American Civil War Gaming - General Discussion

[desertfoxleo]

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!

[Calandale]

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.

[capt_s]

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...

[Sluggonics]

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.

[capt_s]

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.

[desertfoxleo]

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.

[The Great Kha]

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.

[billyboy]

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.

[Calandale]

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.

[capt_s]

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.

[sparty]

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.

[The Great Kha]

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.

[egg_salad]

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. 



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.



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. 




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:



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.



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.



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.

[Sluggonics]

Looks like it mostly worked.  Some of the images didn't pull, though.

[egg_salad]

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.