I've had a few comments on some of the errors in the play through. That's understandable. Remember, I'm trying to shoot an unscripted video, keep it 'live', learn the game myself and also to keep it interesting if I can. I noticed a couple of times I got some of the modifiers wrong by one. In particular the long range artillery shot agains the moving confederate infantry. In that case, the Wainright's artillery would have needed a '1' to hit not a '1 or 2'. One viewer noted that Devin was shattered. I didn't notice this at the time. Still, I think the video was successful in what I was trying to show. This is a very good game on the battle of Gettysburg. Viewers should keep in mind that it is a lot of work to produce even the simplest video, although in my case I just love doing it. I'm still learning 'techniques" with the video shooting and would like to add text commentary superimposed on the videos once I learn how to do. Next video should be "Pea Ridge".
Gilbert Collins You are doing an amazing job. I think the minor error are pointed out in the interest of for all. I agree with you that this system captures ACW Brigade combat in a playable and believable manner. Thanks for doing these videos!!
Eagerly awaited! I think the “traffic jam” situations aptly simulate the confusion seen in the reality of moving troops simultaneously. As a former Field Artillery Officer I-have seen such confusion in real life with modern communication via radios. Must have been more hectic in 1863. Seems valid in my readings of Civil War tactical situations.
Fascinating stuff. I like chit pull a lot. Playing Rivoli (Vae Victis) at the mo and its a big aspect of that game too. You never quite know who is up next. Having a seperate chit for combat is very interesting. It feels like the combat is almost unexpected and can be very serendipitous depending on which side gets pulled first or last. The board and counters are gorgeous.
I m a great fan of Across5Aprils and I'm glad to know that Battle Hymm inherited the same system. The movement-fighting sequence in wargames is very abstract and A5A has brought a revolutionary new concept that fits perfectly into the ACW period. Thanks for the vídeo!
I don't usually do long videos but this game certainly deserves it. "Shiloh" and "Bentonville" would be an automatic purchase for me. I'm wondering now just what other Civil War games that I have that could use this system. Old Avalon Hill Chancellorsville???
I have Across Five Aprils which has Gettysburgh as the biggest of 5 Battles. I have been to Gettysburgh and the battlefield is fairly intact within reason. I viewed Picket's Charge from both the Union and Confederate views of the field and concluded that it was dumbest move in the world. Lee should have had men go out at night to pull down the obstacles and start the attack well before dawn. His artillery should have concentrated somewhere else to give the illusion that the attack would happen elswhere. The artillery woul also have masked the sound of the men marching across the field.
Enjoyed the video as I have just bought the game. Rulebook very clear but it wasgreat seeing it played Thank you . One thing gullies are darker than the ridges yes? (Well Seminary Ridge is named and is lighter) (like some Brits we don't have an instant recognition of places in this battle)!!
Yes, I like this system Steve. I've already worked out a 'Chancellorsville' game utilizing it that a friend and I will play test soon. This is not an officially authorized game but I will do a video on it.
I was lucky enough to playtest this a couple years back. I found it to be engaging, challenging and balanced in fact i was able to win as the confederates.
Great play through, as always Gilbert. There’s something about your calm voice that makes me want to watch some more. Couple nits; you did not deduct strength points from Buford’s cavalry accounting for the horse holders. One third of each units strength (rounded down) is deducted from a dismounted cavalry units strength when dismounted. So, I believe, the 3 hits taken by Devin should have shattered the unit. Second, I do not believe Archer should have had the option to retreat after the 1st round of combat in its initial engagement with Buford. The combat play aid combat summary says in step 6-A-V If Round 1, then next round: Return to step 6-A-I. Step 6-A-1 is Fire Combat, that is, shoot again. Attacker retreat before combat is way back at step 3, which is only reached prior to the first round of combat. So the Archer, with only 1 effective step left, would have been hit with 4 shots 5 minus 1 for horse holders, with one step return fire on Gamble. Result probably should have been Devin and Archer shatter, Davis retreats with his damage, and Gamble possibly taking 1 hit from Archers 2nd shot. What you do is hard, and much appreciated, Gilbert. Love your work, keep it up!
