From: uli@kaiwan.com (Jon Eckel)
Subject: Robert E Lee: Some comments (LONG)

I picked up this game last weekend and have played several individual
battles as well as started a full campaign.  I'm choosing to compare
it with Panzer General (since "Bobby Lee" has been built up to be to
the Civil War what PG was to WWII) and with Battleground: Gettysburg,
another tactical Civil War game.

Graphics:  The graphics are nice.  Better than PG, but not as good as
BGG (can't really expect that).  I especially like the graphic icons
with represent a brigade's morale, organization, and health.  A unit
that has been nearly shattered will be represented by a soldier
fleeing from battle, another with his shirt unbuttoned and smoking a
pipe, and one with his arm in a sling and missing half a leg.  Anyway,
the graphics will be more than enough to please just about any
wargamer.

Morale:  The morale features of "Bobby Lee" are probably its strongest
suit.  In BGG, a unit's morale (or fatigue) is only affected by
combat.  You can march the divisions of Hood and McLaws all through
the early hours of the morning on July 2 and they will be able to go
straight into the assault on the Round Tops with no negative effects.
If you do the same thing in "Bobby Lee", your brigades (particularly
those with little experience or a mediocre commander) could be
effectively at half strength or under until you give them time to rest
and let the stragglers catch up.  For PG veterans who are used to
moving their troops around like chesspieces from one side of the map
to the other and back again, this feature can be turned off.

ZOCs: None at all!  Learned this the hard way at 1st Manassas.  There
were two of my brigades in the hexes to the NW and SW of the Stone
Bridge hex, and two of his to the NE and SE hexes.  He sent one of his
brigades to the north, so I figured I had best move one of mine to
keep him from crossing elsewhere.  One brigade will be plenty to guard
that bridge, I figured.  You could imagine my shock when, during his
next turn, he marched his other brigade right over the bridge and all
the way around my remaining brigade.  Being adjacent to an enemy unit
has no effect on movement or any other action.  Let's say he attacks
one of your brigades which is down to its last rounds and is deployed
in open ground.  Your troops repel this attack, but are out of ammo.
Hit the "Entrench and resupply" button and when he attacks next turn
he will hit a dug in and 100% resupplied unit.  This is a serious
shortcoming.

Supply:  The supply system is much like PG, only a unit can even be
completely surrounded and still be brought up to full supply.  There
is, however, a limited number of total supply points available to your
army, which can be increased by capturing enemy supplies.

Unit facings:  Like PG, there are none.  Your brigades have no flanks.
You _can_ hit the enemy from behind by attacking from two _exactly_
opposite sides.

Brigade/Corps Commanders:  This feature is not as good as I hoped.  A
brigade commander's abilities affect his unit's ability to fight.  A
Corps Commander's sole purpose is to substitute for your weaker
brigade commanders.  There are no division commanders (A real
shortcoming since Southern division commanders often had more
responsibility than Northern Corps commanders).  You do not appoint
commanders.  Brigade commanders can only be dismissed by you between
battles, and are replaced by a subordinate.   Corps commanders cannot
be dismissed.

Battlefields:  The maps of the battlefields are fairly good.  Better
than PG, but nowhere near BGG.  A big drawback though, is that they
aren't labelled at all.  In some ways, though, I perfer the simplified
map in Bobby Lee's Gettysburg scenario to the more complex and
restricting one in BGG.  In BGG, the only reason for taking Culp's
Hill or Little Round Top is for the victory points.  In Bobby Lee,
they're good spots for the South to place batteries (which, to my
knowledge, was the historical situation in both cases).

AI:  Needs work.  Seems to concentrate its attacks reasonably, but
often concentrates on a very strong spot rather than hitting your
weaknesses.  It will also often attack against great odds, as well,
until its brigades are very weak.  A good strategy is to dig in your
troops and back them up with artillery and one or two reserve brigades
and watch him wreck his army on your defenses, then throw everything
you have against him.  It worked at First Manassas and worked
_overwhelmingly_ at Second Manassas.  Might have a problem at Antietam
(my current campaign spot) as some of the Confederate brigades look
pathetic in terms of numbers.  Also tried the 1st day of Gettysburg
from both sides.  Playing as the South, I won easily as Buford's
cavalry, followed by the First Corps, charged A.P. Hills dug in troops
repeatedly while Ewell's Corps marched right through Gettysburg and
took Cemetary and Culp's Hills before encountering any Union troops,
which I easily brushed aside given the strong position.  Ended the day
with Hill's Corps joing Ewell after practically destroying the U.S 1st
Corps.  Playing as the Union I gave both Hill and Ewell a bloody nose
while being able to get all my brigades in fairly good condition to
Cemetary Hill.  The AI really needs work, but this is true of nearly
all wargames.

Campaign Game:  The battles are First and Second Manassas, Antietam,
Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and a
fictional Wahington scenario.  I'm under the impression that you play
in that order, regardless of outcome.  Haven't finished a campaign yet
however, so I can't honestly say.  Why no Peninsula Campaign battles
are included is beyond me.  All things considered, the limited
scenarios make Bobby Lee's Campaign system significantly inferior to
PG.  Between battles, depending on how well you did, you receive
"supply points" to re-equip your troops.  Most units start out with
farmer's muskets and you will want to get them (particularly the
higher-quality ones) equipped with rifles as soon as possible.
Cavalry firearms range from carbines to sawed-off shotguns, and there
is also over a half-dozen artillery types.  Fire arms are rated for
both their ranged fire and hand-to-hand combat capabilities.  Units
that took heavy losses will lowered in quality due to bringing on
green recruits, although you seem to have no control over the strength
of your units.  A brigade could have 2500 men at the end of one battle
but fewer than 1000 at the next.  While this is more realistic, I
think many PG players would be itching to build up a 5000 strong
"Stonewall" Brigade.

The game system has some potential, especially with its very good
morale features.  I'd really like to see more scenarios built into the
campaign, as well as having the addition of division commanders.  The
AI needs some tinkering, and I think a ZOC feature would really help.

As it currently exists, though, I think "grognard" types will be put
off by many of the shortcomings I named, and the "Beer and Pretzels"
crowd will find, at best, a smaller and less replayable version of PG.
We'll see if Sierra/Impressions will do what it takes to make this
game a winner or if they will just let it go the way of other
promising, but poorly executed, designs.

On a brighter note, however, Age of Rifles looks awesome from the demo
and from comments in this group.  Nice graphics, plenty of options, a
good AI.  This one will be mine the next time I hit the stores.

Just my long-winded opinion.  Like to hear more.

Jon Eckel