Kris Hall: John Poniske and Lincoln’s War

The American Civil War has been on my mind a lot of late.  I recently played and reviewed Renaud Verlaque’s The Price of Freedom, and that inspired me to read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, a prize-winning book about Lincoln and his cabinet.  After that, it was time to read Stephen Sears’ anvil-heavy book Gettysburg.

I’ve also been playing American Civil War, a computer game by a French company called Ageod.  Odd, that it would be a French company that would make the best grand-strategic computer game of this most American war.  In spite of the game’s steep learning curve and glacial pace (especially on my old computer), I find it quite addictive.

So my interest was sparked when I learned that there was yet another grand-strategic game on the war in the works.  This is Lincoln’s War by designer John Poniske.  Mr. Poniske recently agreed to an e-mail interview on his project.

Kris: There are already two well-regarded card-driven grand-strategic wargames about the American Civil War: Mark Herman’s For the People and Renaud Verlaque’s The Price of Freedom.  Why design another?  How will Lincoln’s War be different enough from these other titles that a wargame enthusiast who owns them would want to buy your game as well?

John: Lincoln’s War in its first incarnation “Peculiar Conflict” was begun before For the People was released with the intention of being the first card-driven Civil War game.  Once For the People was published I felt my attempt was different enough to continue the project. Chief among those differences, was its emphasis on both military and political leaders, speed of play, a unique combat system, and a much less crowded board. As for The Price of Freedom.  I’ve yet to get my copy to study, so I can’t comment on it. From what I’ve seen, it’s appearance and approach is considerably simpler than Lincoln’s War.
I believe a war-game enthusiast would want to own Lincoln’s War for tension, for the variety of options offered in every card play, for the speed of play, for the wide array of civil war personalities involved and for the beauty of its components.  With MMP’s backing and Mark Mahaffey doing the artwork, I don’t think gamers will be disappointed in the least.

Kris: Most of the strategic-level Civil War games deal with the political aspects of promoting and demoting generals, and there are often rules that restrict the Union player’s ability to promote leaders like Grant in order to keep Grant from commanding the Army of the Potomac in 1862.  How does Lincoln’s War deal with generals and leadership?

John: Lincoln’s War revolves around political influence points which can be used for a variety of purposes. Political influence can be banked, spent on activation, promotion, building naval assets, stockpiling combat resources, or goading a recalcitrant general into action. In the field, combat strength is not represented as the generals themselves. As the commander’s fortunes rise and fall so do the fortunes of his army.  Some generals are better in the offense, some in the defense, some are completely unpredictable in battle.

Kris: I see from the discussion on Comsimworld that players in Lincoln’s War will have to deal with “seditious characters” or elements on each side that do not support the war effort.  How does the game deal with these?

John: I was always fascinated with the colorful politicians during the war that at times hampered their respective administrations as much as the enemy, Joseph Brown, Governor of Georgia and Fernando Wood, Mayor of New York for instance. A handful of these men act as gadflies in the game, they are represented by cards that steal political support, at the most inopportune times.

Kris: If players can steal each other’s political support, how does that play out in game terms?  Does the player who loses support lose a card from their hand, or are there other mechanisms involved?

John: Political support is identified as Political Currency, nicknamed PC points. Each player has his own PC Track that increases or decreases with the fortunes of war, but also through the support of key individuals who back their respective administration. Most cards offer a player numerous options. With the PC number at the top of an Operations Card, a player may activate a leader, bank political support, remove ITs, or utilize the card’s event and its effects.  A number of these effects simulate the confusion, jealousy and animosity in the opposing administration.  When such an effect is played, the opponent on whom it is played is required to lose the stated number of political points from his political track.  There is no block or saving roll.

Kris: I also see that you have stated that the combat system will not involve dice.  How then do you simulate combat?

John: The same way generals in the field conduct combat, by gauging their abilities against the believed abilities of their opponents. You are correct, no dice are used in resolving combat. Occasionally dice may be used to indicate the abilities of an unpredictable general but other than that, opponents commit their abilities (based upon their rank), a hidden number of resource points (if the player purchased any) and a hidden resource card if any are currently held in the player’s hand, are played. The total combat points committed on both sides are then compared. There are only three results. A skirmish that yields no casualties. A minor victory that gains a few political points. And a Major victory which rates a demotion for the defeated commander.