I am a bit late to the party but I enjoyed this play through and wanted to get the game after watching it some months back but it was out of print. It just got a reprint released and I have ordered it. The components are beautiful. Only set back is that the map is not mounted.
I've been waiting for this video, Gilbert, as the PC version just doesn't interest me (poor AI). I also own the original A5A, and have played it to death: the ink has worn off the chits! It is the most played ACW game in my collection by far. I can see with just this first of your two-part play-throughs that Eric's latest iteration of the A5A system is a refinement of that system that - while it is more complicated than A5A - is a much better simulation of brigade-level combat. The production values of the Compass game are better, of course, than the old Victory Games version, so this would have to be a must-purchase for me!
Hello Gilbert- do you know why there isn't a 'Walton' artillery counter included? I'm about to have a go at the Pickett's Charge scenario. I agree with you that this system looks very accessible. Excellent video that's definitely helping me familiarise myself with the rules.
Walton was the artillery commander for the 1st Corps of reserve artillery. This was composed of the 2 battalions of Alexander and Eshelman. So he does not need a counter in this system.
Gilbert my friend... is this superior to GB77? I know the mechanics are way easier but...im torn. I love GB77 for the pain in the neck mechanics of how to get men into line etc.
@2000spqr: When I first got it, I was quite excited. It was from a good designer and had a nice looking 'period feel' map. Soon after play though, I saw all of its warts. It just wasn't for me. It didn't look like the Battle of Gettysburg and I don't understand this infatuation with the 'chit pulling system'. Why is the gaming community 'so in love' with this system? Especially for 'battle games' it is all wrong. Divisions and Corps do not move and have combat at the whim of chance. They are given orders by the army commander and try to carry them out as best they can. The system has all kinds of problems when moving units onto the board. If the Corps in front of you does not 'pull his chit' before you do, you aren't going anywhere. It was totally illogical to me. Playing "Pea Ridge" was even worse. I don't own the game anymore.
@@XLEGION1 i understand... no matter what the game is about there is a mechanic to be learned and played. it seems the best games are used by dice. however i cannot deny b etter games that exist with the use of cards. this is deep!
Ok, GREAT video/review/gameplay .....but to me, I'm just kind of done with hexes or zones of control and square units that in no way replicate the battle or travel formations of historical units.... zones of control used in an attempt to make up for the short comings of hexes and square units (and I'm NOT talking specifically about this game, )
Great video Gilbert! Have you played any of the Blind Swords System games from Hermann Luttmann & Revolution Games? There's 3 Civil War era games (the 3rd, about the 2nd day of Gettysburg, is about to be released) and get high remarks. I've only played one of them and it reminds of this a bit (chit pull system, brigade level) but a little bit less complex, particularly the battle rules, and it also has some event chits to add some random variability. Have thought about giving this system a try, but feel the Blind Swords games might be more of my cup of tea for Civil War tactical battles.
Hey Jerry. No, I have not tried any of the titles in that series. I have heard good things about the system. For me, I'm at the other end of the spectrum to you on choice of titles. I haven't been a fan of "parts of battles" like "Devil's Den" or "Longstreet's Assault. (As good as those game might be)
Totally understandable, particularly for Gettysburg. However, the first 2 games in the series are the full battles (Cedar Mountain & Pea Ridge), so that's not a concern with those. I'd give one of them a look if you found Battle Hymn to be as great as you say in the video, think you might like them.
Hey Jerry. What 'series' are you referring to?? Cedar Mountain and Pea Ridge by who? What series? I understood that "Shiloh" and "Bentonville" are the next two in THIS series.
