From: Michael P Nagel Subject: RE: GCACW (was Re: AH Reviews G) At 10:56 AM 3/31/1998 +0100, you wrote: >Couldn't agree more with Dave. Can someone give a detailed review of these >games. I've got the first but haven't got into it because I've been >distracted by other games. GCACW in a nutshell ... Units are divisions, command is based on corps for which each has a leader. There are also army leaders. Before each activation, players roll dice to determine who has initiative, the Confederates winning on ties. The winning player may activate a single division or a corp commander who may activate all the divisions within his corp and with his command range. The basic order for a unit is to move, and combat occurs and is dependent on movement. The less you move to engage an enemy unit, the better prepared your unit is for battle and the better it will perform. Movement rates are based on a die roll for infantry and two dice for cavalry, with the Confederates getting a die roll bonus. The thing I love about this, is you're never sure you'll be able to get what you need when you need it. Yes, you really need to get that vital cross-roads hex, but ... whoops! ... you rolled a one and the division just doesn't feel it's as important as you do ... ;-) This is _not_ a system for those who need omnipotent control over their armies. To add insult to injury (or just to make things more interesting), every time you move a unit, it becomes fatigued; for which there are four levels. Once a unit is moved for the third time, it's movement becomes an 'Extended March' and runs the disk of disruption (stragglers, etc). Disrupted units are weaker in combat. After the fourth move, the unit is spent and can no longer move except in retreat. After a player has made his move (or moves if the activation was for a corps), intitiative is rolled again. This results in one player being able to run circles around the other ... but at a cost in that he'll burn all his units, and then the other player will eventually get to move his. A player can avoid this by 'passing' his move to his opponent, but if his opponent passes as well, the turn ends. The combat system is typical Balkoski ... take a base number, add a lot of modifiers for everything under the sun, and each player rolls a die and compares the difference on a table. The bigger the result spread between the die rolls, the greater the difference in effect on the combatants. From what little I've been exposed to, the system seems depressingly realistic. The terrain effects on combat make a re-enactment of the Confederate stand against Burnside at Sharpsburg very possible in game terms. "Yo, Burnsie ... there's a ford a couple of hexes _that_ way!" ;-) In between turns, players get the opportunity to rest their units, restoring them to undisrupted status, removing fatigue levels, etc. There are also several other neat little rules covering the burning of rail roads, full army assults (which are what you need to replay a Gettysburg in game terms), weather, and a few others which slip my mind. The rules are very clear and consice, the play aids comprehensive, and the maps nothing less than stunning with the possible exception of Stonewall in the Valley which weren't done by Charlie Kibler. Great system, great series ... buy it! :-) -- Mike From: Eric Wignall Subject: Re: GCACW (was Re: AH Reviews G) Michael P Nagel wrote a very good capsule summary of GCACW system: > Units are divisions, command is based on corps for which each has a leader. > There are also army leaders. Before each activation, players roll dice to > determine who has initiative, the Confederates winning on ties. The > winning player may activate a single division or a corp commander who may > activate all the divisions within his corp and with his command range. The scale is one mile to the hex, one turn is one day, most units are divisions with a few cavalry brigades, and some lowly but important garrison units. > The basic order for a unit is to move, and combat occurs and is dependent > on movement. The less you move to engage an enemy unit, the better > prepared your unit is for battle and the better it will perform. Movement > rates are based on a die roll for infantry and two dice for cavalry, with > the Confederates getting a die roll bonus. The thing I love about this, is > you're never sure you'll be able to get what you need when you need it. > Yes, you really need to get that vital cross-roads hex, but ... whoops! ... > you rolled a one and the division just doesn't feel it's as important as > you do ... ;-) This is _not_ a system for those who need omnipotent > control over their armies. The sequence of play is: First initiative roll, high roller can move 1 unit/stack/corp depending on how it is stacked, with a leader, etc. That unit earns a fatigue point for moving. Second initiative roll, the same player can win this roll and move the same unit (or a different one) and it will earn another fatigue point. (All units get back two fatigue points at the end of the turn.) Initiative rolls continue with the winner moving and 'fatiguing' units. Combat is conducted as part of a movement and it too earns fatigue points based on outcome. "Here Come the Rebels" quickly became known as "There Go the Fatigued" in our gaming group. The games hold all the familiar questions for gamers like where to march, how to coordinate attacks, etc. but it also made you risk your troops by force marching them past the golden two fatigue point threshold. The Confederates, with fewer units and generally better morale, were normally placed in the gamble-by-running-hard position. Union players let their units lumber