I haven't had a chance to play any of the GTC scenarios (the new edition came in my copy of On to Richmond 2), but from skimming through the scenario book there are several excellent looking scenarios. And I am eager to try the campaign game.
In 1986 I picked up an S&T game magazine. The game is GBAWC Pleasant Hill. I never played it but have it set up on a spare table. A much older rules version I see dome carry over.
GBACW is the Great Battles of the American Civil War series, originally published by SPI and has since gone through many versions with many different publishers. GMT Games currently publishes the GBACW games, and they have evolved quite a bit from the early versions of the games (I believe Terrible Swift Sword, designed by Richard Berg, was the first game in the GBACW and was released in the 1970's). The GCACW is the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. Where GBACW is a tactical level game of individual battles with units representing regiments, GCACW is an operational level game where entire campaigns are covered. Units are mostly divisions or brigades, with some regiments present (these are usually garrison troops or cavalry). GCACW first appeared in 1992 and was published by Avalon Hill. There can be some confusion between the two series due to the similarity of their acronyms, and the best way to tell which one you're playing is by publisher. If it's not an Avalon Hill or GMTGames game, then it's GBACW. I've played some GBACW and it's a nice system. In fact, I'll be playing in a large, multiplayer game of Dead of Winter (Battle of Murfreesboro) at the upcoming Buckeye Game Fest. I will probably have some GBACW content on the channel at some point in the future, as I do enjoy the system. Thanks for watching!
Thanks, Patrick! The videos on your channel have been instrumental in helping me get up to speed on this system. I've especially been enjoying your campaign scenario replays! Since the filming of this video, I've had the chance to explore the system further by playing other, longer scenarios. It really shines! This is quickly becoming one of my all time favorite systems. The elegance of the rules allows for deep and engaging game play that provides an incredible narrative and historical flavor, despite not being a terribly complex set of rules. There's a lot of nuance within the relatively short set of rules when you try to apply them to a game situation. While I may feel fairly confident on how to play, it'll take a lot longer to how to play well.
Great video. I have 3 GCACW games in shrink and this is really making me want to get one to the table. You do a great job of explaining what you are doing and why. I also appreciate that you are doing it with counter and maps - as good as Vassal is, watching someone physically play the game is always better.
Glad you feel that way (re: physical vs VASSAL)! VASSAL is a fantastic tool and has done much to enhance not just my wargaming, but the entire hobby. That said, I'm still a sucker for playing with a physical game. While a lot of the videos I see that use VASSAL are well done, I find it much harder to see what's actually going in any detail. With the physical game, I can hopefully provide a view zoomed in enough for viewers to easily follow what's happening, while also being able to zoom out and give some idea of the table presence (there are so many games out there with outstanding table presence). Thanks for watching!
Very good play through as usual. Thanks! I hope you will get back to this system which I like a lot. The rules are fairly simple,in a good way, but a bit wordy sometimes obscuring the point they are trying to make.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you enjoyed it. I agree with you 100% about this system. It is not very complicated, and yet manages to capture beautifully the feel of ACW operational warfare. I'd almost go so far as to call it an "elegant" design, but the rule book could be a little better. Too wordy, as you say, which often has the effect of making less clear, rather than more clear, the point they are trying to convey. it is by no means a bad rule book, it could just stand a good scrubbing from an editor. I have several ACW games (ranging from grand strategic like The US Civil War, down to tactical with the Line of Battle and GBACW series), but THIS series is my "go to" series now whenever I get the itch for some ACW action. I like my other ACW games, but GCACW is a notch above even those other very good games. I wouldn't mind doing more GCACW content, but one of the goals of my channel is to try to cover the gaps in content on good games. GCACW has a lot of content out there, and Patrick's Tactics & Tutorials is the best channel I've seen for GCACW content. If I can find a way to bring a little something different to the GCACW community, I'll definitely do some more videos with it. In addition to playthroughs and tutorials, I suppose I could do some videos commenting on certain aspects of the system (or specific games). If there's something in particular you'd like to see, let me know!
Great video! Very well presented, exposited and narrated. Some rules struggles but that is to be expected. There is a LOT to remember! Like most wargames one major key to learning is to keep rolling the dice. Keep pushing on. You did very well. Better than ME by a long shot! Looking forward to seeing more GCACW videos.
