The Game Box

Gaming Stuff => Military Games => Topic started by: desertfoxleo on July 20, 2014, 12:38:24 pm



Title: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: desertfoxleo on July 20, 2014, 12:38:24 pm
I thought I'd start a general discussion topic on gaming the American Civil War (I used to just call it the "Civil War", but I've found that, apparently, there have been civil wars in other countries as well! Who woulda thunk it?

I'm starting this because my latest gaming effort is Eric Lee Smith's "Across 5 Aprils", which I'm playing solo in preparation for a F2F session with my buddy Dan. I'm playing the Gettysburg scenario and the chit-pull mechanic is making solitaire play quite enjoyable. Here you see the situation at the end of the first day (night is falling), with neither side scoring a decisive victory, so it's on to Day Two!

(http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp168/desertfoxleo/Wargaming%20Photos/2d92a724-2400-441a-b642-af25a36f0beb_zpse9d60082.jpg?t=1405877552)

I have to say that the ACW has never been my number one wargaming subject (sorry to say, but yes, World War Two still holds that spot, though not to the degree it used to dominate my gaming). In part, maybe it's because I grew up in the North (Pennsylvania), the Civil War has never been that hot of a topic here (I'm guessing that perhaps in the South, Civil War gaming is more common/popular). However, and I'm sure I'm not the only wargamer who can say this, but recent reading on the subject has kindled new interest in gaming this war. In my case, having finished the first entry of Shelby Foote's classic trilogy on the Civil War, and having started the second one, has gotten me to thinking about the war and wanting to game it. As Dan expressed an interest in gaming Gettysburg, I thought this would be a good opportunity to scratch that Civil War gaming itch I had developed while also trying out a game in my collection that I've never played.

Yes, it's true - Across 5 Aprils was one of those games I've had in my collection for years (I don't even remember when/where/how/why I bought it), but had never played it until now. Man, I was missing out, but better late than never. Also, I have not played many chit-pull games, but I am thoroughly enjoying this experience, which seems a good way to protray the poor communication and coordination of 19th Century armies.

I think after this, I want to give the other four battles in the box a go, while I'm also looking to start a campaign of Smith's "The Civil War", another Victory Games classic covering the entire war at the strategic level. I'm aware that there is a new game on the horizon which is considered the spiritual successor to "The Civil War", so that might be in my future...time will tell.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 20, 2014, 12:43:59 pm
I'm planning on trying out the LOB series with Last Chance for Victory. The modern Gamers maps
have definitely gotten prettier. I have some real concerns about how much I'm going to enjoy
what seems a simplified CWB at a smaller scale.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: desertfoxleo on July 20, 2014, 12:50:14 pm
Yeah, I've never tried any of The Gamers Civil War Brigade series games. To date, my only experience (and a very enjoyable one, at that) has been with their SCS games. How would you say CWB , or for that matter, LOB complexity compares to other Gamers series? Is it closer to SCS, or OCS? I am getting ready to dip my toe into the OCS end of the pool with Reluctant Enemies, but for the most part, I still prefer the less complex SCS model.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: kira1y on July 20, 2014, 12:58:57 pm
As far as how LoB compares to other Gamers' series; It's much closer to OCS than SCS...

One series that's been around for a while that I just got to recently is The Great Campaigns of the Civil War. What a cool series! I wasn't really sure how I would like the rolling the dice to determine movement mechanism, but after playing a few different scenarios I found that it does add a very nice bit of unpredictability to the game. The new counter artwork really sucks though...

(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic1882784_lg.jpg)


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: desertfoxleo on July 20, 2014, 01:05:38 pm
Good to know regarding LOB complexity. As for "Great Campaigns", I do own what I believe was the prototype for that series, the Victory Games "Lee vs. Grant - the Wilderness Campaign" I've never played it (I say that about too many of my wargames, but I'm working on that issue), but it seems to fill a niche in ACW gaming, as it appears to be operational in scale, as opposed to tactical/grand tactical, or strategic.

