In Summary

This is an accessible wargame that captures the tenor of Civil War era combat without resorting to complex rules or cluttered game play. It's challenging, quick, and fun. With five battles of varying size and balance to choose from and excellent solitaire playability, Across Five Aprils is a solid value as well.

However, the mechanics result in some odd quirks, and as with any American Civil War game, the defender has an advantage and the Union always gets reinforcements.

I give this game a 7 / 10 on BGG's scale while individual battle run from 3-8. Across Five Aprils is a very good game with which to introduce new comers to wargaming, but they must play the Union side or risk becoming frustrated by the challenge facing the Confederate forces.


Background / Theme

Across Five Aprils encompasses five battles that took place during the American Civil War. The first battle of Bull Run, Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Gettysburg, and Bentonville. The game's designer, Eric Lee Smith, does an excellent job of capturing each engagement's temperament, as well as the command difficulties and defensive tactics that dominated this era in warfare.


The Bits and Pieces

The components are heavy stock paper map / cardboard counters, par for the early 90's when the game was produced.

The game's five maps are printed on two, 22 by 32 inch sheets, with high graphic quality. The only negatives being a difficulty in seeing hex numbers in some terrains and the occasional question as to whether a creek is a stream.

The 352 counters are large, 5/8 inch format, with silhouette type graphics. The graphics come in four flavors (cavalry, artillery, Union infantry, Confederate infantry), and won't win any awards, but they serve their purpose cleanly. It's very helpful that counters have ID's noting their battle and setup location / reinforcement turn noted on them. The units have attack, defense, and movement values which are color coded to indicate their parent formation. This is a nice idea, but some of the colors used can prove difficult to read.


The Mechanics

Across Five April's uses a "chit pull" system to simulate the chaos of battle. At the start of each turn (representing a few hours on the battlefield), players place game counters, or chits, representing each division able to move and fight in the turn, into a cup or other container. These chits are then drawn, one at a time, allowing the associated units to move.

The cup usually contains two combat chits, one with the American flag and one with the Confederate. When one of these is drawn, that player must engage all adjacent enemy units in combat, or withdraw his units before combat.

Thus units rarely move as fluidly as their commander would like, and combat can occur at any time.

Movement uses a standard, cost to enter each hex approach, while combat uses an odds ratio CRT with terrain benefits shifting ratio columns. There will be plenty of dice rolling, as each skirmish uses two CRT's with both attacker and defender rolling a die. One determines how the skirmish effects the defender and the other how it effects the attacker. Both can suffer losses, both can retreat. All units involved in a skirmish that results in a step loss to one of their comrades must also roll a morale check or retreat an additional space.

Game Play

The great strength, and at times weakness, of Across Five April is its implementation of the chit pull system. On the plus side, it's very easy to use and captures the chaos and frustration of commanding an army of this era.

On the other hand, it can feel very artificial at times, especially in regards to column marching and combat.

Let's start with column marching situations, where you have a few divisions moving down a road in line, or entering the board at a reinforcement location. If units in the back of the line draw their movement chit first, they have to leap frog units in front . . . or worse they may be unable to move forward due to stacking limits in the hexes in front of them.

This may well capture the frustration of moving large marching formations, but it feels like it's going to far. Shouldn't units in front be allowed to move before units in the columns back? Isn't that why marching was invented, to organize the movements of large units?

This issue comes to the fore in the Shiloh battle should the Confederate player attempt to enter the board and drive east to the river before engaging the Union forces. Johnny Reb beware, in Across Five Aprils such a maneuver can be awkward and time consuming.

This should not be confused with a situation that happens quite often where certain key arteries funnel advances on the enemy position. Given that these situations are at or near the points of combat between forces, I have no problem with the logjams that result. In fact, it captures a fundamental problem facing commanders of the day.

The far more concerning result of the system is seen in combat. Again, not a damning issue, but it occurs so frequently and is such an integral part of play that it can turn players off the system altogether.

In short, the combat system results in a kind of ballet, where units jockey back and forth across the battle line. This results from three interacting mechanisms: the random manner in which formations move, the requirement to attack all adjacent units, and the way in which combat is randomly initiated.

Let me illustrated with an example. You are assaulting an enemy position, to do so with a reasonable chance of success you need to bring units of two different formations to bear on the defender's hex. Keeping in mind that if your combat chit is pulled your units must attack all units in their zones of control or retreat. OK, so let's say you pull the chit for your first formation and move those forces into position, but before the second formation's chit is pulled, your combat chit is drawn. You have a problem, whether to press forward your attack with the first formation's units alone, at unfavorable odds, or retreat from combat.

Let's assume you abort your attack and withdraw to avoid a suicidal skirmish. Now the defender can advance into the hexes you vacated.

Thus units often advance, not because of successful combat, but due to aborted attacks by their enemy.

Another artificial consequence of this interplay of rules, revolves around the question of whether your combat chit has been pulled for the turn yet. For example, say my combat chit has been drawn already and yours hasn't. I want to get units next to your units almost everywhere possible, so that when your combat chit, inevitably is drawn, you have to choose between suicidal attacks or retreating.