Thanks for the kind words! I was a little surprised at how relatively simple the system is. It flows really, really well. The bit that's the most fiddly for me is the Flank Attack Bonus calculation. I think it's a bit overwrought, especially compared to how straightforward the rest of the rules are, and think it could have been done a little less clunky. Even so, it won't take long to get used to it. GCACW has catapulted up the list of my favorite game systems, and I'm hoping to get more play in this year (and for many years to come). I'm contemplating a series of videos where I play through each of the campaign scenarios in historical, chronological order. It would be a large undertaking, especially given the length of some of the scenarios, and because of that I would most likely not go into the same level of detail as I did for this small, one turn scenario. If I do decide to do this, the first episode would be the campaign scenario from All Green Alike, which is neither huge, nor terribly lengthy. I can then judge based on feedback to that video whether an appetite exists for me to continue the series, or perhaps scale it back to just a few of the campaigns. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for doing this video! This is a great first GCACW scenario. It's a fast playing system, as you say, but sometimes it's a slow thinking system, because there's a lot to think about. I'll put in a good word for the "all-in-one" Vassal modules designed by Alberto Romero, which put all the information (fatigue, MP, organized/disorganized, demoralization) on the face of the base counter. This is a system that won't work for face-to-face, but it's a great on-line solution. I'll make a few comments about rules and tactics. (~ 0:16:00) The command radius is 3 hexes *except* in 1861 (the "All Green Alike" module of SJW II,) where it is 2. (~ 1:01:00) When Willcox moved out of Mentzer Saw Mill to 3412, it cost 2 movement because they were leaving an EZoC. This means they could not advance to Washington Monument later. Soon thereafter, you said something that I thought implied Colquitt would lose 2 manpower (MP) retreating into Zittlestown, but it was only 1 MP because in the 1/2 result, the 1 applies to a unit retreating along a road, which was the case here. Also note that the rules use "manpower" and not "strength point" or "step"; it would be better to use the term "manpower" so people who are listening are able to see the same term in the rules. (~ 1:13:00) When you did the leader activation, it would have been better tactics to transfer Reno north to Willcox (or possibly Rodman.) Those two Divisions were still able to activate and Reno's tactical value could have helped them. Reno wasn't doing much good staying with a Division already at fatigue 4, unless the hex were attacked by the CSA (which could happen, but you would welcome such an attack on Mountain House.) (~ 1:17:00) You used Willcox's MP of 7 to look up the result of the combat against Garland on the CRT, but that table uses combat value (CV) and not MP, and Willcox's CV was 5, so you should have been on the 4-6 column (which is also Ea, so this made no difference in this combat.) (~ 1:24:00) If you really intended to move I Corps toward the northern passes, it would have been better to cross the mountain at 3913 and 3812 rather than via the National Road. This would save movement points. Of course, if you wanted the flexibility to move against D.H. Hill, which is what you eventually did, the National Road may have been better. (~ 1:36:00) I don't think 5 VA could retreat to Rohrersville, since 2913 - Rohrersville is not further from the attacker. This doesn't matter much. (~1:44:00) You could simply have done a prepared attack with D.R. Jones as the first part of the leader activation. You didn't need any of the other units to get the flank. For the CSA attacking, with their better tactical values, a 2-1 attack is often an excellent attack. Odds ratio doesn't mean as much in GCACW as you're used to in other games; attack type, tactical value, and flanking can outweigh it. The flank attack at ~ 1:47 has 6 covered hexes, as you calculated, minus 2, as you calculated, for a final flank drm of +2. It was a good attack. (~ 1:57:00) Often you don't want a leader to activate all of his units if there's no reasonable chance that they will all be able to do something meaningful. I wouldn't have activated any division except Hatch, who is the one you are actually attacking with. In the attack on D.H. Hill by Hatch, you didn't have hex 3011 covered -- because Rodman is in a mountain hex and there is no road from 3111 to 3011. You ended with a final flank bonus of 0, which was right anyway. Also, a -2 attack is usually only a desperation attack. (~ 2:03:00) You rolled both EM rolls at the same time. You should have rolled one EM (probably Ricketts), done Ricketts' activation, then roll Meade's. Roll each multiple EM in a leader activation as you are ready to activate that unit. (~ 2:05:00) You should have had D.R. Jones make an assault on Rodman. Then you would not have an EM roll, and you'd get the +1 for an assault unless you rolled a 6. Of course, you did roll a 6 for the EM, so maybe that 6 would have cancelled the assault. To do an assault, you need a leader in the same hex as the unit in his corps, and that is next to the target of the assault.
