Although I have since abandoned this game and didn’t really care for it, I did purchase Rick’s map and this at least salvaged the game to some degree. Rick’s experience and analysis of the terrain around Gettysburg is always superb.
Have you ever tried "Last Chance for Victory" by MMP? That has received pretty good reviews overall for a Gettysburg simulation. I liked the components and the new map in this game, but you're right, the window for chance is a little to broad for battle outcomes in the combat system. It is not as much all the multiple dice - it's that they didn't limit the probability boundaries to be more realistic.
I agree, like the map, but not the combat mechanics. I still prefer the older games of Gettysburg, they still do it for me, even though they might be open to being rather dated these days. Have often wondered if the Confederates could have won this iconic battle. Some players have suggested certain tactics and strategies, but there is always the danger of so doing with the overwhelming influence of hindsight lurking in the background. Besides if the Confederates had done this instead of that the Union would surely have acted differently.. After all every action is usually followed by a reaction.
Hey Kyle, no I have not played that one. Although I did play the massive 'Terrible Swift Sword" from SPI back in the 70's. I just don't have the room nor the time to engage in those huge regimental games anymore. I do prefer the 'one mappers'. Recently I'm re-discovering the smaller battles in that series like 'Pea Ridge' and "Wilson's Creek" etc.. I intend to do videos of those later on.
Any suggestions you could make as to where to acquire the game now that it is out of print? More importantly, I would like to acquire the Rick Barber map. E bay currently do not have any available. Thanks-- I have enjoyed your reviews BTW. Thanks
I did this map as a favor to my friend Dave Powell, who got saddled with the horrible original (APL wanted to cash in on his name, although he did little on the game.) Funny thing is that, at roughly the same time, I did a two map set to use with the Columbia block game, which uses hexes. This game plays exactly the same way on either map..... And the original cartographer for this entire series, Brien Miller, did NOT have anything to do with this map! For any of the folks who have indicated an interest in my Black Cat Studio version, go through the BCS folder in CSW. The short version is that the Gb'63 map you see here is $35, and the GB block game version is $75 - the latter is two maps for Gettysburg, and a third duplicating my 'The Devil's to Pay!' expansion for my Summer Storm game, covering a possible 'alt-history battle taking place a lot closer to Harrisburg.
Having started wargaming in the early 1970’s with the Avalon Hill classics, I find your dislike of the “bucket of dice” system surprising.. Having stacked armor divisions vaporized by a single Static division many times in AH’s D-Day by a simple AE result on the CRT, I find the bucket system far more consistent and realistic. While extreme cases as you point out are certainly possible, in most games over the years, the usual CRT’s are extreme by design on every roll. The bucket system is far more likely to offer a more consistent “average” result.
Take it easy. Where did I say the map wasn't any good? I think it is a good map. As for hexes.....well that is an entirely different story. Soldiers don't March by "areas" either pre-selected by the designers. These are "games" not totally realistic simulations of actual combat.
I made a list once of 'Gettysburg' games and I came up with over 50 titles, so any answer would be 'really loaded'. Depends so much on personal preference and how much detail you want AND how long do you have to play a particular game. "Thunder at the Crossroads" is nearly on everyone's 'best' list but it is very detailed and rather slow. I think the good compromise titles are "Gettysburg: Lee's Greatest Gamble" and the Avalon Hill 1977 version of Gettysburg but you will never get agreement on this with everybody.
Gilbert, I had playtest credit on Gettysburg: 1863. It's not going to get any points for simulation value. That said, I wasn't sold on Command's entry either. For simulation as far as I'm concerned, for the brigade level I'd still go with Thunder at the Crossroads. At regimental level, at this point I'd go with This Hallowed Ground (The Gamers title from 1998). For a reasonable balance of sim and game, I think Hermann Luttmann's Longstreet Attacks will be my go-to Gettysburg game.