It's almost as if the combat system works in reverse, and you see more success with your units adjacent to the enemy when their combat chit is drawn then you do when your combat chit is. I have seen many a ridge cleared, not through battle, but simply by being adjacent to defensively superior units (which aren't entrenched) when those defenders are forced to attack or retreat by their combat chit.

Finally, this interplay of mechanisms puts a premium on artillery. Artillery is fantastic on defense, but it's attack value isn't as high and is half when firing into non-adjacent hexes. However, this can be incredibly valuable, as ranged artillery bombardments against units fulfill the "must attack all adjacent units" criteria, allowing your adjacent units to focus their assaults on specific hexes while ignoring the bombarded ones.

This ballet, as I refer to it, is a fundamental result of the game's rules, and an understanding of its ramifications is essential for success. Some players find this ballet too artificial or "gamey" and this ruins the game for them.

I don't want to sour you to the game. Across Five Aprils a fluid, fun, and challenging game with battles that play fast and have unique flavors. Most battles give both sides an opportunity to press forward at some point and capture the challenges facing the respective commanders.

Since attacking in this era of combat, was a difficult proposition, and most of the battles find the Confederate forces on the attack, they are often hard pressed to win. I'd recommend that inexperienced players learn the system while commanding the Union forces.

Given that individual battles can be played in 30 minutes to four hours, you can easily choose one that fits the time available.

That having been said, a brief note on each of the five battles is in order.

Bull Run (1st)
With 25 units, Bull run is the smallest battle in the game. It's a very fluid situation however, and I recommend it as the first battle to play. It is also the only battle where Union forces are on the offensive from the start. A handful of Confederate units attempt to hold off the Union forces as reinforcements trickle in. Either side has an equal chance of winning, and the situation lets newcomers familiarize themselves with the "ballet" I've mentioned before engaging in larger battles. With very good replayability, Bull Run rates this an 8/10 using BGG's system.

Pea Ridge
This largest battle in the Western theater sees two columns of Confederates attacking scattered Union forces in a very wooded area. Typical of most of these battles, the Union forces are constantly being reinforced and eventually have more strength on the map then the Confederates, the tide turns and if the Rebs haven't won the battle on the first day they can be hard pressed to avoid a substantial Union victory (the historical result).

The best chance for Confederate victory seems to rest in the variant that allows all units to attack together instead of in two prongs, but this is still a tough go. You probably won't replay this one very often, and so I rate it a 6/10.

Bentonville
Maligned as the Runt of the litter. This often ignored battle begins with the Confederate units forced to attack into woods and swamps in a surprise attack gone wrong. The defending Union forces are steady reinforced and the Confederates see their chances of victory evaporate with the morning mists. An excellent historical simulation, but the battle produces a game with near nil replayability, a 3/10.

Shiloh
A classic Civil War battle, with a reason. On the first day, the Rebs came so close to victory, and on the second day the reinforced Union forces get to go on the offensive. I believe this might be the best game in the bunch. The challenge facing both sides is captured well, and both have a good chance to win. The Confederates must win on the first day, I've yet to see them do so without taking the Snake Creek bridge, a victory hex that shuts off a portion of the Union's reinforcements. But there are enough units to fully realize the game system's potential while leaving you with the "just one more game" feeling. Be warned, if you eyes glazed over in the above discussion of column marches, the chit pull system can put the kibosh on most attempts to end run east to the river. The battle has excellent replayability and rates an 8/10.

Gettysburg
This is the biggest of the battles, and uses a full map and half of the game's counters. Like most Gettysburg simulations, things never turn out exactly as they did in 1863. The Confederate has a good chance of winning the first day if they press their advantage and cease one of the victory hexes on Cemetery Ridge. Unlike the other battles, the Rebs are not advancing through deep woods in this scenario and can "knock" Union units off their ridges and into open fields. Note that defending the town hexes of Gettysburg is disadvantageous to defenders and cost more then open ground to move through.

The second day usually sees battle lines drawn along Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge (in the historic "fishhook") as well as in the region of the McMillan and Pitzer farms. Forces have often dug breastworks during the night and the battle's tenor changes into a slugfest. Be wary that units in breastworks do not need to attack adjacent enemies, but if they join in a failing attack, they will have to retreat out of their fortifications. Again a case where the defender advances better on defense.

The question for the Rebs is whether to sweep Longstreet's units South of the Pitzer farm area to press against the round top area, or to reinforce his battleline and try to take Cemetery Ridge or Culp's Hill. Either way, the remainder of the battle sees stacks of units tipping against one another and grinding their way towards one sides victory due to casualty ratios. Not as fun as the first day's events. We often play with a house rule that the Confederates win or loose on the first day, period. This cuts game time from four hours to an hour, but does stack the deck against the Union (for a change).

Playing the full three days, I'd rate this battle an 6/10, for our "first day only" variant, an 8/10.


Conclusion

Given all that's been said, I would recommend buying Across Five Aprils.

Despite the quirks I've discussed in detail, Across Five Aprils delivers plenty of bang for the gamers' buck: three of its five battles have above average replay value, playing time is short, the learning curve is quick, solitaire playability is excellent, and all this is accomplished while capturing the flavor of the situations facing commanders of the era.

Granted, these situations are not necessarily balanced, the defender often has an advantage, and time is on the Union's side, but that's the way it was.