I agree, BTW - those new counters look like they belong in a WW2 or post-WW2 game, not ACW. At the very least, a different font might have made them look at bit less...modern. However, the map looks gorgeous, and I do remember that about the original series - the maps were some of the best looking maps I'd ever seen for any wargame.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Rockhopper on July 20, 2014, 01:24:13 pm
Cool thread, and timely because I have gotten increasingly interested in ACW the past year or so. On Judd's recommendation I picked up A House Divided, and even my lovely bride loves playing it.  I picked up Battle Above the Clouds during the MMP Christmas Sale, and jumped on the P500 for Simonitch's new game.

desertfoxleo is already asking the exact same questions I would, so carry on.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 20, 2014, 01:38:42 pm
Yeah, I've never tried any of The Gamers Civil War Brigade series games. To date, my only experience (and a very enjoyable one, at that) has been with their SCS games. How would you say CWB , or for that matter, LOB complexity compares to other Gamers series? Is it closer to SCS, or OCS? I am getting ready to dip my toe into the OCS end of the pool with Reluctant Enemies, but for the most part, I still prefer the less complex SCS model.

I'd say midway between, IF you're used to other tactical systems like GBACW. If you're not
used to fire and movement stuff in pre-20th Century, it's gonna take some getting used to.
The orders writing also throws some people for a loop.

The rulebooks are big, but not terribly complex, IMO.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 20, 2014, 01:40:23 pm

desertfoxleo is already asking the exact same questions I would, so carry on.

He's a great person to have on a site.



Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 20, 2014, 03:28:23 pm
I first became aware of the ACW back in the early years of my university days (daze). The hook was Bruce Catton's three volume centennial series. I devoured that up like nobody's business.

Prior to that I have received as a gift a couple of the smaller GBCAW games from S&T magazine. Namely Wilson's Creek and Cedar Mountain. So while I was reading Catton I set up Cedar Mtn and was blown away. A little while later I picked up the TSR version of Terrible Swift Sword and I have not looked back ever since. It opened the door for me for love affair with pre-20th century games.

Yeah... good times.

I have kept pace with the GBCAW series, but since my solitaire play has been reduced thanks to VASSAL I have not played it for some time now. The last being a PBEM attempt with Mr Code Monkey and myself playing a scenario from Gringo, but we found that difficult due to the reaction and whatnot. I have some of the more recent CWBS games, including all three of the 7 Days titles. I really enjoyed playing For the People both FtF and PBEM and I think I have about three sessions of it under my belt. I have Battle Above the Clouds, but have not tried it or any of the other GCACW titles.

I too am looking forward to the new GMT game coming out. Should be intriguing.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Michail I. Potemkin on July 20, 2014, 05:37:58 pm
I'm playing LoB: NbH right now. I played SM before. with the CWB/RSS rules.  I'm struggling with a few concepts, but all in all it works out. LOS is a headache if you are used to ASL-like 'exact' LOS. Orders are okay, I guess but I have to start the campaign to be sure (Not much to order in the scenarios).

There are a few things I don't understand,  Fluke Stoppage is an example. I mean, I get the rules but I don't have any idea what they represent. And my dictionary just gives strange translations for 'fluke'...


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 20, 2014, 05:46:33 pm
... And my dictionary just gives strange translations for 'fluke'...

Definitely not the "fish".      :D

"Fluke" in this case means unexpected or lucky. It is probably slang, but I am not sure about that.

So a "fluke stoppage" would mean the corps/division stopped due to some unexpected reason.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 20, 2014, 05:48:24 pm
As opposed to a fish clogging your drains.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: weateallthepies on July 20, 2014, 06:24:54 pm
... And my dictionary just gives strange translations for 'fluke'...

Definitely not the "fish".      :D

"Fluke" in this case means unexpected or lucky. It is probably slang, but I am not sure about that.

So a "fluke stoppage" would mean the corps/division stopped due to some unexpected reason.

Yeah fluke is still relatively common slang in the uk, particularly related to sports. As in 'a fluke shot'.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: sparty on July 20, 2014, 07:46:11 pm
GCACW is such a playable game and easily teachable that it's becoming a house favorite.  Kibler's maps are, as usual, works of art which helps greatly.

The Clash of Arms ACW games are also noteworthy.  I had Mississippi Fortress back when I was a kid and enjoyed it quite a bit because of the campaign board and engagement board with some inventive fog of war opportunities. 

I remember the first time I played The Civil War from VG...I was blown away.  I KNOW my friend and I in 7th grade had a 7th grader's grasp of the rules, but it still blew my mind at the scope and potential.  I managed to track down a copy last year, but it's still not hit the table again.  It is definitely one of my 2014 gaming goals.

