Game: In Their Quiet Fields II

Thread: Vassal PBEM

Scoobysnacks — 2008-06-03T15:18:13+00:00

I'm new to this system and looking for a PBEM thru Vassal with one of these senerio's. Any other new players out there, or someone willing to put up with the growing pains of learing a new system (mainly the leader / orders processes)? I should be fine with the other mechanics of the game system.

Thread: Re: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

Wilhammer — 2008-03-02T19:51:45+00:00

You all do know it has been 're-released', sort of?

I have ordered it for a very reasonable 25 bucks from wargamedepot.

Thread: Re: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

stove — 2007-07-11T18:57:26+00:00

I'm not actually sure. (Neither edition is "in print" so there's nobody to really say officially for sure.)

Here's what I can see, based on pictures, available downloads and my own "first edition" copy:

* Map graphics upgraded. (Believe me when I say the non-II edition's graphics are horrible. Terrible colors.)
* Counters upgraded to BRS/EaAW era graphics.
* Extra scenarios in rulebook for second edition, with the removal of the "George attacks the day before" scenario in first edition.
* Command rules cleaned up a bit. No more "wing command" rules for the 9th Corps.

That's all I can see for now. The second edition seems really nice. I'm unlikely to purchase it given my first edition ownership, but that's the one I'd seek out if I was looking.

Thread: Re: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

Eric Brosius — 2007-06-18T21:45:50+00:00

Where can one get a description of the differences between the current edition and the first edition?

Image

arnaudel — 2007-03-08T22:02:24+00:00

Back Box

Image

arnaudel — 2007-03-08T22:01:30+00:00

Front Box

Image

Sir Loin o Beef — 2007-02-09T17:55:15+00:00

In play at BROGfest '07

Thread: Re: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

eker — 2006-10-03T16:48:00+00:00

Fascinating battle. Do not own it - but my first serious wargame on PC 20 yrs ago. SSI simulation with alot of documentation.

One of the best simulation McClelland (lack of) orders is Battle Cry. With just two order cards it is very difficult to do some serious battle. Very unbalanced - But playing time is just approx 1/2 hour. Swap sides and tally total score = exciting game anyway.

Thread: Re: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

stove — 2006-10-03T11:48:42+00:00

At least in the first ed. (Which I have.) It looks like the coloring is slightly improved in the revised (II) edition.

Thread: Re: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

Hungadunga — 2006-10-03T07:46:51+00:00

This is a very good game.

The map coloring, though, SUCKS. it really does detract from the game.

Thread: Lee versus McClellan: Round Two

stove — 2006-10-02T12:59:56+00:00

In Their Quiet Fields is the first in the Civil War Brigade Series of games dealing with the Battle of Antietam in September, 1862. Lee has made a terrible gamble, and now his tiny Army of Northern Virginia must stand against the Union veterans for most of the day, outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1. There were two editions of the game, the second one with a "II" after its name. The second edition features a few more scenarios, cleaner rules, a much improved map and better looking counters. If given a choice between the two editions, there's no reason to go with the first edition, at least in this reviewer's opinion.

If the reader isn’t familiar with the Civil War Brigade Series as a whole, it might be wise to check my review of "3 Battles of Manassas" (or some other overview of the CSBS) before looking at this game's specific review. This review will assume general knowledge of the series’ concepts and ideas, and will seek to review the game’s specific ideas.

The maps and units are serviceable in the second edition, with state's profiles for the Confederates and colors for the North. The map and counters aren't likely to win any awards, but are certainly not hard on the eyes. The game's specific rules cover two pages and have a minimum of new rules. What new rules there are deal with two oddities - McClellan's caution and the lack of Confederate higher organization.

McClellan outnumbered the Confederates by a large margin, yet failed to organize his forces enough to really finish them off. The Confederates (perhaps driven by desperation), reverted somewhat to their earlier (7 days) command structure of divisions, not wings/corps.

McClellan points represent George's nerves, somewhat, as he is forced to commit his precious troops to the fight against (to his mind) the hordes of the enemy. In game terms, each corps has a certain number of points associated with it. When the corps accepts an order from McClellan, the points are paid. Extra points are paid if more than one corps is active at a time, when McClellan writes an order or when a previously active corps is activated once more. At the end of the game, McClellan points are simply subtracted from the Union VP totals. It is, I suppose, possible to almost completely smash the enemy as the Union yet lose on points. There's also a minor rule dealing with Burnside, one of McClellan's corps commanders. Burnside is a tough customer to get moving at all, but his corps is perfectly positioned and often times critical for winning the battle.