Thanks for the detailed notes! One thing that is going to trip me up until I fully internalize it is the extra MP cost for leaving a ZOC, as well as the extra MP cost for entering a friendly hex in different terrain (woods, mountains, etc.). Since filming this video, I've had the chance to play some longer scenarios and have come to the realization that the combat odds are not nearly as important as they are in other systems. DRM's like the ones you mentioned (Tactical, Flanking Bonus, etc.) can end up being more important. i don't believe I made any assaults in this scenario, but I've since had some experience with them (and with Grand Assaults). I like how artillery is much more of a defensive asset in this system (which is historical). The VASSAL modules are all first rate. They are highly functional and keep the board "clean", which is something I greatly appreciate. Thanks again for the tips and comments, I'll be sure to put them to use in future playings!
I do plan on getting back to TSWW eventually. Right now, though, I want to try to focus on the ongoing DoD/WiF series, as I may need to pack that game up to take it to Winterfest in February. Once I do wrap the DoD/WiF series, I'll likely get a video or two uploaded on TSWW. Thanks for watching!
Fantastic content as always. I acquired my first title in this series (Hood strikes North) a few months back and have yet to get it to the table. As always, table tops edge you are inspiring me to push this up the gaming queue and get playing! So many great games,alas to little free time! 😅
HSN is a good game to learn the system. It's very manageable in size, but big enough to retain interest and several options for the players. Both sides will get the opportunity to attack and defend across the map over the course of the campaign game, which is also very manageable in terms of size, length, and rules. A buddy and I are trying to decide whether our first GCACW campaign (I am teaching the system to him) will be HSN or All Green Alike (because my CDO demands that I play all the campaigns in chronological order 😁). And you are absolutely right about so many great games and so little time!
Thanks for filming. I've got quite deep into GCACW and own all recent titles I want except for Roads to Gettysburg II. It's a really good system to play with. I much prefer to use off map displays for units though, as those stacks become quite unwieldy...
You are very right about the stacking. If you have more than 2 units in a hex, the stacks become way too unwieldy and prone to disaster. The force displays and markers are a real sanity saver, especially in some of the larger scenarios. Thanks for watching, and good luck tracking down a copy of RTG2! You won't be disappointed!
@@thetabletopsedge Yeah, it's been my holy grail for a while but prices are a bit steep, I might wait for a reprint once it comes (probably another 10 years :D). I'm actually using custom off map displays and 15 mm numbered discs instead of formation markers to replace all units, but I've been really playing smaller scenarios where remembering who's where is not a problem. I'll see if it works for larger scenarios, too.
Hello! I have been focused on getting as far into the WiF playthrough as I could lately because I thought I was going to have to tear down the game in the next few weeks. However, that is not the case, so the WiF series will continue. It also means I can think about using some upcoming opportunities to film videos to do different topics. A GCACW playthrough would certainly be something I would consider. I really love the system. The question is: which scenario/campaign? I am tempted to play through each of the campaign scenarios in chronological order, forming a sort of "alternate history" of the war. This obviously would be a long term project, as I would probably play a campaign, and then come back to the series for the next campaign in a few months. Does this sound like something that might be worth watching?
@@thetabletopsedge thank you for your reply. I think it would take you too long to play all the campaign scenarios in all the games. I'm not sure if the viewers would watch them but thats your call. Maybe select three games to play. Thanks.