The thing I like about American Civil War games is the focus on leaders.  It makes games, at least for me, more accessible.  I know I'm moving a lot of pieces, but I inherently understand with whom they're fighting and where I want them to go.

I think LOB is pretty fantastic as well.  Enrico is right that it's CWB without all the chrome that attracted people to CWB and between v1 and v2 of the rules even more was removed.  That said, you stand a chance of finishing a whole Gettysburg campaign game without growing old before it's done and the orders system is still pretty darn fantastic.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: desertfoxleo on July 20, 2014, 07:53:35 pm

desertfoxleo is already asking the exact same questions I would, so carry on.

He's a great person to have on a site.



Why thank you, Enrico! I never took to Consimworld's Social Forum, but this place you've created is already starting to draw me in. I think it's the great folks you've gotten to cross over that's the key, and the ease of posting here. I really could see this place taking over the role of the BGG wargame subdomain general forum.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: desertfoxleo on July 20, 2014, 08:07:06 pm
Yeah, I've never tried any of The Gamers Civil War Brigade series games. To date, my only experience (and a very enjoyable one, at that) has been with their SCS games. How would you say CWB , or for that matter, LOB complexity compares to other Gamers series? Is it closer to SCS, or OCS? I am getting ready to dip my toe into the OCS end of the pool with Reluctant Enemies, but for the most part, I still prefer the less complex SCS model.

I'd say midway between, IF you're used to other tactical systems like GBACW. If you're not
used to fire and movement stuff in pre-20th Century, it's gonna take some getting used to.
The orders writing also throws some people for a loop.

The rulebooks are big, but not terribly complex, IMO.

OK, good to know. At this point, I think I may defer going for LOB or CWB, as I'm enjoying the shallow end of the pool with A5A. I have to ask - does anyone have any suggestions for other ACW games of approximately the same complexity and scale as A5A? That game is really hitting a sweet spot for me!

Also, I should mention that last weekend we had a party for my son, who recently graduated from high school and will be starting college this Fall. Our son's Boy Scout scoutmaster and assistant scoutmaster came to the party. While they were over, they stopped down in the gameroom, and saw my game of A5A Gettysburg set up. They were both utterly captivated! Both of these guys are interested in the Civil War, and one just participated in his first reenactment. However, neither had ever seen a board wargame before, and they were just fascinated with the map and the unit counters. Both of them had taken the troop to Gettysburg, so they were recounting what they had learned at the battlefield park while referring to the game map! I think I might just have two new wargamers in the future!


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 20, 2014, 08:08:18 pm


I think LOB is pretty fantastic as well.  Enrico is right that it's CWB without all the chrome that attracted people to CWB and between v1 and v2 of the rules even more was removed.  That said, you stand a chance of finishing a whole Gettysburg campaign game without growing old before it's done and the orders system is still pretty darn fantastic.


Thing is, CWB was lots of 'chrome' added to the original GBACW type of structure. Losing that chrome
may leave me wondering why I'm bothering. On the bright side though, Dean is still supporting backfitting
LOB to RSS.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 21, 2014, 09:38:01 am
One series that's been around for a while that I just got to recently is The Great Campaigns of the Civil War. What a cool series! I wasn't really sure how I would like the rolling the dice to determine movement mechanism, but after playing a few different scenarios I found that it does add a very nice bit of unpredictability to the game. The new counter artwork really sucks though...

Despite owning BAtC, I have not tried this series. In fact .... I had actively avoided it until the aforementioned purchase.

What threw me off was reading a Series Replay in The General years ago. As play unfolded, I was left with the impression that it allowed ahistorical actions. In this case, the Union player thrust forward a unit recklessly to grab a victory hex or some such. Looked more like a panzer maneuver. LOL!

And that dominated my thinking throughout the years when the game series was produced. What I should have realized is that the Union player LOST that session. So treating his troops like panzers may have, in fact, not been such a good thing after all. Ahh!

So after years of reading online GCACW love from devotees, I finally succumbed. Not sure about the counters though. They would take some getting used to. Perhaps they are a little too ornate? Yet the counters from La Bat/BAR do not bother me and they are the epitome of ornate. As for die rolling for movement .... yeah, that makes me nervous. I have come across it before in a Napoleonic game and disliked it. But I will give it a fair shake.