The Blind Swords System Civil War series. First game was called Stonewall's Sword (Cedar Mountain) and the 2nd is called Thunder in the Ozarks (Pea Ridge). Third (about to be released) is just the 2nd day of Gettysburg. All of the games are by Hermann Luttmann. boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/25079/blind-swords-system
@@XLEGION1 Jerry already answered, but knowing you, Gil, I'd certainly recommend giving Herm's games a try. And I'm NOT saying that just because I designed and did final art for all the games in the series at Revolution! ;-) Longstreet Attacks! does cover just half the battlefield, but included the entire Reb attack on the afternoon/evening of July 2nd. We'll eventually be doing a 'Northern Expansion' which will bring in the rest of the battlefield and OOB to cover all of July 2/3. Adding in the field and action of July 1st will need another map, and i'm not sure that Revolution will go that route at present.
A very in-depth, worthwhile review, but I must take exception at one point you made. At 18:04 you say, "The beauty of the combat system" (no combat occurring because the Combat chits have already been pulled). So what do the adjacent formations do now, just wave at each other? To me that's a defect in the system, as it was with A5A as well. Doesn't seem at all realistic or historical. The chit pull system is great for adding unpredictability and replay ability to a game. But the "just sit on your hands, boys, until we get the word to fire" aspect is harder to rationalize. If one side's Combat chit is pulled first, it permits the other side to move almost recklessly without fear of being attacked that turn. The Initiative mechanic will curb that tendency but only when in effect. In my many attempts at the A5A Gettysburg scenario, the action became very bogged down by the middle of the Second Day. With the myriad of formations and chits, no stacking, and crowded front lines the battlefield became a morass. The administrative overhead far outweighed the enjoyment factor at that point, and I never made it to the Third Day. Hope this turns out better for you.
I can't speak to 'Across Five Aprils' as I never owned it. But this game has been designed decades later and I think it is terrific. I think you are looking at the system in the wrong way. Who says that the units just stand by each other and do nothing? The whole movement combat system is inter-active. As you move in on an enemy brigade it might not even be there by the time you draw the combat chit. Is I go - you go any more 'realistic'??? You move your troops - stop - and then have combat. How is that realistic? These ARE games and I find this system a breath of fresh air from what I have witnessed in over 49 years of playing board games. I think you are being a little hard on the system.
Completely agree. You have to look at the turn as a whole, not as a sequential chronology of events. The chit-pull adds randomness and playability. In reality, all of those chits are happening simultaneously or very near it.
I agree as well, and you need to look at the turn as a whole rather than the individual parts to get the complete picture the designer is trying to show. I think this system is great as well, and really like the changes and enhancements made over A5R. To me, chit pulling is not always my favorite mechanism, but I do think it does a good job here. To the OP's comment that once the combat chit is pulled, permits the other side to move almost recklessly, seems disingenuous. True, within the turn you know that you CAN move right up into primary (because you know currently the combat state), but you still have no idea if, turn over turn, that move was reckless or not. It's that uncertainty that makes the system so good.
Except that a turn's mechanics are a series of actions implemented sequentially, not simultaneously, and the effects of those actions are applied immediately. -- "The chit-pull adds randomness and playability." Thank you for restating my comment.
"True, within the turn you know that you CAN move right up into primary (because you know currently the combat state)" Thank you for reinforcing my disingenuous-but-accurate comment.
Thanks for the review. I actually come from the other direction. I have passed On E.L. Smith's brigade series from Compass as I feel nothing can approach the brilliance of Dean Essig's Civil War Brigade Series. Btw... Smith's chit system was actually invented with his 1984 release, Panzer Command and not Across Five Aprils (1992). I too am a big fan of Gettysbug '77, although I still consider the Advanced Rules to be great which I realize you disagree with. Regardless, great game.