Good question, as plexiglass seems to be pretty popular in the hobby. I have 5 reasons why I don't use plexiglass: 1) The parallax is very distracting, even when I use thin plexiglass. The effect is minimal when looking at the map from directly above, but most of the time I am playing from a position at the edge of the table and the angle makes it more difficult to tell exactly where the pieces are located. 2) Glare from the plexiglass can make it difficult to read the underlying map. Glossy maps can have some bad glare, too, but I find that plexiglass is much more susceptible to glare. It can also make photographing or filming a game in action difficult. 3) If not properly secured, the plexiglass will move, shifting all the pieces from their actual location. I played a game of Last Blitzkrieg at ConSimWorld Expo one year where the plexiglass and map were not secured to one another. Even though the plexiglass was secured to the table, during the course of the week it began to creep slowly to the west due to players leaning on it. It was a subtle shift, but about twice per day we had to shift all of the counters on the plexiglass to their proper hexes because as the plexiglass crept westwards. The counters on top went with it, while the map below stayed in its original location. By the end of the con, there was about 4" of the map sticking out from under the east edge of the plexiglass. I suppose in this situation I'm glad the plexiglass was there, since otherwise the players would have been leaning directly on the map, potentially damaging it. By not using plexiglass regularly, though, I am more more aware of handling the map and being gentle with it (and the pieces). I'm also one of those guys who can't stand messy stacks and takes care to keep a tidy board. 4) It feels like a construction project when assembling the (often multiple) sheets of plexiglass, then securing the maps below, and the plexiglass to the table, especially for the larger games I usually play. While I use removable cellophane tape to secure the maps to one another, needing duct tape to play a game is a bit too much for me. Also, the tables on which I do most of my gaming are not conducive to duct tape usage (to secure the plexiglass to the table in order to prevent it shifting during play). 5) I grew up playing games without plexiglass, and so I am just used to it. Many of my earliest games were Avalon Hill games with mounted mapboards, and they tended to be reasonably rugged. By the time I started playing most games with paper maps, I had become used to not having any plexiglass. I developed the habit of being careful with the maps and pieces. I do not lean on maps, even in the larger games I play, which has made for a strong (and sometimes sore!) back over the years. Having said all that, I do actually have a few pieces of plexiglass. I have a couple of small pieces that can be used with smaller games (like a 1 or 2 board ASL scenario), and I have one large piece which is capable of covering two standard sized maps (22" x 34"), so I could play something like OCS Tunisia or OCS Burma under the single piece. I still don't use them very often (and never when filming due to the glare), but I'm not opposed to playing a game if someone uses plexiglass.
My favorite gaming system! Bought my first game in 2002 but didn't play until 2005. Grant Takes Command is my all time favorite game, period.
I haven't had a chance to play any of the GTC scenarios (the new edition came in my copy of On to Richmond 2), but from skimming through the scenario book there are several excellent looking scenarios. And I am eager to try the campaign game.
In 1986 I picked up an S&T game magazine. The game is GBAWC Pleasant Hill. I never played it but have it set up on a spare table. A much older rules version I see dome carry over.
GBACW is the Great Battles of the American Civil War series, originally published by SPI and has since gone through many versions with many different publishers. GMT Games currently publishes the GBACW games, and they have evolved quite a bit from the early versions of the games (I believe Terrible Swift Sword, designed by Richard Berg, was the first game in the GBACW and was released in the 1970's).
The GCACW is the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. Where GBACW is a tactical level game of individual battles with units representing regiments, GCACW is an operational level game where entire campaigns are covered. Units are mostly divisions or brigades, with some regiments present (these are usually garrison troops or cavalry). GCACW first appeared in 1992 and was published by Avalon Hill.
There can be some confusion between the two series due to the similarity of their acronyms, and the best way to tell which one you're playing is by publisher. If it's not an Avalon Hill or GMTGames game, then it's GBACW.
I've played some GBACW and it's a nice system. In fact, I'll be playing in a large, multiplayer game of Dead of Winter (Battle of Murfreesboro) at the upcoming Buckeye Game Fest. I will probably have some GBACW content on the channel at some point in the future, as I do enjoy the system.
Thanks for watching!
Welcome (back) to GCACW!
Thanks, Patrick! The videos on your channel have been instrumental in helping me get up to speed on this system. I've especially been enjoying your campaign scenario replays! Since the filming of this video, I've had the chance to explore the system further by playing other, longer scenarios. It really shines! This is quickly becoming one of my all time favorite systems. The elegance of the rules allows for deep and engaging game play that provides an incredible narrative and historical flavor, despite not being a terribly complex set of rules. There's a lot of nuance within the relatively short set of rules when you try to apply them to a game situation. While I may feel fairly confident on how to play, it'll take a lot longer to how to play well.
@@thetabletopsedge Thanks! I'm glad I can help new players in some small way. Especially in demonstrating what *not* to do. 😄
Great video. I have 3 GCACW games in shrink and this is really making me want to get one to the table. You do a great job of explaining what you are doing and why. I also appreciate that you are doing it with counter and maps - as good as Vassal is, watching someone physically play the game is always better.