BAtC or perhaps SJWII (which I want to purchase) will be on the table this Fall. I hope so anyway. I find summer plans often fail against autumn realities. Plus I want to get BAR's Fontenoy or Prague solo'ed as well so there will be competition for my attention.

Not bad problems to have mind you...


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Sluggonics on July 21, 2014, 09:42:15 am
The counters for La Bat convey period feel and yet are perfectly functional.  They seem like perfect counters for a Napoleonic game - they give you a sense of what the units those counters represent actually looked like on the battlefield, in terms of colors.

The counters for the newer versions of GCACW are basically a mess of cognitive dissonance.  I don't hate them, but they don't efficiently convey information the way the old counters did.  But, I didn't much care for the generic plain-ness of the old counters either.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 21, 2014, 10:50:59 am
I like that phrase .... "cognitive dissonance".

I was just looking at several of the counters. The ones for corps/army leaders are not too bad for period feel I suppose. But those for infantry / cavalry divisions do not impart that much. And I dislike that ornate fiddle faddle under the division commander's name. The information under that appears squished to me.

Ah well ..... still, it is great to have the games regardless. Better iffy counters than none at all I suppose.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: desertfoxleo on July 22, 2014, 09:24:47 pm
Another five turns of Across 5 Aprils Gettysburg scenario in the books. We are now approaching 11:30 in the morning on the 2nd Day and Longstreet's Corps is approach Devil's Den and Round Top. The Union II Corps and a couple brigades of III Corps are looking to stand in the way of the Rebs advancing on those places. Things are getting very interesting, and it's cool to see the game unfolding much as the historical campaign did, though I wouldn't say the game is hardwired in any way to make it so. The chit-pull mechanism and the combat system that provides for both the attacker and defender to inflict losses and retreats on the other side in any given battle definitely make this a solitaire-friendly game.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: The Great Kha on July 23, 2014, 12:05:09 am
What's the word on Simonitch's game that's on GMT's p500? I know it's supposed to be sort of a fusion of VGCW and Herman's game.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: billyboy on July 23, 2014, 05:23:14 am
What's the word on Simonitch's game that's on GMT's p500? I know it's supposed to be sort of a fusion of VGCW and Herman's game.

I don't think its supposed to be a fusion. Its based on VG Civil War.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 23, 2014, 08:51:30 am
What's the word on Simonitch's game that's on GMT's p500? I know it's supposed to be sort of a fusion of VGCW and Herman's game.

I don't think its supposed to be a fusion. Its based on VG Civil War.

That was my impression. This was the first I heard of influences from Herman's game.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 23, 2014, 08:56:34 am
I think the new game might have a Strategic Will component similar to FtP. However, please do not quote me on that as I am not sure.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: sparty on July 23, 2014, 08:18:42 pm
I wonder if Mark's influence in how generals are handled will be taken into account.  GDB, IIRC, had a nice conversation about the problems with strategic ACW and Herman had some great insights into VG's The Civil War issues with generals.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: The Great Kha on July 23, 2014, 10:06:01 pm
Reading CSW, simonitch's game will have 100% fixed generals. They come in on a particular turn and they are replaced on a particular turn, no casualty rolls etc.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: egg_salad on July 23, 2014, 11:12:15 pm
I am trying to see how much work it would be to translate a session report on BGG to here..

This is a session report for the Dogs of War introductory scenario from Last Chance for Victory.  It is my first play.  I am definitely motivated to get this out and play it, as I just took a guided tour of the battlefield, which was excellent.

In general, I like to record my initial plays to capture my mistakes and first impressions.  This is my first play of any of the Gamers series of ACW games (CWBS, RSS, LoB).  This game uses the latest LoB ruleset (2.0) -- which evolved from RSS (and is supposed to be more streamlined).  I already know I have made mistakes, feel free to point out more.

First off, I really like that there is a small introductory scenario.  Also, they have more maps than needed to cover the Battlefield so that it is more convenient to do some of the partial battlefield scenarios.  This is an excellent idea, and I would definitely pay more for this in future releases.