Very good video, Gilbert, and does a great job of 'splainin' Eric's new system. Obviously I have my own ideas about gaming Gettysburg at this scale, but I can hardly fault ELS for his decisions in updating A5A in this manner. His earlier game was perhaps the biggest influence in my own Summer Storm game, and I have the original playtest version of this new game, from back when he was going to publish it himself through Shenandoah. Clash of Arms was actually going to be doing the 'paper' version back then, but it ended up at Compass (to the benefit of us all.) I still have a few 'Hmmmm....' questions with this new game, as I think ELS dropped a bit further into the weeds than needed. Horse holders in a Brigade scale game? Seriously? And giving moving units a favorable DRM against Arty fire is a little silly in a Brigade scale game with 75 minute turns - That's something that should only show up in a tactical game involving tanks...... ;-) And both Archer and Davis being 'chewed up' by combat with Gamble and Davis? All that actually happened involving those units was some heavy skirmishing, with few actual casualties on either side, until the Iron Brigade replaced Buford's troopers.
I've had a few comments on some of the errors in the play through. That's understandable. Remember, I'm trying to shoot an unscripted video, keep it 'live', learn the game myself and also to keep it interesting if I can. I noticed a couple of times I got some of the modifiers wrong by one. In particular the long range artillery shot agains the moving confederate infantry. In that case, the Wainright's artillery would have needed a '1' to hit not a '1 or 2'. One viewer noted that Devin was shattered. I didn't notice this at the time. Still, I think the video was successful in what I was trying to show. This is a very good game on the battle of Gettysburg. Viewers should keep in mind that it is a lot of work to produce even the simplest video, although in my case I just love doing it. I'm still learning 'techniques" with the video shooting and would like to add text commentary superimposed on the videos once I learn how to do. Next video should be "Pea Ridge".
Gilbert Collins You are doing an amazing job. I think the minor error are pointed out in the interest of for all. I agree with you that this system captures ACW Brigade combat in a playable and believable manner. Thanks for doing these videos!!
Sir, your videos are always nicely done and informative.
More and more I appreciate chit pull systems. I think it makes solitaire play more possible.
Eagerly awaited! I think the “traffic jam” situations aptly simulate the confusion seen in the reality of moving troops simultaneously. As a former Field Artillery Officer I-have seen such confusion in real life with modern communication via radios. Must have been more hectic in 1863. Seems valid in my readings of Civil War tactical situations.
A great review of another game I do not have that I will now look for after the show. Thanks
Fascinating stuff. I like chit pull a lot. Playing Rivoli (Vae Victis) at the mo and its a big aspect of that game too. You never quite know who is up next. Having a seperate chit for combat is very interesting. It feels like the combat is almost unexpected and can be very serendipitous depending on which side gets pulled first or last. The board and counters are gorgeous.
I m a great fan of Across5Aprils and I'm glad to know that Battle Hymm inherited the same system. The movement-fighting sequence in wargames is very abstract and A5A has brought a revolutionary new concept that fits perfectly into the ACW period. Thanks for the vídeo!
I don't usually do long videos but this game certainly deserves it. "Shiloh" and "Bentonville" would be an automatic purchase for me. I'm wondering now just what other Civil War games that I have that could use this system. Old Avalon Hill Chancellorsville???
GMT's Glory system is also brigade level chit pull.
Probably any land engagement large enough to merit a game; that's a lot of battles !
Gilbert Collins the original Chancellorsville could use a good update. I felt it was a disappointment.
The game has been restocked. Ordered! Thanks for the overview.
I have Across Five Aprils which has Gettysburgh as the biggest of 5 Battles. I have been to Gettysburgh and the battlefield is fairly intact within reason. I viewed Picket's Charge from both the Union and Confederate views of the field and concluded that it was dumbest move in the world. Lee should have had men go out at night to pull down the obstacles and start the attack well before dawn. His artillery should have concentrated somewhere else to give the illusion that the attack would happen elswhere. The artillery woul also have masked the sound of the men marching across the field.
Enjoyed the video as I have just bought the game. Rulebook very clear but it wasgreat seeing it played Thank you . One thing gullies are darker than the ridges yes? (Well Seminary Ridge is named and is lighter) (like some Brits we don't have an instant recognition of places in this battle)!!
Oh hey thanks for doing this Gilbert, I`ve had my eye on this title, and you just bumped this title up from "wishlist" to "must-buy".