Glad you feel that way (re: physical vs VASSAL)! VASSAL is a fantastic tool and has done much to enhance not just my wargaming, but the entire hobby. That said, I'm still a sucker for playing with a physical game. While a lot of the videos I see that use VASSAL are well done, I find it much harder to see what's actually going in any detail. With the physical game, I can hopefully provide a view zoomed in enough for viewers to easily follow what's happening, while also being able to zoom out and give some idea of the table presence (there are so many games out there with outstanding table presence). Thanks for watching!
Very good play through as usual. Thanks! I hope you will get back to this system which I like a lot. The rules are fairly simple,in a good way, but a bit wordy sometimes obscuring the point they are trying to make.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you enjoyed it. I agree with you 100% about this system. It is not very complicated, and yet manages to capture beautifully the feel of ACW operational warfare. I'd almost go so far as to call it an "elegant" design, but the rule book could be a little better. Too wordy, as you say, which often has the effect of making less clear, rather than more clear, the point they are trying to convey. it is by no means a bad rule book, it could just stand a good scrubbing from an editor.
I have several ACW games (ranging from grand strategic like The US Civil War, down to tactical with the Line of Battle and GBACW series), but THIS series is my "go to" series now whenever I get the itch for some ACW action. I like my other ACW games, but GCACW is a notch above even those other very good games.
I wouldn't mind doing more GCACW content, but one of the goals of my channel is to try to cover the gaps in content on good games. GCACW has a lot of content out there, and Patrick's Tactics & Tutorials is the best channel I've seen for GCACW content. If I can find a way to bring a little something different to the GCACW community, I'll definitely do some more videos with it. In addition to playthroughs and tutorials, I suppose I could do some videos commenting on certain aspects of the system (or specific games). If there's something in particular you'd like to see, let me know!
I just started learning this system as well! I’ll be watching with much interest!
Really enjoyed learning the game with you. Thanks for the excellent video sir.
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching!
Great video! Very well presented, exposited and narrated. Some rules struggles but that is to be expected. There is a LOT to remember! Like most wargames one major key to learning is to keep rolling the dice. Keep pushing on. You did very well. Better than ME by a long shot! Looking forward to seeing more GCACW videos.
Thanks for the kind words! I was a little surprised at how relatively simple the system is. It flows really, really well. The bit that's the most fiddly for me is the Flank Attack Bonus calculation. I think it's a bit overwrought, especially compared to how straightforward the rest of the rules are, and think it could have been done a little less clunky. Even so, it won't take long to get used to it. GCACW has catapulted up the list of my favorite game systems, and I'm hoping to get more play in this year (and for many years to come). I'm contemplating a series of videos where I play through each of the campaign scenarios in historical, chronological order. It would be a large undertaking, especially given the length of some of the scenarios, and because of that I would most likely not go into the same level of detail as I did for this small, one turn scenario. If I do decide to do this, the first episode would be the campaign scenario from All Green Alike, which is neither huge, nor terribly lengthy. I can then judge based on feedback to that video whether an appetite exists for me to continue the series, or perhaps scale it back to just a few of the campaigns. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for doing this video! This is a great first GCACW scenario. It's a fast playing system, as you say, but sometimes it's a slow thinking system, because there's a lot to think about. I'll put in a good word for the "all-in-one" Vassal modules designed by Alberto Romero, which put all the information (fatigue, MP, organized/disorganized, demoralization) on the face of the base counter. This is a system that won't work for face-to-face, but it's a great on-line solution.
I'll make a few comments about rules and tactics.
(~ 0:16:00) The command radius is 3 hexes *except* in 1861 (the "All Green Alike" module of SJW II,) where it is 2.
(~ 1:01:00) When Willcox moved out of Mentzer Saw Mill to 3412, it cost 2 movement because they were leaving an EZoC. This means they could not advance to Washington Monument later.
Soon thereafter, you said something that I thought implied Colquitt would lose 2 manpower (MP) retreating into Zittlestown, but it was only 1 MP because in the 1/2 result, the 1 applies to a unit retreating along a road, which was the case here. Also note that the rules use "manpower" and not "strength point" or "step"; it would be better to use the term "manpower" so people who are listening are able to see the same term in the rules.
(~ 1:13:00) When you did the leader activation, it would have been better tactics to transfer Reno north to Willcox (or possibly Rodman.) Those two Divisions were still able to activate and Reno's tactical value could have helped them. Reno wasn't doing much good staying with a Division already at fatigue 4, unless the hex were attacked by the CSA (which could happen, but you would welcome such an attack on Mountain House.)