6:00 PM Confederate Turn

Started off tentatively.  Decided to fire some artillery to soften up the Union lines.  The Union unit passed the morale check no problem. 
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2066720.jpg)


Hmm.. seems like I have an artillery leader for the Rebs, may have to go back and see if there is a better way to coordinate the artillery fire, seems like there is something I am forgetting.

The rules seem deceptively simple.  I think that is a good thing.

Now at the end of the Confederate turn.  I sent McLaws in against the wrecked NH (from the arty barrage) and he just kept on going.  He had enough MP to turn and attack the artillery from behind, which sent it running.  I will probably regret that as the Union can likely kick his ass from the rear, but the havoc in the Union lines seems worth it. 

The main Confederate charge is sliding left to bull rush for the VP exit corner.

I am sure I am doing a lot of stuff wrong (I am going with the approach of just start pushing counters and worry about getting stuff wrong later), but it seems to flow quickly and logically.  The rulebook is easy to reference. 


6:00 PM Union Turn

I posted over on the [listitem=3303567]wargames on your table geeklist[/listitem] and learned I did at least one thing wrong -- once you charge you can continue charging, but only in the same direction.  Makes sense.  I fixed that, then did the Union turn.  The Union is wheeling to their right to counter the Rebs assault.  They took a bunch of shots at the Confederate units, weakening them slightly (and inciting blood lust in Barkdale's Mississippians, uh-oh). 

At this point, still looking pretty good for the Rebs.  I need some sort of reserve for the Union for when that Confederate charge hits them.  I don't think I can they can be ready for a decent defense in time.

Very compelling game.
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2070021.jpg)


6:15 PM Confederate Turn
As I feared, the hastily thrown up Union defenses have melted away like a stick of butter in a blow torch.  A-level Confederate units attacking C and D level Union units is not a fair contest.

To be fair -- this scenario is not supposed to be balanced from what I can tell.  When playing it opposed, you play it twice, switching sides, and the side that gets more Confederate SP out the Northeast corner of the map is the winner.

I am curious to see if I can come up with a better Union defense. 
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2072050.jpg)



6:15 PM Union Turn

The Confederates had burst through the hastily put together Union defenses, and looked like a juggernaut approaching the VP exit location at the NW corner of the map.

But Lo!  The Union fights back.  Even against sub par units, you need to protect your flanks.  With an unsuccessful charge, but several good shots, the Confederate charge is starting to unravel:
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2077954.jpg)


As I get more and more comfortable with the rules, I am starting to appreciate their elegance.  It seems like a small modifier at first, but firing from the flank / rear, and the cumulative effect of multiple combats on morale is quite amazing.  It plays fast, but it feels like real ACW battle behavior emerges from the rules (not that I would really know other than what I've read about).  Just excellent.


6:30 PM Confederate Turn

The confederates were trying to bull through to the NW corner of the map (VP exit corner) and left their flanks undefended.  The Union counterattack    left them reeling and disorganized -- the 17th Mississippi, the Cobb Legion, and the Phillips Legion especially.  The 24th Georgia got pinned in a bare knuckle brawl with the 73rd New York.  The 17th Mississippi, the Cobb Legion, and the Phillips Legion, being disorganized, fall out of the vanguard of the advance, and so General Wofford turns them to face the Union attack.

Down near the Peach Orchard, the 21st Mississippi turns scatters the 3rd Maine, but is wrecked by the 3rd Maine's opening volley.  Their charge sputters out, and they are trapped behind the Union counterattack.
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2079379.jpg)


6:30 PM Union Turn

The 63rd Pennsylvania charges and annihilates the 21st Mississippi -- General McLaws barely escapes with his skin to the Confederate lines.  Meanwhile, the slugfest in the North continues, with the Confederates unable to extricate themselves from the melee in time to help the 17 SP of units that managed to push deeper into Union lines.  I don't think there is much need to play the final turn.
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2079382.jpg)


A quick summary of my first impressions:
+ Combat, movement, formations, morale -- all are integrated and it plays smoothly
+ There are cool interactions and cascading morale effects, especially when you turn your opponents flank
+ I did not mention this before -- there are different weapon types for infantry, cavalry, and artillery, with different strengths and weaknesses -- it is much deeper than just a strength/attack pt number for combat.  I like this A LOT.
+ Components / maps are nice, but Gamers style, which I initially did not like.  However, I am really starting to like the appearance as I play it further.
+ Not sure about the total IGO-UGO structure, especially for a huge battle -- this may be mitigated by the orders system, which I have not used yet.