Very nice job Gilbert. I will more than likely get the game. Keep up the good work. Thanks Steve.
Yes, I like this system Steve. I've already worked out a 'Chancellorsville' game utilizing it that a friend and I will play test soon. This is not an officially authorized game but I will do a video on it.
I was lucky enough to playtest this a couple years back. I found it to be engaging, challenging and balanced in fact i was able to win as the confederates.
This is a solitaire players dream game.
That would be your calling, Mr. Collins.
If you build it, they will come.
Thanks so much for doing this review, Gilbert!
Very captivating. Just put this on the table and I'm using your video as a tutorial.
Great play through, as always Gilbert. There’s something about your calm voice that makes me want to watch some more. Couple nits; you did not deduct strength points from Buford’s cavalry accounting for the horse holders. One third of each units strength (rounded down) is deducted from a dismounted cavalry units strength when dismounted. So, I believe, the 3 hits taken by Devin should have shattered the unit. Second, I do not believe Archer should have had the option to retreat after the 1st round of combat in its initial engagement with Buford. The combat play aid combat summary says in step 6-A-V If Round 1, then next round: Return to step 6-A-I. Step 6-A-1 is Fire Combat, that is, shoot again. Attacker retreat before combat is way back at step 3, which is only reached prior to the first round of combat. So the Archer, with only 1 effective step left, would have been hit with 4 shots 5 minus 1 for horse holders, with one step return fire on Gamble. Result probably should have been Devin and Archer shatter, Davis retreats with his damage, and Gamble possibly taking 1 hit from Archers 2nd shot. What you do is hard, and much appreciated, Gilbert. Love your work, keep it up!
Alright ! a highly anticipated video 😉 gonna be a good night
Excellent video. I just wanted to see if the game was for me, and I ended up watching the whole thing.
I am a bit late to the party but I enjoyed this play through and wanted to get the game after watching it some months back but it was out of print. It just got a reprint released and I have ordered it. The components are beautiful. Only set back is that the map is not mounted.
A very good video. I hadn't heard of this game, it's very interesting.
I've been waiting for this video, Gilbert, as the PC version just doesn't interest me (poor AI). I also own the original A5A, and have played it to death: the ink has worn off the chits! It is the most played ACW game in my collection by far. I can see with just this first of your two-part play-throughs that Eric's latest iteration of the A5A system is a refinement of that system that - while it is more complicated than A5A - is a much better simulation of brigade-level combat. The production values of the Compass game are better, of course, than the old Victory Games version, so this would have to be a must-purchase for me!
So there is a PC version of this game?
I hoped you would like this and am happy that you do; thanks for the videos !
This was a pretty chitty episode ;D
It went BANG! BANG!
Hello Gilbert- do you know why there isn't a 'Walton' artillery counter included? I'm about to have a go at the Pickett's Charge scenario.
I agree with you that this system looks very accessible. Excellent video that's definitely helping me familiarise myself with the rules.
Since discovered you've got rid, lol. Ignore the above...
Walton was the artillery commander for the 1st Corps of reserve artillery. This was composed of the 2 battalions of Alexander and Eshelman. So he does not need a counter in this system.
Thanks Gilbert.@@XLEGION1
What a pretty, pretty game. Thanks for the video.
Your acrylic seems to be a bit "puffy". Need thicker sheets?
Love your videos Gilbert... have you played Clash Of Giants Gettysburg.. .this looks very similar and was wondering your thoughts...
No, I have never owned that one, nor have seen any reviews or videos on it.
@@XLEGION1 boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/149794/clash-giants-civil-war
For information purposes Caleb' s battery suffered no.casulties during the battle
Should not the Union cavalry have 1SP reduced for being dismounted in GT-1?
Superb video and splendid of you to post this ! Gamble should have a strength point with the horse holders, thus firing 4 instead of 5, agreed?
David Corbett Concur
Ok Gilbert I just bought this game because of your review. Now where can one get those trays you showed? Thanks Gilbert.
