I like your analysis... I pretty much agree on all points, and your wrap-up side-by-side comparison. Especially graphically: I don't think LoB holds a candle to GBACW on ANY graphics (or graphic design) level. One subtlety that (IMO) makes the chit-pull mechanism better than the U-Go-I-Go format is that with the former you can use that fog of war to feint or maneuver your enemy out of position; whereas with you-go-I-go, players can merely count hexes and movement rates to ensure that they can't be flanked. Not knowing if one force might activate twice before the other force activates creates a delicious fog-of-war that helps offset the player omniscience that bedevils almost EVERY wargame. This is very evident if you play one of the battles for which there is an older, Terrible Swift Sword-based game and a GMT chit-pull title. My opinion is the GMT games are always "better" games and sims than their older counterparts. As for your quibble with the "fairness" of the variable activation inherent in the chit-pull system, I'd hasten to note that it's not about "fairness" ... it's about injecting historical accuracy. The "efficiency pool mixes" are based on a battle-by-battle assessment of each sides' initiative, intelligence, health, elan and morale, all rolled up into one abstract Efficiency Number. It is by design that you can have some units "hobbled" with a tendency for 1 and 2-activation efficiency draws while their opponent is more likely to draw 2s and 3s (and the occasional 4) activations per turn. And the fact that these efficiency rates are unknown to the opponent adds to the drama!!!
A distinction that you didn't quite say but which seems important to me is that in CWB/CWR/LOB the emphasis is very much on you as the army commander trying to manage the battle. Yes, you deal with the lower-level implications of your orders as well, but you are very much on the general's horseback, trying to figure the right time to send the order to make the move, commit the reserves, etc. GBACW feels much less like that and more about hopping from role to role as the lower level commanders, dealing in turn with this tactical issue or the next. Like you, I am not saying one is better than the other, but if it is important to a player to prove himself as a day-of-battle army commander along the lines of Napoleon, LOB might be the better choice.
Another thing one might want to consider is the number pf battles available. I have only one title from the LOB system which cost me an arm and leg to buy ($150 for NBH). I would love to get me a copy of Last chance for Victory, but cannot afford spending $500 on a board game. On the other hand, GBACW has several titles, many of which have several different battles in each title, so you can fight more battles with one system than the other. In addition, GMT is quicker on the development end than MMP (typically 1 game per year vs. 1 game every 3 or 5 years).
I know this video is from a while ago now, but just wanted to comment about your preference for a game that’s kind of a mix of the 2 systems that you should really check out the Blinds Swords games from Revolution Games if you haven’t already. While the titles in that system are simpler than both of these systems (no facing, no tracking of one-by-one strength point losses, etc), I think it does a great job of providing a more easily accessible tactical ACW system at the same scale. It’s probably more akin to GBACW (chit pull, each hex represents only one elevation level) but still provides some of the immersive narrative LoB provides with the failed activation rolls and event chits. I would recommend to anyone that is interested in either GBACW or LoB to try Blind Swords first. The games are much cheaper and easier to learn/jump into while providing a similar feel. Then you can jump into these systems for a “crunchier” experience if that’s what you’re interested in.
Outstanding subject choice. Thank you ... The original GBACW by Simulations Publications INC is of course much different than the offerings from GMT today. The link between LOB, GBACW system and Richard Bergs 1976 TSS is quite clear. You may consider picking up a copy of the original Cedar Mountain 1981 SPI version ( 25 bucks on BGG ) It plays in one evening and has the bones of the original TSS system. It is more minimalistic and pure...... well the original SPI games are flawed what came after did lose something you need to discover.
The LOB maps look great, but practically distinguishing the different elevation levels and LOS rules are a big downside. I think I spent more time trying to find what elevations different units were on than on planning tactics.
Liked your comparisons and contrasts. I have not played GBACW. For what it's worth, I have played NBH and TTW (scenarios and full battles) as well as one of the CWB series. Found the order system in LOB and CWB compelling (and I love tactical detail),. This gives the uncertainty that a chit pull system provides, albeit in a different way. Found command a bit hard to get my head around (wasn't sure what to do with a lot of CSA units that were 'isolated' command wise, during NBH).