Overall:I really like it, and it may easily become one of my favorite wargames.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Sluggonics on July 23, 2014, 11:15:15 pm
Looks like it mostly worked.  Some of the images didn't pull, though.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: egg_salad on July 23, 2014, 11:18:48 pm
Looks like it mostly worked.  Some of the images didn't pull, though.

The preview button here is sucktastic.  It makes a preview like 1 line wide.  So I posted it, missed some crap, went back and edited it to fix things, etc.. I think I got most of it now.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: egg_salad on July 23, 2014, 11:23:02 pm
As I reflect, I suppose I am a pretty big ACW fan.
 + Leo -- I also am a big fan of A5A -- it is a great, playable game.  If they ever reprinted this I would buy 20 copies to give out as gifts to folks who like history to get them hooked on wargames.  This is wargaming crack. 
  + GCACW is my all time favorite series.  I am a map ho.  Counters, eh.. not as important.  Plus, I think it is a very playable operational scale look at the ACW, which is fairly uncommon.  I need to play these games more.
  + As you can see from the above, I like LoB based on my initial play.  I need to dive deeper and learn the orders system, which intrigues me.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Steve Arthur on July 23, 2014, 11:49:24 pm

I'm planning a game of 'Three Days of Gettysburg 2nd Ed." next year..the full three days


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 23, 2014, 11:54:37 pm
Yeah. There are a lot of configuration issues that I can't handle because of the host.

SMF is pretty decent on its own.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: kira1y on July 24, 2014, 06:53:56 am
Overall:I really like it, and it may easily become one of my favorite wargames.

Nicely done!

LoB is a nice system, certainly much quicker playing than the old RSS stuff, but I do miss some of things that were in the CWBS/RSS rules. I've played through most of the first day with LCV and really liked it...


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 24, 2014, 07:33:09 am

I'm planning a game of 'Three Days of Gettysburg 2nd Ed." next year..the full three days

Wow! Good luck with that. I hope it works out well. Impressive.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: rstites25 on July 24, 2014, 03:28:11 pm
I don't know if it was this thread, or somewhere else, but there was a discussion about Mark Simonitch's new Civil War game and what game(s) it is based on. Apparently Mark Herman has been playtesting the game, and he describes it on his blog as:

"It's DNA is Eric Lee Smith's Civil War game after a one night stand with For the People, as intepreted through Mark's lens on the war writ large."


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: ElFluppe on July 26, 2014, 04:49:47 pm
I am currently in a PBEM of Last Chance for Victory, playing the full battle with the Confederates, although our plan is to first finish 1st day, and then see whether we are totally exhausted or want to go on.
We used the normal start, not the traditional early entry, and even with the two or three ours of moving troops down the road the beginning was rather slow, mainly due to the bad command rating of Davis and Archer. Archer hasn't moved the last three turns or so, and Davis, realizing that there is no one on his right flank, chose to stop as well. And that only a 200 to 300 yards away from the enemy...
With the reinforcements of 1st Corps coming in, I am rather frustrated with the poor performance of my generals.

(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic2088067_lg.png)

To add to the discussion of CWBS/RSS and LOB. While I did miss some features of the old CWBS (can't speak for RSS, never played), Dean has made those changes for a reason, and I am a 100% convinced that they were for a reason. Loss Sheets had a nice touch to them, but were an enourmos amount of bookkeeping, especially with the hourly straggler recovery. The same is true for the fire combat itself. Even with the colored dice method it took way too long to read the results. My most favourite part of it though is probably the closing roll and the locking EZOCS, slowly draining your units. I have seldomly seen a wargame rewarding reserves as much as LOB, and you always sigh with relief when a brigade from reserve fills up your big holes.




Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 26, 2014, 04:55:11 pm
Yes, I like what I see behind some of the big changes in LOB. Others though are cutting into
the detail of the story in the interests of economy of action. Those I'm less thrilled
with.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: capt_s on July 26, 2014, 04:58:38 pm
Isn't that a pretty picture. Thanks for sharing it with us.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: ElFluppe on July 26, 2014, 05:41:49 pm
Yes, I like what I see behind some of the big changes in LOB. Others though are cutting into
the detail of the story in the interests of economy of action. Those I'm less thrilled
with.