Generals may become casualties due to a random result card draw. The same randomization may result in a Disaster or even a role reversal in which an outnumbered opponent pulls a rabbit out of his hat and becomes a victor instead of the loser. Expended resource cards are a double-edged sword because their use may win the battle, but limit the options of a player and could allow his opponent the critical last turn of a campaign season. At the same time, resource points must be purchased at the beginning of a campaign season and must be used or the political backing that provided them will disappear at the end of the season. In war, nothing’s free.

Kris: What are immobilization tokens?

John: Immobilization Tokens or ITs are tokens that might be misconstrued as damage markers but are in fact an indication of unpreparedness, vacillation, or simply an unwillingness to pursue a certain course. Each IT limits movement and combat capability. More than one IT prevents offensive combat. ITs can be removed through expending political influence, through the infusion of fresh troops (a fresh army moving into the hex), or waiting for all ITs to be removed en masse at the end of a combat season.

Kris: Lincoln’s War will emphasize the political aspects of the struggle, but it will still be a wargame.  How complicated will the military aspect of the game be?  Will the complexity level of the military conflict resemble more For the People or The Price of Freedom (to use an easy-to-understand yardstick)?

John: With my limited knowledge of Price of Freedom I would say somewhere between the two. Definitely less complicated than For the People.

Kris: What will the scale of game be?  How much time will turns represent?  How many soldiers will the units in the game represent?  How many different generals will be represented in the game?

John: Hexes are approximately 100 miles across. Some license was taken with mountain, river, city, coastline and rail line placement to accommodate game play. Generals represent armies of 2, 4, or 6 brigades, depending on their rank.  A full campaign game is seven nine-card-turns. A turn is considered a combat season of roughly 4-5 months.  The game begins in the summer of 1861 and proceeds through the summer of 1864.  If the North has not defeated the South by then, the South wins an automatic marginal victory.  I did not carry the game into 1865 because I believe that if the South has held its own that long, the election will go badly for Lincoln. 

There will be two opposing decks of 70 cards, most of which represent civil war military and political personalities. The generals represented on the cards will not always be represented on the board and vice versa. The actual number of general units that appear on the board are minimal. Over the course of the game, the Union will have 30 general units made available, while the South has to make do with 26 generals.

Kris: How much detail does the game give to cavalry raids, ironclad and riverine warfare, irregular warfare, entrenchments, and siege warfare? 

John: Over time I scrapped detailed cavalry, riverboat and siege warfare rules for simpler approaches. This drastically simplified the game and speeded playtime. Cavalry raids are represented in the standard game by simply moving a cavalry general which can be activated out from under an Army commander for the purposes of rail line destruction. Optional rules provide for more detailed cavalry missions.

Regretfully, I also had to scrap riverboat warfare because of the scale of the game and in recognition of the overwhelming Union naval production facilities. The Union may transport limited troops along controlled river routes up to but not beyond any hex controlled by the enemy. The South is denied this ability due to its substantial lack of vessels, not to mention the threatening Northern naval presence. Certain cards do indicate limited Southern naval opposition. 

As for siege rules, this was a longtime bugaboo that continued to haunt me.  I have resolved the issue by providing cities with both a production value and a separate defense value. The defense value is only valid if a defending army is present. In that case the defense is added to the general’s capability.  If a defending army is required to retreat due to battle results, the owning player can choose to remain at the cost of placing an additional IT on the defending army. Entrenchments are covered in the numerous defensive resource cards available to both players.

Kris: Lincoln had a delicate balancing act trying to satisfy both Radical Republicans who wanted to destroy slavery as fast as possible, and War Democrats who resisted the idea of turning the war into an anti-slavery crusade.  Lincoln slapped down generals like Fremont who freed slaves in the early months of the war for fear of angering the border states of Kentucky and Missouri.  How are slavery and the border states handled in the game?

John: First, the rancor in the ranks is covered in numerous card events, including the Freemont removal card. Another particularly heinous event, available to both players, is RELUCTANT TO FOLLOW ORDERS card, in which an RFO chit is placed on an opposing army (chosen by the player playing the event) restricting its effectiveness for the remainder of the entire combat season. This can be devastating if played early in the season. 