I owned 13 of the earlier titles in the GBACW series, SPI & TSR, well before GMT took over. Played at least a little of 8 of the SPI titles. Early game system was much different from the current one. Corinth was my favorite of the lot.
Terrific analysis, thank you Nathan! Ever since GMT took over GBACW, it has increasingly become more complex and more cumbersome to the point that it eclipses my threshold and I just don’t enjoy it anymore. Today’s version of GBACW is really a different ‘game’ then the classic SPI version. Agree that GBACW is more aesthetically pleasing, however. Your really went out of your way to stay neutral in the comparison, I respect that but I won’t be as reticent - LOB hands down beats GBACW. :)
Nice comparison. I only have experience with GBACW. I really enjoy the system and have /had most of the titles in the GMT series. I to find that the efficiency element can be a little too random at times and find it varies game to game on how well it works (for my tastes) . In 3doG for instance i found it very frustrating, especially on the 1st day, but I found in RBoC, that it seemed to work better or had less impact and I found it less frustrating. I quite fancy getting a LoB series game and giving it a go. I too have a high proportion of Dean Essig games in my collection. Thanks for the comparisons, very informative.
In particular, the swings of efficiency fate can impact a small scenario to a greater degree. I hadn't considered that while watching the video. I played a small scenario on a pre-production copy of Into the Woods from the GBACW series last year and there is little doubt that my opponent was done in because his Rebels simply couldn't get enough activations to reach the challenging geographic goals. I'll take the win, but it certainly has an asterisk by it in my book.
I own both series and the one thing omitted in your comparison was the rulebooks. I find the rulebooks for the LOB series extremely frustrating from an organisational and clarity standpoint. I think the rest of your comparisons are spot on.
I found a lot of the expression difficult on my first read (and I was immensely frustrated withyheLOS section), but I've found it okay to find things whenever I look up.
I am also generally agreed all around, and personally like both systems. One point regarding the pacing is that LOB does feel faster-paced, but it has 15 minute turns, whereas in GBACW take longer but they represent an hour. So it's a bit deceptive.
@@steveoh9285 I mostly agree as well. The caveat is the LOB LOS rules, which are way fussier (and GBACW's LOS rules aren't that simple); if you go with Dean's suggestion of just eyeballing it, that speeds it up a great deal. If you DO feel obliged to check a lot, LOS plus the greater range of elevations (and the visual murkiness between them) can slow it down quite a bit.
Thanks for the video! Have played and very much enjoyed both game systems. You can't go much wrong with either one. LoB does get more of the tactical nature of CW battles right than does GBACW. Cannot abide the chit pull system, though, so I don't use it -- just give each player the chits and let them play them one by one. Plays much more historical that way as brigadiers can react to what's in their front.
Hello from Argentina, love your videos, i buy de p500 normandy 44, and i want to add two more so make the shipping cost sorry it, a choose path of glory what else do you recomend? North África 41, u.s civil war? Or other game, i got cc e and here i stand and twilight struggle, thanks!!!
I think it comes down to personal preference. GBACW has chit draw, which creates a lot of tension in solo play, but because of all the rules it moves slowly as you process every move, and every fire combat. LOB is IGO-UGO, but moves faster through movement/combat/charges. Both suit solo play, but it depends on what you like [I like chit draw, but like faster play systems]
On a scale of light/game to heavy/simulation, they're both on the heavy/simulation side. I'd argue that GBACW has more detail, that at times lends it to a greater sense of 'historical accuracy', but at other times, the smooth play of LoB means that it conveys a greater sense of realism...That may sound weird, but basically it's because Berg has fine details on weapon type and ranges, but this 'disengages' from the flow and realism. Whereas because LoB is easy to remember it flows better, and you become more immersed in the battles [I'd argue].
@@gkrockover Well I'm kinda torn now. The more I play over these beautiful LoB maps, the easier Line of Sight rules get, and the more I'm swinging towards preferring the LoB maps!