(~ 1:17:00) You used Willcox's MP of 7 to look up the result of the combat against Garland on the CRT, but that table uses combat value (CV) and not MP, and Willcox's CV was 5, so you should have been on the 4-6 column (which is also Ea, so this made no difference in this combat.)
(~ 1:24:00) If you really intended to move I Corps toward the northern passes, it would have been better to cross the mountain at 3913 and 3812 rather than via the National Road. This would save movement points. Of course, if you wanted the flexibility to move against D.H. Hill, which is what you eventually did, the National Road may have been better.
(~ 1:36:00) I don't think 5 VA could retreat to Rohrersville, since 2913 - Rohrersville is not further from the attacker. This doesn't matter much.
(~1:44:00) You could simply have done a prepared attack with D.R. Jones as the first part of the leader activation. You didn't need any of the other units to get the flank. For the CSA attacking, with their better tactical values, a 2-1 attack is often an excellent attack. Odds ratio doesn't mean as much in GCACW as you're used to in other games; attack type, tactical value, and flanking can outweigh it. The flank attack at ~ 1:47 has 6 covered hexes, as you calculated, minus 2, as you calculated, for a final flank drm of +2. It was a good attack.
(~ 1:57:00) Often you don't want a leader to activate all of his units if there's no reasonable chance that they will all be able to do something meaningful. I wouldn't have activated any division except Hatch, who is the one you are actually attacking with. In the attack on D.H. Hill by Hatch, you didn't have hex 3011 covered -- because Rodman is in a mountain hex and there is no road from 3111 to 3011. You ended with a final flank bonus of 0, which was right anyway. Also, a -2 attack is usually only a desperation attack.
(~ 2:03:00) You rolled both EM rolls at the same time. You should have rolled one EM (probably Ricketts), done Ricketts' activation, then roll Meade's. Roll each multiple EM in a leader activation as you are ready to activate that unit.
(~ 2:05:00) You should have had D.R. Jones make an assault on Rodman. Then you would not have an EM roll, and you'd get the +1 for an assault unless you rolled a 6. Of course, you did roll a 6 for the EM, so maybe that 6 would have cancelled the assault. To do an assault, you need a leader in the same hex as the unit in his corps, and that is next to the target of the assault.
Thanks for the detailed notes! One thing that is going to trip me up until I fully internalize it is the extra MP cost for leaving a ZOC, as well as the extra MP cost for entering a friendly hex in different terrain (woods, mountains, etc.). Since filming this video, I've had the chance to play some longer scenarios and have come to the realization that the combat odds are not nearly as important as they are in other systems. DRM's like the ones you mentioned (Tactical, Flanking Bonus, etc.) can end up being more important. i don't believe I made any assaults in this scenario, but I've since had some experience with them (and with Grand Assaults). I like how artillery is much more of a defensive asset in this system (which is historical). The VASSAL modules are all first rate. They are highly functional and keep the board "clean", which is something I greatly appreciate. Thanks again for the tips and comments, I'll be sure to put them to use in future playings!
Probably my favorite system. The campaign scenarios are so intense.
As always complete and wonderful video. Look forward to more tsww :)
I do plan on getting back to TSWW eventually. Right now, though, I want to try to focus on the ongoing DoD/WiF series, as I may need to pack that game up to take it to Winterfest in February. Once I do wrap the DoD/WiF series, I'll likely get a video or two uploaded on TSWW. Thanks for watching!
Nice playthrough. Looks interesting.
Fantastic content as always. I acquired my first title in this series (Hood strikes North) a few months back and have yet to get it to the table. As always, table tops edge you are inspiring me to push this up the gaming queue and get playing! So many great games,alas to little free time! 😅
HSN is a good game to learn the system. It's very manageable in size, but big enough to retain interest and several options for the players. Both sides will get the opportunity to attack and defend across the map over the course of the campaign game, which is also very manageable in terms of size, length, and rules. A buddy and I are trying to decide whether our first GCACW campaign (I am teaching the system to him) will be HSN or All Green Alike (because my CDO demands that I play all the campaigns in chronological order 😁). And you are absolutely right about so many great games and so little time!