Can you elaborate? I initially thought so as well, but actually the new orders system (while it has its downsides, mainly vague wording. A few pages and examples extra could have helped) adds to the stories the system tells you. With the new relaying, it can happen that a division or brigade is starting its attack, while the rest of the Corps is sitting behind, watching, having a coffee. Same is true for the brigade leader zero-rule and fluke stoppage. In my first match against the opponent from aboth we were playing the final two hours of the second day attack on Cemetery Ridge. One of his brigades just didn't move once, leaving the flank of the other completely exposed to my units. I do miss loose cannon, that is true, but I guess you can easily come up with your own variant (rolling an initial 2, only true for leaders with a rating of 2 or less or something like that).


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 26, 2014, 06:02:22 pm
Note that I haven't played it yet - so, I'm just giving my impression on reading the rules a couple times.

I miss things like the loose cannon. I DEFINITELY am not happy with stragglers being abstracted the
way in which they are. Taking the gun loss table out, and adding losses (which can be recovered!)
is again a situation where I suspect I'm losing little bits of the story. There's other stuff (like the
stoppage) that I can't even guess which way I'll feel. Ah, and no localized ammo depletion for
small arms fire. Also looks like you can't divert artillery ammo to other units - which seems actually
too restrictive. The steps in fire combat and melees have all been simplified too - each step told
a little bit of the story. It may all be as  more 'realistic', but there are details being burned away.

I'll say this much, RSS (as opposed to CWB) felt like too much effort. But now, I'm afraid the game is going
to be too abstracted for my taste. We'll see. At the worst, I have v3.0 of the RSS (not going to print a rulebook
for v4.0, but maybe there's a changelog). Most likely, I'll bastardize what I really know I like out of LOB.
For example, the locking ZOCs.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: The Great Kha on July 26, 2014, 07:17:30 pm
Note that I haven't played it yet - so, I'm just giving my impression on reading the rules a couple times.

I miss things like the loose cannon. I DEFINITELY am not happy with stragglers being abstracted the
way in which they are. Taking the gun loss table out, and adding losses (which can be recovered!)
is again a situation where I suspect I'm losing little bits of the story. There's other stuff (like the
stoppage) that I can't even guess which way I'll feel. Ah, and no localized ammo depletion for
small arms fire. Also looks like you can't divert artillery ammo to other units - which seems actually
too restrictive. The steps in fire combat and melees have all been simplified too - each step told
a little bit of the story. It may all be as  more 'realistic', but there are details being burned away.

I'll say this much, RSS (as opposed to CWB) felt like too much effort. But now, I'm afraid the game is going
to be too abstracted for my taste. We'll see. At the worst, I have v3.0 of the RSS (not going to print a rulebook
for v4.0, but maybe there's a changelog). Most likely, I'll bastardize what I really know I like out of LOB.
For example, the locking ZOCs.


Do you know if you'll be vidding LOB anytime soon? I'm interested in your first impressions.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: Calandale on July 26, 2014, 07:18:11 pm
I am aiming to. Maybe something short first, but I've been
prepping to do so.


Title: Re: American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion
Post by: ElFluppe on July 26, 2014, 09:01:18 pm
I miss things like the loose cannon. I DEFINITELY am not happy with stragglers being abstracted the way in which they are. Taking the gun loss table out, and adding losses (which can be recovered!)
is again a situation where I suspect I'm losing little bits of the story. There's other stuff (like the
stoppage) that I can't even guess which way I'll feel. Ah, and no localized ammo depletion for
small arms fire. Also looks like you can't divert artillery ammo to other units - which seems actually
too restrictive. The steps in fire combat and melees have all been simplified too - each step told
a little bit of the story. It may all be as  more 'realistic', but there are details being burned away.

Completely forgot about the stragglers (proving that LOB has a point here?), but they were possibly the biggest issue for me as well when moving on to the new system (and close combat now that I think of it, no real fire table in the whole thing!  :'(). Yes, you do loose a lot of detail there, not from a gaming point of view, as the results will be the same with them or without them, but in perceived reality. Note however that incorporating stragglers into normal SP losses, but moving their actual occurence solely to the morale table makes them still both noticable and understandable.