Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
-
The Phalanx Edition of A House Divided is a truly handsome game. It has a large mounted board, extra-large thick game counters and full-color rules. It's a thoroughly euro-ized American wargame. Which is to say it has the really high quality look of the best German games but plays exactly the same as it's early Made-in-USA editions.
Still, as much as I liked my new copy, I have to admit it left me a little unsettled. Somehow the look seemed a little "off."
Looking at it in more detail, I could see where the discomfort came from. The game's art choices are a little on the strange side for the topic, especially the depictions of the fighting men.
I assume that, from a European perspective, it makes perfect sense for the more elite troops to be better equipped and more snap and polish. But from an American perspective it's completely wrong.
Tidiness has rarely been the watchword for the American fighting man in any era, but among the many rumpled armies the United States has fielded, both of the combatant forces in the Civil War were especially so. For the American fighting man war is all business and every day is casual Friday.
In the 1880s, about a generation after the fighting ended, two Chicago lithographers, Louis Kurz and Alexander Allison produced a series of lithographs depicting the major battles of the Civil War, among other topics. These were quite popular, but clearly depict a romanticized view of the war and the fighting. The main customers for these works would have been the middle-aged Civil War veterans and their children, so perhaps a sanitized version of the fighting was in order. But in Kurz and Allison's Civil War both armies almost always appeared well-clad, well-drilled and generally well-fed.
This is particularly noticeable on the Confederate side. According to the Official Atlas of the war a CSA private looked like this:
But photographic evidence reveals something quite different, as this famous image of prisoners taken after Pickett's charge show:
So the depiction of the troopers in Phalanx's edition of AHD has things quite backward.
The militia troops should be the ones decked out in crisp new uniforms, full back packs and kit.
The Crack troops, especially on the Rebel side, should be well-worn, even threadbare, with their equipment cut down to the minimal kit that long experience in campaigning revealed sufficient.
So, while a very attractive product, Phalanx's edition presents a rather misleading visual account of the war.
From my gaming blog: http://pawnderings.blogspot.com
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny ÅšlÄ…sk
-
That's a very interesting point! Yet if it was more historically accurate art in the way you argue, I suspect it would confuse many people, since there's such a clear art tradition that higher quality appearance suggests higher quality period. Iconic shorthand vs historical accuracy.
So perhaps the best graphic design choice would be to have the 3 levels of soldiers look similar in terms of uniform/appearance, but have different poses (e.g. the stronger ones are firing their guns as in battle, the medium ones are marching forward, and the weaker ones are standing at attention like new recruits on display).
-
Harvester of Eyes.
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
My demeanor was meaner.
-
Excellent point and well written post, Seth. My main pet peeve about the art in the Phalanx Edition is 18 stripes on the Union Flag on the box cover.
-
Dan Edwards
United States
Shoreline
Washington
-
"Up front, Morale is sky-high, the clothes are cleaner and salutes really snap."
Bing Crosby during WWII, to American newspapermen, explaining his view that entertainment was needed more by dispirited rear echelon soldiers than the frontline types, from Bill Mauldin's "Up Front".
Maybe Der Bingle talked to the Phalanx design guys.
-
Ethan McKinney
United States
El Segundo
California
-
Bing was talking about combat units vs. support units.
Seth is talking about different experience/quality levels of combat units.
Bing was probably correct, in a way, since the Army tended to push smarter, more competent, more motivated officers into combat units (or they pushed themselves into them), and quality of leadership often (usually?) translated into stronger discipline.
-
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
-
russ wrote: That's a very interesting point! Yet if it was more historically accurate art in the way you argue, I suspect it would confuse many people, since there's such a clear art tradition that higher quality appearance suggests higher quality period. Iconic shorthand vs historical accuracy.
So perhaps the best graphic design choice would be to have the 3 levels of soldiers look similar in terms of uniform/appearance, but have different poses (e.g. the stronger ones are firing their guns as in battle, the medium ones are marching forward, and the weaker ones are standing at attention like new recruits on display).
Precisely the point. Europeans naturally expect the more elite troops to be more snappily dressed. But the American experience is quite different.
Now, that's not to say that elite U.S. combat units are always sloppier than regulars or militia. There are counterexamples, to be sure. But, particularly in the Civil War era, it's rather more commonly the other way around.
Given the problems of the CSA supply system, keeping the frontline troops was hard. Meanwhile, even as troopes from the Army of Northern Virginai wer geoing shoeless, there were many state militia unit back home who were rather well-dressed. Garrison troops also had less wear on their uniforms and less reason to "lose" stuff.
-
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
-
scribidinus wrote: Excellent point and well written post, Seth. My main pet peeve about the art in the Phalanx Edition is 18 stripes on the Union Flag on the box cover.
The flag is almost too easy a target. There'a also that funny shaped hat on the Union officer near the flag, too.
-
Dan Edwards
United States
Shoreline
Washington
-
elbmc1969 wrote: Bing was talking about combat units vs. support units.