GBACW gets a few tactical details of Civil War combat absolutely wrong -- infantry tried not to fight in woods, while GBACW rewards fighting in woods and ignores the fact that such fighting in fact diminished the fighting capability of units. There's also the arty stacking with infantry in GBACW, whereas inf tried to avoid being anywhere near arty in order to avoid the collateral effects of those long-range arty rounds that arty attracted. There's also such doozies as cavalry firing rifles from horseback, MP costs for passage of lines and moving through breastworks. Some of GBACW's "detail" is just tactically silly!
Thank for for a good analysis of the two systems. Echoing another viewers comments, I don't like the 'chit pull' system for battle games. It works fine for grand strategic level but not tactical operational. Armies fighting battles did not move via 'random chance'. Their movements were dictated by a series of orders from commanders, sent out in a logical manner from the commander in chief. The 'chit pull' system in my opinion has been grossly abused in the system and I also agree with another poster who stated that the original SPI "Great Battles System" has morphed into something that is no longer recognizable as the same system at all.
![Game Comparison: 'Last Blitzkrieg' [2016] and 'A Time For Trumpets [2020]](/img/n.gif)
I like your analysis... I pretty much agree on all points, and your wrap-up side-by-side comparison. Especially graphically: I don't think LoB holds a candle to GBACW on ANY graphics (or graphic design) level.
One subtlety that (IMO) makes the chit-pull mechanism better than the U-Go-I-Go format is that with the former you can use that fog of war to feint or maneuver your enemy out of position; whereas with you-go-I-go, players can merely count hexes and movement rates to ensure that they can't be flanked. Not knowing if one force might activate twice before the other force activates creates a delicious fog-of-war that helps offset the player omniscience that bedevils almost EVERY wargame. This is very evident if you play one of the battles for which there is an older, Terrible Swift Sword-based game and a GMT chit-pull title. My opinion is the GMT games are always "better" games and sims than their older counterparts.
As for your quibble with the "fairness" of the variable activation inherent in the chit-pull system, I'd hasten to note that it's not about "fairness" ... it's about injecting historical accuracy. The "efficiency pool mixes" are based on a battle-by-battle assessment of each sides' initiative, intelligence, health, elan and morale, all rolled up into one abstract Efficiency Number. It is by design that you can have some units "hobbled" with a tendency for 1 and 2-activation efficiency draws while their opponent is more likely to draw 2s and 3s (and the occasional 4) activations per turn. And the fact that these efficiency rates are unknown to the opponent adds to the drama!!!
A distinction that you didn't quite say but which seems important to me is that in CWB/CWR/LOB the emphasis is very much on you as the army commander trying to manage the battle. Yes, you deal with the lower-level implications of your orders as well, but you are very much on the general's horseback, trying to figure the right time to send the order to make the move, commit the reserves, etc. GBACW feels much less like that and more about hopping from role to role as the lower level commanders, dealing in turn with this tactical issue or the next. Like you, I am not saying one is better than the other, but if it is important to a player to prove himself as a day-of-battle army commander along the lines of Napoleon, LOB might be the better choice.
Another thing one might want to consider is the number pf battles available. I have only one title from the LOB system which cost me an arm and leg to buy ($150 for NBH). I would love to get me a copy of Last chance for Victory, but cannot afford spending $500 on a board game. On the other hand, GBACW has several titles, many of which have several different battles in each title, so you can fight more battles with one system than the other. In addition, GMT is quicker on the development end than MMP (typically 1 game per year vs. 1 game every 3 or 5 years).
I very much appreciate your comparison videos. They help shape purchasing decisions.
I know this video is from a while ago now, but just wanted to comment about your preference for a game that’s kind of a mix of the 2 systems that you should really check out the Blinds Swords games from Revolution Games if you haven’t already. While the titles in that system are simpler than both of these systems (no facing, no tracking of one-by-one strength point losses, etc), I think it does a great job of providing a more easily accessible tactical ACW system at the same scale. It’s probably more akin to GBACW (chit pull, each hex represents only one elevation level) but still provides some of the immersive narrative LoB provides with the failed activation rolls and event chits. I would recommend to anyone that is interested in either GBACW or LoB to try Blind Swords first. The games are much cheaper and easier to learn/jump into while providing a similar feel. Then you can jump into these systems for a “crunchier” experience if that’s what you’re interested in.