Rick is quite prominent on the Consimworld site. Just look in any Civil War game folder and you will see his name there. I believe he has his own website called "Black Cat Studios" or something like that.
Another interesting review, thanks for doing these. Have you played GMTs 1863 the Gettysburg scenario? Just wondering what you thoughts on it would be.
I have reviewed "Guns of Gettysburg" in the past, but that was when I first got it. After awhile I abandoned it, even though it had some great ideas and some very innovative concepts. But ultimately, things like 'no leaders', 'no named artillery units' and a 'weird' combat system caused me to leave it.
Hmmm. Another case where the designers created something that looks pretty good, but doesn't work **as a game**. Makes you wonder whether the designers were players at all. And why they didn't realize the issues with font sizes and in-game identification during production.
So funny. I just saw the following review comment on BGG: "One of the best combat systems I have seen comes to the American Civil War and it is a winner. It perfectly captures both the attritional nature of the fighting and the wild swings that made things unpredictable." lol. No accounting for taste I guess. I wonder if making sixes a hit and any TWO 5's a hit would help with the luck factor? So rolling 8 dice with a result of say, 3 fives would result in 1 hit rather than none.
Yes, that one is out of the blue. This is one of the 'worst' combat systems that I have ever seen. The fact that I don't own the game anymore speaks volumes.
Hello Luis. Well, you would have to be more specific as to whether or not you want "battle games", "campaign games" or 'the entire war'. For the entire war my favourite is "The U.S. Civil War" from GMT. Basic game is fine but if you really want complication, jump to the advanced game. There are a host of 'battle games' to choose from, a lot of my favourites though are out of print. I think for campaigns I still think the old SPI titles from 1972 were very good, if spartan in graphics.
I think I disagree with you a bit on the bucket of dice system outcomes, the Civil War is replete with stories of units having very quirky things happen to them, a cops being devastated by USA artillery could easily happen if a division Commander followed up and put his guys on the forward slope or the crest. You could look at the Corp that scored no hits with 12 dice either got followed up orders refused to attack, or just completely whiffed which we've seen happen in Civil War battles. I understand it's quirky and swingy, but most of the time it won't be with that many dice. Just my two cents, and worth exactly what you paid for it which was nothing. 😎
I'll point out that this was a continuation of Brien Miller's system, where the shape of the ares is reflective of the terrain features, and so limited the movement and combat strength of those long rectangular counters. Mark had left APL when this game was in the works, and APL did a pretty 'iffy' job of applying his terrain analysis. I did my own map to try to rectify some of these errors, but I still have some problems with the basic premise. This game plays out just as well on the one I did for Columbia's Blocks of Courage game, which uses a grid of 400 yd hexes...
Wow, hello Richard! Dunno if you remember me, I used to make maps too, and I'm extremely impressed with this map! You did an amazing job, even walking around the park to check things, if I recall... Anyway, I'm thinking of getting back into the hobby, just wondered how you're doing. :)
Although I have since abandoned this game and didn’t really care for it, I did purchase Rick’s map and this at least salvaged the game to some degree. Rick’s experience and analysis of the terrain around Gettysburg is always superb.
Have you ever tried "Last Chance for Victory" by MMP? That has received pretty good reviews overall for a Gettysburg simulation.
I liked the components and the new map in this game, but you're right, the window for chance is a little to broad for battle outcomes in the combat system. It is not as much all the multiple dice - it's that they didn't limit the probability boundaries to be more realistic.
I agree, like the map, but not the combat mechanics. I still prefer the older games of Gettysburg, they still do it for me, even though they might be open to being rather dated these days. Have often wondered if the Confederates could have won this iconic battle. Some players have suggested certain tactics and strategies, but there is always the danger of so doing with the overwhelming influence of hindsight lurking in the background. Besides if the Confederates had done this instead of that the Union would surely have acted differently.. After all every action is usually followed by a reaction.