forward, in good order, and always move slower to objectives. Incautious Union players (not that I ever did this) who charge forward with slightly fatigued troops can be caught unsupported and mauled. > To add insult to injury (or just to make things more interesting), every > time you move a unit, it becomes fatigued; for which there are four levels. > Once a unit is moved for the third time, it's movement becomes an > 'Extended March' and runs the disk of disruption (stragglers, etc). > Disrupted units are weaker in combat. After the fourth move, the unit is > spent and can no longer move except in retreat. Remember, the movement rates are die rolls so two good die rolls will get you a full day's march 7-9 miles (hexes). That risky third roll *could* put in better position, get you through the mountain pass, or out of reach. > The combat system is typical Balkoski ... take a base number, add a lot of > modifiers for everything under the sun, and each player rolls a die and > compares the difference on a table. The bigger the result spread between > the die rolls, the greater the difference in effect on the combatants. Most of the modifiers are quickly memorized, leading to the sight of college educated men standing table-side counting up and down on their fingers. "Okay it's plus one for your leader and plus one for... take away one for fatigue and..." Here Come the Rebels -- Sharpsburg as the center of the universe. Roads to Gettysburg -- my favorite of the series. Stonewall in the Valley -- if you're not tense and frustrated by the mid-point of this game, you're dead. Stonewall Jackson's Way -- Confederate bonuses for movement seem high but its such a minor point. Stonewall's Last Battle -- lea$t favorite $imply becau$e it could have been covered in SJW. One of my favorite game systems. I REALLY wish they would do Tennessee/Kentucky. -- Eric Wignall From: Ed & Sarah Beach Subject: GCACW (was Re: AH Reviews G) There are two key points to be added to the discussion of the Great Campaign of the Civil War Series. First, the designers of this series (Joe Balkoski and myself) are very active on the Internet and maintain a web site dedicated to the series. Check it out (the URL is below in my signature)! You'll find errata, new and modified scenarios, tournament information, AREA ladders and more at this site. We accept rule or series questions and clarifications at all times via email. Second, the sixth volume of the series, "On to Richmond!" should be released by Avalon Hill later this month [sorry about this shameless plug...]. The only game I know of that covers McClellan's 1862 Peninsula Campaign in full detail from the initial landing in April to Malvern Hill. Allows the Union player to land at alternative invasion sites such as the Urbana plan that was scrapped by McClellan in March. We had to expand the rule booklet from the usual 48 pages to two 32 page volumes this time to fit in the extra scenarios and advanced game chrome (Monitor vs. Virginia, amphibious movement, Union siege artillery, gunboats, naval batteries...). We're confident that this is the best game yet in the series. -Ed Beach __________________________________________ Ed Beach email: waveland@smart.net Web page: http://www.smart.net/~waveland Check out the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War home page at: http://www.smart.net/~waveland/gcacw.htm From: RGS48 Subject: Re: Re[2]: GCACW (was Re: AH Reviews G) << Agreed - absolutely smokin' system. >> Generally, I agree but....... If you like to fight large battles, you may be put off by this system. It is VERY difficult to coordinate anything other than a one division attack -- some would say impossible. This is because it requires a die roll against your leader's rating to coordinate stacks in an attack. Meanwhile, your opponent marches away, leaving you to stike thin air. There is SO much emphasis on maneuver here that the combat system for large at5tacks (and there actually were some) got shortchanged a bit. Just a caveat. RGS From: Eric Wignall Subject: Re: GCACW RGS48 wrote: > If you like to fight large battles, you may be put off by this system. It is > VERY difficult to coordinate anything other than a one division attack -- some > would say impossible. This is because it requires a die roll against your > leader's rating to coordinate stacks in an attack. Meanwhile, your opponent > marches away, leaving you to stike thin air. There is SO much emphasis on > maneuver here that the combat system for large at5tacks (and there actually > were some) got shortchanged a bit. Just a caveat. I've been thinking about this a while now and have to disagree. The emphasis IS on maneuver and control of the terrain (either counties or valleys). But it is not difficult to stage large battles. If your opponent wants to avoid combat, and knows how to plan for the movements of his troops, it is very hard to engage in him in a decisive battle. If your opponent wants a bloodbath, you'll get one. Players can set up big stacks and wait for you to "come 'an get 'um" or try to manuever units so they can consolidate into stacks in the nick of time. It is difficult, but not impossible, to put together a Corps assault (particularly for Lee & Longstreet). But this represents the difficulty in coordinating attacks during the war. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment on this count because I want to do the Tennessee and Kentucky campaigns with this system -- coordination hell. It's bad leaders, bad weather, small numbers of troops, and too many county courthouses to hold onto. -- Eric Wignall No counter trays were knocked over during the writing of this message.