Yeah a few people have suggested we it to me and it's on my radar. Just need time and space to play...
Outstanding subject choice. Thank you ... The original GBACW by Simulations Publications INC is of course much different than the offerings from GMT today. The link between LOB, GBACW system and Richard Bergs 1976 TSS is quite clear. You may consider picking up a copy of the original Cedar Mountain 1981 SPI version ( 25 bucks on BGG ) It plays in one evening and has the bones of the original TSS system. It is more minimalistic and pure...... well the original SPI games are flawed what came after did lose something you need to discover.
A well done comparison. Thank you. I have been with GBACW since TSS and I also enjoy the LoB series immensely.
Thanks Roy!
For solo play LOB is much more engaging for me with the written orders and fluke stoppages. But saying that GBACW is also very interesting to me.
The LOB maps look great, but practically distinguishing the different elevation levels and LOS rules are a big downside. I think I spent more time trying to find what elevations different units were on than on planning tactics.
I find your comparisons between games and systems to be the best in the business. Nice work.
Thanks Marc!
Liked your comparisons and contrasts. I have not played GBACW. For what it's worth, I have played NBH and TTW (scenarios and full battles) as well as one of the CWB series. Found the order system in LOB and CWB compelling (and I love tactical detail),. This gives the uncertainty that a chit pull system provides, albeit in a different way. Found command a bit hard to get my head around (wasn't sure what to do with a lot of CSA units that were 'isolated' command wise, during NBH).
I owned 13 of the earlier titles in the GBACW series, SPI & TSR, well before GMT took over. Played at least a little of 8 of the SPI titles. Early game system was much different from the current one. Corinth was my favorite of the lot.
A most informative comparison and timely as well, given there is a copy of LCfV in the mail heading my way. Thank you.
Terrific analysis, thank you Nathan!
Ever since GMT took over GBACW, it has increasingly become more complex and more cumbersome to the point that it eclipses my threshold and I just don’t enjoy it anymore.
Today’s version of GBACW is really a different ‘game’ then the classic SPI version.
Agree that GBACW is more aesthetically pleasing, however.
Your really went out of your way to stay neutral in the comparison, I respect that but I won’t be as reticent - LOB hands down beats GBACW. :)
Nice comparison. I only have experience with GBACW. I really enjoy the system and have /had most of the titles in the GMT series. I to find that the efficiency element can be a little too random at times and find it varies game to game on how well it works (for my tastes) . In 3doG for instance i found it very frustrating, especially on the 1st day, but I found in RBoC, that it seemed to work better or had less impact and I found it less frustrating. I quite fancy getting a LoB series game and giving it a go. I too have a high proportion of Dean Essig games in my collection. Thanks for the comparisons, very informative.
In particular, the swings of efficiency fate can impact a small scenario to a greater degree. I hadn't considered that while watching the video. I played a small scenario on a pre-production copy of Into the Woods from the GBACW series last year and there is little doubt that my opponent was done in because his Rebels simply couldn't get enough activations to reach the challenging geographic goals. I'll take the win, but it certainly has an asterisk by it in my book.
I own both series and the one thing omitted in your comparison was the rulebooks. I find the rulebooks for the LOB series extremely frustrating from an organisational and clarity standpoint. I think the rest of your comparisons are spot on.
I found a lot of the expression difficult on my first read (and I was immensely frustrated withyheLOS section), but I've found it okay to find things whenever I look up.
Personally I found the GBACW rulebook to be such a slog, but it probably comes down to personal preference and learning styles.
Thank you, great analysis 🧐
I am also generally agreed all around, and personally like both systems. One point regarding the pacing is that LOB does feel faster-paced, but it has 15 minute turns, whereas in GBACW take longer but they represent an hour. So it's a bit deceptive.
Yeah I only thought about that as the video went live; should've factored that into the discussion!
Good point, but nonetheless LOB plays smoother and doesn’t drag on like GBACW can (IMHO).
@@steveoh9285 Yeah I agree, particularly for new players, there's a lot to think about to get going with GBACW that really slows play...