The effects of Maryland as an unstable border state are considered resolved by the presence of the Army of the Potomac.  Missouri is considered split with some cities controlled by the North, one by the south, and several remaining neutral. Kentucky however is the central issue.  Invasion by either side will cost the invading player three PCs. Considering that an activation cost must be paid to move the invading army, this could be an expensive proposition. On the other hand, both sides are capable of invading and capturing one key Kentucky city - thereby earning one PC in the process. Normally the loss of a city means the loss of its production value (represented by PCs) to the side losing the city and the acqusition of an equal number of PCs by the victorious attacker’s side. In the case of neutral cities, PCs can only be gained not lost. Once neutral cities are invaded the controlling player is vulnerable to PC loss if it is recaptured by the enemy.

Kris: Reading both James McPherson’s The Battle Cry of Freedom and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, I was struck by how the North not only out-fought the South, but how it out-financed the Confederacy.  The North was able raise money through taxes and bonds while the South ultimately resorted to just printing money which had disastrous effects for its citizens.  How are economic, production, and finances dealt with in the game? 

John: Once inflation takes effect the south must reduce its political capital before each combat season. If the Northern player pursues the blockade route he can strangle the South by reducing his opponent’s card hand. Northern production capabilities are reflected in its rapid army growth, and economical promotions later in the war. The Northern rail advantage is also reflected in the rapid transit of more troops.

Kris: I see from the Comsimworld discussion that there is a John Wilkes Booth card that lets the Confederate player attempt to kill Lincoln and the Union’s senior general.  How does this play out in game terms?  Could Booth show up in 1862?

John: He can appear as early as 1861. Lincoln’s reputation among Southern sympathizers often inspired rage. Shoot, his election arguably caused Southern secession in the first place so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that such an act could occur early in the war.  Note that although the card is identified with Booth, it represents any organized plot against the Lincoln administration. This card is a late favorite of mine. It is rarely effective, but it does have the capability of unsettling a game. In separate instances I have seen Grant and Lincoln killed. The loss of Grant’s abilities are a grevious loss to the North as he is then replaced with an adjutant of uncertain capabilities until the Union player pays the necessary political points to replace the General in Charge. The loss of Lincoln reduces the Union hand for the remainder of the game by one card.

Kris: When do you expect that MMP Games will add Lincoln’s War to their pre-order list?

John: When the artwork is finalized and final play-testing is complete. As for a date, you know how these things work. We might as well visit the oracle at Delphi.

Kris: Are you looking for playtesters?

John: I could use one good play test group of four or more serious players.  I am a bit leery, however since I’ve lost two play test kits to individuals who seemed to want nothing more than a free game.

Kris: What books influenced your design?  What books would you recommend for gamers interested in the Civil War?

John: For starters, The Political Crisis of the 1850’s by Michael F. Holt.  Perry turned me on to Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin (as you already mentioned) when it first came out and it is excellent. The personal memoirs of U.S. Grant (by himself), and The Destructive War by Charles Royster. For the Southern point of view I’d recommend The Lost Cause, by E. A. Pollard, The South Vs. the South by William W. Freehling, and Davis and Lee at War by Steven E. Woodworth.
The definitive work on Jefferson Davis is still underway The Published volumes of the Papers of Jefferson Davis. http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/pubvol.cfm

For someone who wants a better understanding of politics moving into reconstruction, Grendered Strife and Confusion by Laura F. Edwards, is pretty good along with Eric Foners A Short History of Reconstruction.

There is no end to the background histories, but over all I’ve had the most fun looking around the fringes of the top men.  In that vein, try Lincoln’s Secretary: A biography of John G. Nicolay by Helen Nicolay. Alexander H. Stephans by Thomas E. Schott, The Second Rebellion: The New York City Draft Riots of 1863 by James Mccague and The Great Sioux Uprising by C. M. Oehler.

Kris: Thanks for the interview.

© 2008 Kris Hall

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

Thanks, Kris!  Now looking forward to this one.... Posted by Jeffrey D Myers on Mar 28, 2008 at 12:34 PM | #

< Back Home