Those are the standard trays that the GMT game company offers. I usually buy a pack of '6' when I'm down at WBC.
Gilbert my friend... is this superior to GB77? I know the mechanics are way easier but...im torn. I love GB77 for the pain in the neck mechanics of how to get men into line etc.
@2000spqr: When I first got it, I was quite excited. It was from a good designer and had a nice looking 'period feel' map. Soon after play though, I saw all of its warts. It just wasn't for me. It didn't look like the Battle of Gettysburg and I don't understand this infatuation with the 'chit pulling system'. Why is the gaming community 'so in love' with this system? Especially for 'battle games' it is all wrong. Divisions and Corps do not move and have combat at the whim of chance. They are given orders by the army commander and try to carry them out as best they can. The system has all kinds of problems when moving units onto the board. If the Corps in front of you does not 'pull his chit' before you do, you aren't going anywhere. It was totally illogical to me. Playing "Pea Ridge" was even worse. I don't own the game anymore.
@@XLEGION1 i understand... no matter what the game is about there is a mechanic to be learned and played. it seems the best games are used by dice. however i cannot deny b etter games that exist with the use of cards. this is deep!
Awesome as usual.
What do you use for counter storage? Does it fit in the box?
Ok, GREAT video/review/gameplay .....but to me, I'm just kind of done with hexes or zones of control and square units that in no way replicate the battle or travel formations of historical units....
zones of control used in an attempt to make up for the short comings of hexes and square units
(and I'm NOT talking specifically about this game, )
I placed my order today!
Great video Gilbert! Have you played any of the Blind Swords System games from Hermann Luttmann & Revolution Games? There's 3 Civil War era games (the 3rd, about the 2nd day of Gettysburg, is about to be released) and get high remarks. I've only played one of them and it reminds of this a bit (chit pull system, brigade level) but a little bit less complex, particularly the battle rules, and it also has some event chits to add some random variability. Have thought about giving this system a try, but feel the Blind Swords games might be more of my cup of tea for Civil War tactical battles.
Hey Jerry. No, I have not tried any of the titles in that series. I have heard good things about the system. For me, I'm at the other end of the spectrum to you on choice of titles. I haven't been a fan of "parts of battles" like "Devil's Den" or "Longstreet's Assault. (As good as those game might be)
Totally understandable, particularly for Gettysburg. However, the first 2 games in the series are the full battles (Cedar Mountain & Pea Ridge), so that's not a concern with those. I'd give one of them a look if you found Battle Hymn to be as great as you say in the video, think you might like them.
Hey Jerry. What 'series' are you referring to?? Cedar Mountain and Pea Ridge by who? What series? I understood that "Shiloh" and "Bentonville" are the next two in THIS series.
The Blind Swords System Civil War series. First game was called Stonewall's Sword (Cedar Mountain) and the 2nd is called Thunder in the Ozarks (Pea Ridge). Third (about to be released) is just the 2nd day of Gettysburg. All of the games are by Hermann Luttmann.
boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/25079/blind-swords-system
@@XLEGION1 Jerry already answered, but knowing you, Gil, I'd certainly recommend giving Herm's games a try. And I'm NOT saying that just because I designed and did final art for all the games in the series at Revolution! ;-) Longstreet Attacks! does cover just half the battlefield, but included the entire Reb attack on the afternoon/evening of July 2nd. We'll eventually be doing a 'Northern Expansion' which will bring in the rest of the battlefield and OOB to cover all of July 2/3. Adding in the field and action of July 1st will need another map, and i'm not sure that Revolution will go that route at present.