I am a map guy. If I do not like the map I do not get the game. Thank you for showing this.
Me too! I even used to make wargame maps... If I still had a good computer, I might try again.
My gaming buddy and I loved this game. We are both aggressive and we fought toe to toe and at the end we each had only about 30,000 men in our armies.
Hey Kyle, no I have not played that one. Although I did play the massive 'Terrible Swift Sword" from SPI back in the 70's. I just don't have the room nor the time to engage in those huge regimental games anymore. I do prefer the 'one mappers'. Recently I'm re-discovering the smaller battles in that series like 'Pea Ridge' and "Wilson's Creek" etc.. I intend to do videos of those later on.
Great video as usual, totally entertained!
Any suggestions you could make as to where to acquire the game now that it is out of print? More importantly, I would like to acquire the Rick Barber map. E bay currently do not have any available. Thanks-- I have enjoyed your reviews BTW. Thanks
I did this map as a favor to my friend Dave Powell, who got saddled with the horrible original (APL wanted to cash in on his name, although he did little on the game.) Funny thing is that, at roughly the same time, I did a two map set to use with the Columbia block game, which uses hexes. This game plays exactly the same way on either map..... And the original cartographer for this entire series, Brien Miller, did NOT have anything to do with this map!
For any of the folks who have indicated an interest in my Black Cat Studio version, go through the BCS folder in CSW. The short version is that the Gb'63 map you see here is $35, and the GB block game version is $75 - the latter is two maps for Gettysburg, and a third duplicating my 'The Devil's to Pay!' expansion for my Summer Storm game, covering a possible 'alt-history battle taking place a lot closer to Harrisburg.
Having started wargaming in the early 1970’s with the Avalon Hill classics, I find your dislike of the “bucket of dice” system surprising.. Having stacked armor divisions vaporized by a single Static division many times in AH’s D-Day by a simple AE result on the CRT, I find the bucket system far more consistent and realistic. While extreme cases as you point out are certainly possible, in most games over the years, the usual CRT’s are extreme by design on every roll. The bucket system is far more likely to offer a more consistent “average” result.
Bucket?
@@craigclemens986 A "bucket" full of dice rather than one die roll cross referenced on a Combat Results Table (CRT)
Take it easy. Where did I say the map wasn't any good? I think it is a good map. As for hexes.....well that is an entirely different story. Soldiers don't March by "areas" either pre-selected by the designers. These are "games" not totally realistic simulations of actual combat.
Watch your video again. You hated the map
I made a list once of 'Gettysburg' games and I came up with over 50 titles, so any answer would be 'really loaded'. Depends so much on personal preference and how much detail you want AND how long do you have to play a particular game. "Thunder at the Crossroads" is nearly on everyone's 'best' list but it is very detailed and rather slow. I think the good compromise titles are "Gettysburg: Lee's Greatest Gamble" and the Avalon Hill 1977 version of Gettysburg but you will never get agreement on this with everybody.
Gilbert, I had playtest credit on Gettysburg: 1863. It's not going to get any points for simulation value. That said, I wasn't sold on Command's entry either. For simulation as far as I'm concerned, for the brigade level I'd still go with Thunder at the Crossroads. At regimental level, at this point I'd go with This Hallowed Ground (The Gamers title from 1998). For a reasonable balance of sim and game, I think Hermann Luttmann's Longstreet Attacks will be my go-to Gettysburg game.
Thanks for the review, very instructive. Is there a place where Rick's map is sold?
Would counting the three hits by the cannon as one hit be a better damage balance? I have never played a wargame before but it does look interesting.
I for one love the map. Can anyone suggest a better 1 mapper of the battle?
Yes, but that isn’t the map that comes with the game. The large artist Rick Barber made that map,on his own a later sold it independently.