For the Confederate side, they're operating almost exclusively at the divisional level. Lee and his "wing commanders" can order around any division they want and initiative is allowed at every level. (Divisions can roll for an order, fail, then have someone else roll to give them that same order.) The Confederate leaders are almost all 3-4s, so their command structure is fast and loose.

The two armies are veterans, but are very dissimilar. The Confederate army has its back to the wall and has suffered terrible desertions. As a result, some "brigades" contain less than 300 men! The Confederates morale is excellent with many "A" level moral units scattered throughout the army, and their wreck levels are extremely low. (Some smaller brigades can't actually be wrecked, they'll die first.)

The Union army is for the most part, veterans. The First and Second corps will give the Confederates a lot of trouble, and even the embattled Ninth Corps can pack a punch if used correctly. Their corps commanders are fairly highly rated, so corps may not "stop attack" very soon. It's a solid, formidible army... assuming you can get it moving.

All this adds up to a nail biting game. The Union can usually get one corps moving at a time. (Two, if they're feeling profligate with McClellan points.) While only one corps is active, the Union must kill as many Confederates as possible before the corps is smashed and "stops attack." The Confederates must frantically shift reserves, stopping each new attack at the cost of wrecking another division or two of his army. His goal is simple survival for another few turns.

The battle actually plays much like history turned out, in some respects. Union corps attack in a disjointed fashion and the Confederates desperately shift to stop them. Casualties are very high. AP Hill's troops usually arrive in the nick of time and serve as the last fresh Confederate troops on the field. The Union player is saddled with McClellan (a 0 ranked leader), so getting anyone moving is a big feat, just like historically.

ITQF is a solid game, although the lack of any real room to manuever robs it of some of its luster. It's certainly, despite being the beginning game of the series, not the best introduction. (Or it's a good introduction for old wargamers comfortable with bigger games.) It's certainly worth looking at if you're at all interested in the battle or have enjoyed other items in the CWBS.

Image

GaryJK — 2006-09-26T14:40:13+00:00

Game in progress, VASSAL version

Image

2006-06-10T15:04:19+00:00

Image

2006-06-10T12:26:23+00:00

Thread: Number of Counters/ Counter Scans?

Mike Sisson — 2006-06-03T03:31:50+00:00

I got this game second hand out of a garage sale. Everything is scattered loose in the bottom of the box. The back of the box says over 500 counters but how many is that? If someone can give me a number for the counters or even some scans that would be great. Thanks

Thread: Re: Do people actually write out orders for this?

eker — 2006-05-15T21:16:03+00:00

Stick to historical orders. It will be a mess anyway -so do not try to issue new orders all the time. It is impossible to make a coordinated attack or defence. Remember that your opponent have the same trouble.

In a game you should plan well ahead with only 1 or 2 new orders from HQ during the game. Even if there is a major collapse. To avoid disaster you must use initiative a couple of times.

You cannot do better than your real life general. Let the game tell you a story why a good plan never work. It is not a game for competive players -who try win.

Read the Historical Notes at least twice and play in the spirit of the game - bend the rules if necessary. - Did gen Robert E Lee hear the enemy gunfire? Discuss and agree for a one time die roll modifier.

At the end it does not matter who win. You will share a wonderful story of opportunities lost and feel the frustration of cardboard counter generals.

Writing orders makes this game system perfect for solitaire. Try it!!!

Thread: Re: Do people actually write out orders for this?

rajungamer — 2006-05-15T00:53:03+00:00

Absoulutely.
In reality you only write out one to three orders a turn, so it is not a real slow down of the game. If you are sending more orders than that, you are probably countermanding orders and while a unit in the game won't collapse in confusion when they get too many orders, in reality that is what would happen.

Part of the interest of the game it to think ahead to the situation when the order gets to the commander and finally gets executed. I've had several situations where there is an opening in the line, but by time the force gets moveing another unit has filled the gap...

For attack orders I also try to keep the order to a specific objective. Such as occupy x crossroad, or hill... I dislike buildin an order that has a force attacking across most of the field. The more "ands" you put in the sentence, the more you stringing together multiple orders.

Thread: Do people actually write out orders for this?

mrbeankc — 2006-05-14T19:34:44+00:00

I've recently picked up a few games in this series and started reading the rules today. I like the system but I find the writing written orders a bit funky. Ok, it is suppose to historically recreate a commander's having to write written orders to his commanders but it seems like it might slow down the game with players having to stop and write down orders all the time. So my question for those who have played this series, do you actually do the written orders part of the rules or simply ignore the "write orders" and play the game as one would normally for a game of this type?

Image

wkusau — 2005-03-17T01:14:39+00:00

Cover from revised edition

Image

rajungamer — 2005-01-20T13:40:01+00:00

Box Cover - First Edition

Image

tathui — 2004-04-26T22:09:22+00:00