Thanks for filming. I've got quite deep into GCACW and own all recent titles I want except for Roads to Gettysburg II. It's a really good system to play with. I much prefer to use off map displays for units though, as those stacks become quite unwieldy...
You are very right about the stacking. If you have more than 2 units in a hex, the stacks become way too unwieldy and prone to disaster. The force displays and markers are a real sanity saver, especially in some of the larger scenarios. Thanks for watching, and good luck tracking down a copy of RTG2! You won't be disappointed!
@@thetabletopsedge Yeah, it's been my holy grail for a while but prices are a bit steep, I might wait for a reprint once it comes (probably another 10 years :D). I'm actually using custom off map displays and 15 mm numbered discs instead of formation markers to replace all units, but I've been really playing smaller scenarios where remembering who's where is not a problem. I'll see if it works for larger scenarios, too.
Hello again. Are you going to play another GCACW soon again?
Hello! I have been focused on getting as far into the WiF playthrough as I could lately because I thought I was going to have to tear down the game in the next few weeks. However, that is not the case, so the WiF series will continue. It also means I can think about using some upcoming opportunities to film videos to do different topics. A GCACW playthrough would certainly be something I would consider. I really love the system. The question is: which scenario/campaign?
I am tempted to play through each of the campaign scenarios in chronological order, forming a sort of "alternate history" of the war. This obviously would be a long term project, as I would probably play a campaign, and then come back to the series for the next campaign in a few months. Does this sound like something that might be worth watching?
@@thetabletopsedge thank you for your reply. I think it would take you too long to play all the campaign scenarios in all the games. I'm not sure if the viewers would watch them but thats your call. Maybe select three games to play. Thanks.
I'm curios why you don't use plexiglass.
Good question, as plexiglass seems to be pretty popular in the hobby. I have 5 reasons why I don't use plexiglass:
1) The parallax is very distracting, even when I use thin plexiglass. The effect is minimal when looking at the map from directly above, but most of the time I am playing from a position at the edge of the table and the angle makes it more difficult to tell exactly where the pieces are located.
2) Glare from the plexiglass can make it difficult to read the underlying map. Glossy maps can have some bad glare, too, but I find that plexiglass is much more susceptible to glare. It can also make photographing or filming a game in action difficult.
3) If not properly secured, the plexiglass will move, shifting all the pieces from their actual location. I played a game of Last Blitzkrieg at ConSimWorld Expo one year where the plexiglass and map were not secured to one another. Even though the plexiglass was secured to the table, during the course of the week it began to creep slowly to the west due to players leaning on it. It was a subtle shift, but about twice per day we had to shift all of the counters on the plexiglass to their proper hexes because as the plexiglass crept westwards. The counters on top went with it, while the map below stayed in its original location. By the end of the con, there was about 4" of the map sticking out from under the east edge of the plexiglass. I suppose in this situation I'm glad the plexiglass was there, since otherwise the players would have been leaning directly on the map, potentially damaging it. By not using plexiglass regularly, though, I am more more aware of handling the map and being gentle with it (and the pieces). I'm also one of those guys who can't stand messy stacks and takes care to keep a tidy board.
4) It feels like a construction project when assembling the (often multiple) sheets of plexiglass, then securing the maps below, and the plexiglass to the table, especially for the larger games I usually play. While I use removable cellophane tape to secure the maps to one another, needing duct tape to play a game is a bit too much for me. Also, the tables on which I do most of my gaming are not conducive to duct tape usage (to secure the plexiglass to the table in order to prevent it shifting during play).
5) I grew up playing games without plexiglass, and so I am just used to it. Many of my earliest games were Avalon Hill games with mounted mapboards, and they tended to be reasonably rugged. By the time I started playing most games with paper maps, I had become used to not having any plexiglass. I developed the habit of being careful with the maps and pieces. I do not lean on maps, even in the larger games I play, which has made for a strong (and sometimes sore!) back over the years.
Having said all that, I do actually have a few pieces of plexiglass. I have a couple of small pieces that can be used with smaller games (like a 1 or 2 board ASL scenario), and I have one large piece which is capable of covering two standard sized maps (22" x 34"), so I could play something like OCS Tunisia or OCS Burma under the single piece. I still don't use them very often (and never when filming due to the glare), but I'm not opposed to playing a game if someone uses plexiglass.
Thanks for the very in depth reply. Thats what I thought you were going to say. It makes sense. I agree with all you said.