Gilbert, another great review. I am enjoying collecting these old Gettysburg games. Where can I obtain this Rick Barber Gettysburg map? Thanks. David
Rick is quite prominent on the Consimworld site. Just look in any Civil War game folder and you will see his name there. I believe he has his own website called "Black Cat Studios" or something like that.
Another interesting review, thanks for doing these. Have you played GMTs 1863 the Gettysburg scenario? Just wondering what you thoughts on it would be.
My dad and I had a game like this 25 years ago but I forget which one it was. Thanks for the feedback on this if I ever get one again.
Ok I looked through your videos. It was the 125th Anniversary edition I liked it but my dad didn't.
Hey Gilbert - where does Guns of Gettysburg land in your pantheon of favorite ACW games?
I have reviewed "Guns of Gettysburg" in the past, but that was when I first got it. After awhile I abandoned it, even though it had some great ideas and some very innovative concepts. But ultimately, things like 'no leaders', 'no named artillery units' and a 'weird' combat system caused me to leave it.
Hmmm. Another case where the designers created something that looks pretty good, but doesn't work **as a game**. Makes you wonder whether the designers were players at all. And why they didn't realize the issues with font sizes and in-game identification during production.
Yes, that one was a real disapointment and I have never bought another Avalanche title since.
The "areas" are so small for the scale covered and so regular that it's essentially a hex game.
So this is basically Gettysburg Risk. I'll forego my GBurg 77 comments for your video on that game :)
So funny. I just saw the following review comment on BGG:
"One of the best combat systems I have seen comes to the American Civil War
and it is a winner. It perfectly captures both the attritional nature of
the fighting and the wild swings that made things unpredictable."
lol. No accounting for taste I guess.
I wonder if making sixes a hit and any TWO 5's a hit would help with the luck factor? So rolling 8 dice with a result of say, 3 fives would result in 1 hit rather than none.
Yes, that one is out of the blue. This is one of the 'worst' combat systems that I have ever seen. The fact that I don't own the game anymore speaks volumes.
That might be a temporary solution but I have given up on this game totally.
Too many of these cwar games what would be your top 3 for people start ing
Hello Luis. Well, you would have to be more specific as to whether or not you want "battle games", "campaign games" or 'the entire war'. For the entire war my favourite is "The U.S. Civil War" from GMT. Basic game is fine but if you really want complication, jump to the advanced game. There are a host of 'battle games' to choose from, a lot of my favourites though are out of print. I think for campaigns I still think the old SPI titles from 1972 were very good, if spartan in graphics.
OK.. This time. ....1969...
????????
I think I disagree with you a bit on the bucket of dice system outcomes, the Civil War is replete with stories of units having very quirky things happen to them, a cops being devastated by USA artillery could easily happen if a division Commander followed up and put his guys on the forward slope or the crest. You could look at the Corp that scored no hits with 12 dice either got followed up orders refused to attack, or just completely whiffed which we've seen happen in Civil War battles. I understand it's quirky and swingy, but most of the time it won't be with that many dice. Just my two cents, and worth exactly what you paid for it which was nothing. 😎
What a shame that it does not live up to what if pretends to be. Frustrating!
Havi
WOw!
give me a break
the map is great....looks like a 19th century map
and I'm DONE with fake hex games
military units don't orient by "hexes"
I'll point out that this was a continuation of Brien Miller's system, where the shape of the ares is reflective of the terrain features, and so limited the movement and combat strength of those long rectangular counters. Mark had left APL when this game was in the works, and APL did a pretty 'iffy' job of applying his terrain analysis. I did my own map to try to rectify some of these errors, but I still have some problems with the basic premise. This game plays out just as well on the one I did for Columbia's Blocks of Courage game, which uses a grid of 400 yd hexes...
Wow, hello Richard! Dunno if you remember me, I used to make maps too, and I'm extremely impressed with this map! You did an amazing job, even walking around the park to check things, if I recall... Anyway, I'm thinking of getting back into the hobby, just wondered how you're doing. :)
Sounds like you need glasses