maps that appear in the Official Military Atlas of the Civil War: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780760750445&itm=1

[Rob Weaver]

Photographs are a good idea, but will lead to a visually drab game. Unless those period photos are colorized in a way that's reminiscent of hand-coloring...
I just realized that we've been talking about the pieces and not about the board very much. The board has to have those two bottlenecks where the lakes are. How can we create that? Should the game have a map like the old Battle Cry? What battlefield would look good abstracted to form the board?

[DaveGink]

1) Flags (obvious)
2) Marshal - Rename as General (Grant and Lee)
3) General - Rename as Colonel (generic)
4) Colonel - Rename as Major (generic)
5) Major - Rename as Captain (generic)
6) Captain - Rename as Lieutenant (generic)
7) Lieutenant - Rename as Sergeant (generic)
8 ) Sergeant - Rename as Corporal (generic)
9) Miner - rename as Infantry
10) Scout - rename as Cavalry
11) Spy - keep as "Spy" but make female (or rename spy "Assassin" or "Sharpshooter" - since it kills the General)
12) Bomb - Rename as Artillery

This may be obvious, but if it hasn't yet been mentioned... Make Pieces Blue and Gray

[bmeagher]

Hi one and all,

I am overwhelmed by all your wonderful suggestions and advice. I am thrilled that you all have such a positive reaction to this game, and I hope I can do you all proud. A few answers to some of your inquiries...

1) I am familiar with the "BattleCry" game (in fact, I have a 1961 version of it here at my desk). The game I am creating will have the same look and feel as the classic STRATEGO game, with the same number of playing pieces and a game board covered with "squares" to allow players to move their pieces forward, back and side to side.

2) A few of you asked about the actual game board...Great! Once I get the playing pieces nailed down, that is my next component to tackle. In classic Stratego, the game board is a birds-eye view of a battlefield, with 2 lakes in the center that playing pieces must move around.

For this Civil War version, I would like the game board to represent a classic CW battlefield, and add 2 historically accurate elements to it instead of the standard lakes (i.e., a stone wall or wooden fence, a tree, boulder, etc.). My original thought was to actually name the battlefield - i.e., Antietam. What do you think?

Betsy

[RJSamp]

Well, the purpose of the lakes is to form an impassable, non fightable zone for both sides.....you can fight from a woods, cornfield, fence, town, big hill, et al.

And I don't off hand know of a battle field with two impassable obstacles in the middle of the field.....maybe PEA RIDGE and the approach from north of the Elk Horn Tavern.

But this is such an abstraction anyway, what does it matter? I wouldn't have bogus terrain and call it the battle of Gettysburg.....Just use a stylized battle map with hashers and some terrain features like a RR, fence, road, woods, etc. and maybe two large mountains in the middle.

Call it ACWGO

and away we go....

[bob 125th nysvi]

isn't anytype of walkable terrain that the CW wasn't fought over. Just examine the accounts of the fighting at Lookout Mountain, Devil's Den or the Wilderness to see the rotten types of terrain that the soldiers encountered. Houses/walss/fences barely slowed them down.

As I see it you can go two ways on the terrain issue.

Leave the lakes as they are to reflect the heritage of the game (Stratego) or substitute terrain that costs more (double or triple) to move over than regular terrain. Lots of wargames impose movement penalties for certain types of terrain or restrict the types of units that can cross the terrain.

If you go the second route you force a player to make a decision as to whether or not to use the terrain but you still leave them with the issue of guarding it to prevent the other player from using the terain.

I think that works better than, "it's there for decoration" type terrain.

As to what types of terrain you could depict, deep forrests, steep hills, swamp are pretty tought o work through but can't be ignored becuase you never know if the enemy is going to use them or not.

[tompritchett]

For this Civil War version, I would like the game board to represent a classic CW battlefield, and add 2 historically accurate elements to it instead of the standard lakes (i.e., a stone wall or wooden fence, a tree, boulder, etc.). My original thought was to actually name the battlefield - i.e., Antietam. What do you think?

One of the main advantages of the classical Stratego game is that there was no advantage to setting up on one side of the board or the other. Having the board represent an actual Civil War battlesite would almost always give one side or the other some type of terrain advantage. What you could do is instead of having two lakes, have a Civil War significantly important river cross the middle of the board and then use fords and bridges as the choke points. One such river could be the Potomic because of its significance in dividing the Eastern theater into Northern and Southern territory.

[Rob Weaver]

Fords or bridges in the center of the board to create the crossings of a river is exactly what it needs! One of them can be obviously styled on Burnside's Bridge. The other a ford (like MB put on the beautiful map that accompanied the 90s game BattleMasters). I agree that the terrain should not advantage either player, and should remain neutral as in "classic" Stratego.

[GaWildcat]

Ditto! When I was a kid I liked the original "Battle Cry" game which was simplistic but lots of fun. Maybe a more sophisticated version of it would be in order. (The new "Battle Cry" is a tactical, not a strategic game. It's OK, but the market is glutted with tactical level games.)

http://members.aol.com/wergames/myhomepage/civilwar.jpg
The Original Battle Cry

Scary thing is, I was given this game as a kid before I discovered reenacting, and I STILL have it!!!