Civil War Stratego game

["Doc" Nelson]

There is a Civil War board game that is out there now; it's very similar to "Risk". It's "Battle Cry", 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
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.)


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/boo...60750445&itm=1