I think Devin’s Bde should be placed in shattered box. Current strength =2 and DM =2 (2-2=0)
A very in-depth, worthwhile review, but I must take exception at one point you made. At 18:04 you say, "The beauty of the combat system" (no combat occurring because the Combat chits have already been pulled). So what do the adjacent formations do now, just wave at each other? To me that's a defect in the system, as it was with A5A as well. Doesn't seem at all realistic or historical. The chit pull system is great for adding unpredictability and replay ability to a game. But the "just sit on your hands, boys, until we get the word to fire" aspect is harder to rationalize. If one side's Combat chit is pulled first, it permits the other side to move almost recklessly without fear of being attacked that turn. The Initiative mechanic will curb that tendency but only when in effect.
In my many attempts at the A5A Gettysburg scenario, the action became very bogged down by the middle of the Second Day. With the myriad of formations and chits, no stacking, and crowded front lines the battlefield became a morass. The administrative overhead far outweighed the enjoyment factor at that point, and I never made it to the Third Day. Hope this turns out better for you.
I can't speak to 'Across Five Aprils' as I never owned it. But this game has been designed decades later and I think it is terrific. I think you are looking at the system in the wrong way. Who says that the units just stand by each other and do nothing? The whole movement combat system is inter-active. As you move in on an enemy brigade it might not even be there by the time you draw the combat chit. Is I go - you go any more 'realistic'??? You move your troops - stop - and then have combat. How is that realistic? These ARE games and I find this system a breath of fresh air from what I have witnessed in over 49 years of playing board games.
I think you are being a little hard on the system.
Completely agree. You have to look at the turn as a whole, not as a sequential chronology of events. The chit-pull adds randomness and playability. In reality, all of those chits are happening simultaneously or very near it.
I agree as well, and you need to look at the turn as a whole rather than the individual parts to get the complete picture the designer is trying to show. I think this system is great as well, and really like the changes and enhancements made over A5R. To me, chit pulling is not always my favorite mechanism, but I do think it does a good job here. To the OP's comment that once the combat chit is pulled, permits the other side to move almost recklessly, seems disingenuous. True, within the turn you know that you CAN move right up into primary (because you know currently the combat state), but you still have no idea if, turn over turn, that move was reckless or not. It's that uncertainty that makes the system so good.
Except that a turn's mechanics are a series of actions implemented sequentially, not simultaneously, and the effects of those actions are applied immediately. -- "The chit-pull adds randomness and playability." Thank you for restating my comment.
"True, within the turn you know that you CAN move right up into primary (because you know currently the combat state)" Thank you for reinforcing my disingenuous-but-accurate comment.
Thanks for the review.
I actually come from the other direction. I have passed On E.L. Smith's brigade series from Compass as I feel nothing can approach the brilliance of Dean Essig's Civil War Brigade Series.
Btw... Smith's chit system was actually invented with his 1984 release, Panzer Command and not Across Five Aprils (1992).
I too am a big fan of Gettysbug '77, although I still consider the Advanced Rules to be great which I realize you disagree with. Regardless, great game.
Union horse holders in Z.O.C. of Brockenborough !!!!
Very good video, Gilbert, and does a great job of 'splainin' Eric's new system. Obviously I have my own ideas about gaming Gettysburg at this scale, but I can hardly fault ELS for his decisions in updating A5A in this manner. His earlier game was perhaps the biggest influence in my own Summer Storm game, and I have the original playtest version of this new game, from back when he was going to publish it himself through Shenandoah. Clash of Arms was actually going to be doing the 'paper' version back then, but it ended up at Compass (to the benefit of us all.)
I still have a few 'Hmmmm....' questions with this new game, as I think ELS dropped a bit further into the weeds than needed. Horse holders in a Brigade scale game? Seriously? And giving moving units a favorable DRM against Arty fire is a little silly in a Brigade scale game with 75 minute turns - That's something that should only show up in a tactical game involving tanks...... ;-) And both Archer and Davis being 'chewed up' by combat with Gamble and Davis? All that actually happened involving those units was some heavy skirmishing, with few actual casualties on either side, until the Iron Brigade replaced Buford's troopers.
Devin should have split fire- 2 and 2 , agreed?
David Corbett I agree. One of the elegant aspects of this system
Once again a Gettysburg game that doesn’t portray cavalry in defense historically