Seth is talking about different experience/quality levels of combat units.
Bing was probably correct, in a way, since the Army tended to push smarter, more competent, more motivated officers into combat units (or they pushed themselves into them), and quality of leadership often (usually?) translated into stronger discipline.
Mauldin was using his remark as a shining example of people not having a clue as to what a combat outfit looked like in combat. Infantry units in garrison might place a lot of emphasis on spit and polish, but once they get in to combat they began to resemble transients, unshaven, filthy and bone tired. Bing was never allowed anywhere near these characters when there was any danger, and if he saw front line GIs it was after they had been cleaned up and a safe distance away from the front.
As to the US Army of WWII picking the most motivated and competent leaders to fill billets in combat outfits, most especially the infantry, I'm dubious about that idea at best. That might have been true at the start of the war for some idealists and generally true for the duration for some elite units, like the Airborne or Rangers, but I can almost guarantee that when they combed out support units looking for replacements, the CO didn't say "Hey, they need guys in the rifle Regiments? Let's send our best and brightest, 'cause there is a war to be won!" I'd bet they sent whoever was on the S-list, and I don't mean "S" for "Swell".
-
Ted Kostek
United States
Camano Island
Washington
-
Very interesting, and from a strict historical point-of-view, I can see your point.
Where I disagree, however, is that the breakdown is European vs American vantage points. Rather, I think it has to do with the way an artist conveys an idea versus the strict literal truth.
An example occurred in the recent movie The Alamo. In the movie, Davy Crockett plays a fiddle accompaniment to the band in the Mexican army. Some historians had a long list of reasons why the scene was flawed, but the film-makers kept it in. The film-makers made the right choice, IMO, because the scene is breathtaking. While the scene might be false from a literal standpoint, it conveys a profound emotional truth. You gain a deep sense of what those men in the Alamo felt as they watched and waited for their own death.
In the same way, the artist here wanted to convey the idea that some soldiers were "better" than others. Historical facts notwithstanding, a person with more high quality stuff will typically be assumed (rightly or wrongly) to be "above" a person w/ less stuff of lower quality. While the veteran soldiers might have been shabbier than the militia, looking at picture would not convey this idea.
-
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
-
kostek wrote: Very interesting, and from a strict historical point-of-view, I can see your point.
Where I disagree, however, is that the breakdown is European vs American vantage points. Rather, I think it has to do with the way an artist conveys an idea versus the strict literal truth.
An example occurred in the recent movie The Alamo. In the movie, Davy Crockett plays a fiddle accompaniment to the band in the Mexican army. Some historians had a long list of reasons why the scene was flawed, but the film-makers kept it in. The film-makers made the right choice, IMO, because the scene is breathtaking. While the scene might be false from a literal standpoint, it conveys a profound emotional truth. You gain a deep sense of what those men in the Alamo felt as they watched and waited for their own death.
In the same way, the artist here wanted to convey the idea that some soldiers were "better" than others. Historical facts notwithstanding, a person with more high quality stuff will typically be assumed (rightly or wrongly) to be "above" a person w/ less stuff of lower quality. While the veteran soldiers might have been shabbier than the militia, looking at picture would not convey this idea.
Perhaps, but I would still argue this is based on a European tradition, rather than American experience. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance to the American Civil War is aware that shabbiness practically defined the Rebel army, so it's not surprising that nearly all artwork on American-published ACW wargames reflect that reality. The artwork on the Phalanx edition of AHD is noteworthy because it's an outlier. Look at the artwork for the GDW edition of the game in contrast.
 
In both the first and second edition box covers we see Confederates attired in non-standard uniform, as one would expect.
-
The "Jeff" part is completely true
-
wargamer55 wrote: scribidinus wrote: Excellent point and well written post, Seth. My main pet peeve about the art in the Phalanx Edition is 18 stripes on the Union Flag on the box cover. The flag is almost too easy a target. There'a also that funny shaped hat on the Union officer near the flag, too.
I would have sworn that this post was going to be about the dude who is holding his rifle the wrong way. There are no hi-res images of the box on the geek, but if you look at the Union soldier in front of the big brown blast thing on the right-hand side, he is clearly holding his gun butt-first.
-
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
-
ExcitingJeff wrote: wargamer55 wrote: scribidinus wrote: Excellent point and well written post, Seth. My main pet peeve about the art in the Phalanx Edition is 18 stripes on the Union Flag on the box cover. The flag is almost too easy a target. There'a also that funny shaped hat on the Union officer near the flag, too. I would have sworn that this post was going to be about the dude who is holding his rifle the wrong way. There are no hi-res images of the box on the geek, but if you look at the Union soldier in front of the big brown blast thing on the right-hand side, he is clearly holding his gun butt-first.
I think the butt-first weapon belongs to the man beside him who got hit. The soldier in question is holding his own rifle pointed directly muzzle first at the viewer.
-
|
|
Posted Sat Mar 1, 2008 6:41 am