@@steveoh9285 I mostly agree as well. The caveat is the LOB LOS rules, which are way fussier (and GBACW's LOS rules aren't that simple); if you go with Dean's suggestion of just eyeballing it, that speeds it up a great deal. If you DO feel obliged to check a lot, LOS plus the greater range of elevations (and the visual murkiness between them) can slow it down quite a bit.
Another fantastic system comparison by you.
Thanks Julian!
You make best comparison videos in youtube. You familiar of making difference between OCS and East front series by GMT would love to hear that.
Oooh, I've played a little OCS but nothing East Front sorry.
thank you very mucjh you have interesting shows
Nicely done. Thank you
Thanks for the video! Have played and very much enjoyed both game systems. You can't go much wrong with either one. LoB does get more of the tactical nature of CW battles right than does GBACW. Cannot abide the chit pull system, though, so I don't use it -- just give each player the chits and let them play them one by one. Plays much more historical that way as brigadiers can react to what's in their front.
Great vid!
Thanks!
Hello from Argentina, love your videos, i buy de p500 normandy 44, and i want to add two more so make the shipping cost sorry it, a choose path of glory what else do you recomend? North África 41, u.s civil war? Or other game, i got cc e and here i stand and twilight struggle, thanks!!!
@@MakerManu id pick U S Civil War, it's an amazing game!
@@WiseGuyHistory ok thanks!!!
Love the blind swords system!
Thank you for your detailed analysis. Have you played Pub Battles?
No but I'm familiar with them and want to get a few, they're a great idea!
How do the differences you outlined impact solo play?
I think it comes down to personal preference. GBACW has chit draw, which creates a lot of tension in solo play, but because of all the rules it moves slowly as you process every move, and every fire combat. LOB is IGO-UGO, but moves faster through movement/combat/charges. Both suit solo play, but it depends on what you like [I like chit draw, but like faster play systems]
Would it be fair to say that LoB is more of a simulation of the battle where as with GBACW you're actually gaming the battle?
On a scale of light/game to heavy/simulation, they're both on the heavy/simulation side. I'd argue that GBACW has more detail, that at times lends it to a greater sense of 'historical accuracy', but at other times, the smooth play of LoB means that it conveys a greater sense of realism...That may sound weird, but basically it's because Berg has fine details on weapon type and ranges, but this 'disengages' from the flow and realism. Whereas because LoB is easy to remember it flows better, and you become more immersed in the battles [I'd argue].
@@WiseGuyHistory almost sounds like you'd have *the* game if you combined the written orders system of LOB with the games from the GBACW series.
@@gkrockover Well I'm kinda torn now. The more I play over these beautiful LoB maps, the easier Line of Sight rules get, and the more I'm swinging towards preferring the LoB maps!
GBACW gets a few tactical details of Civil War combat absolutely wrong -- infantry tried not to fight in woods, while GBACW rewards fighting in woods and ignores the fact that such fighting in fact diminished the fighting capability of units. There's also the arty stacking with infantry in GBACW, whereas inf tried to avoid being anywhere near arty in order to avoid the collateral effects of those long-range arty rounds that arty attracted. There's also such doozies as cavalry firing rifles from horseback, MP costs for passage of lines and moving through breastworks. Some of GBACW's "detail" is just tactically silly!
Every time this thumbnail pic comes up on my feed I think your a monk with the brown hoodie your wearing.
Haha, yeah it's a bit weird, I had bad light in the original photo so tried to edit and...it uh, came out a bit weird...
Why did Reddit pull this for being SPAM? The algorithm needs work.
Because I hadn't posted enough other content in the thread. It's a weird rule...
I clicked on this expecting to see a monk playing the game in his belltower.
I don’t want to play MMP games because they abandoned too many.
Thank for for a good analysis of the two systems. Echoing another viewers comments, I don't like the 'chit pull' system for battle games. It works fine for grand strategic level but not tactical operational. Armies fighting battles did not move via 'random chance'. Their movements were dictated by a series of orders from commanders, sent out in a logical manner from the commander in chief. The 'chit pull' system in my opinion has been grossly abused in the system and I also agree with another poster who stated that the original SPI "Great Battles System" has morphed into something that is no longer recognizable as the same system at all.