From: ROBERT GAMBLE Subject: Glory (by GMT) Well, I waffled, and wavered and wishy-washed all over regarding whether to get 'Glory' or 'Across Five Aprils'. For a brief period of time the reply of 'Both!' was sounding in my mind, considering it was at a half price sale, but my finances were already stretched so I chose 'Glory' for a variety of reasons having to do with components, designer and it looking as though it might afford slightly more 'realistic' Civil War flavor. Admittedly, not knowing much about Civil War tactics, I'm probably not the best to comment on how realistic it is. Oddly, in spite of this being the first Civil War game of its kind that I've tried, it had an oddly familiar flavor until I realized why. I had played a chit-pull system game before, though one in quite a different time period, 'Firepower' by Avalon Hill. So, even though the games are quite different, it wasn't too difficult of a change from the standard IGO-HUGO that I play in most other games. So... Was it worth the $18 I spent on it? Let's go to the tale of the tape... Components: One word. Wow! The counters are gorgeous, I like how the Infantry counters are larger so that when you piggyback an Infantry unit atop it, it's quite easy to move the two together. The maps are gorgeous as well, though the actual paper itself seemed a tad on the flimsy side. Not overly so, but then I'm comparing it to 'The Gamers' maps which I like an awful lot. I love the ziplock bags that GMT provides with its games and think that should be mandatory for any game company that uses counters. Luckily, they provide far more than you need for their games, so you can spread them around to older games. The rulebooks are functional, cleanly laid out. The only minor complaint I have is lack of play aids. There's one sheet with the terrain effects and fire and charge procedures. Only thing is, this is all reproduced on the maps. While I don't _mind_ having a separate sheet with this info, it seems that sheets dealing with reinforcements/setup charts, would be nice. While this information is in the scenario booklet, it just feels as though it would be more useful than the play aid chart that is provided. Again, this is only a mild complaint. Oh, and the box is one of the more attractive ones I've seen as well. Grade: A Rules: One word. Clear. Yes, I've heard about Richard Berg's reputation for complexity in rules. This has to be the easiest rules read in a game for quite some time for me. This _includes_ D-Day by Avalon Hill, touted as an introductory game. Yes, there were a couple of questions I had as I read, but more often than not a later rule clarified matters. Not only are they clear, they allow for a great deal of interactivity between the players. If you don't like the randomness of the Chit-Pull method, there's a modified IGO-HUGO method. If you want even more limitations and confusion placed on your units so that the game has an even stronger element of chaos, confusion and realism, then there are two other modifications of the basic system. And then, if that's not enough, each unit itself might not do certain actions you want it to do, by applying an optional rule for even more realism. I _highly_ recommend new players to not use the IGO-HUGO method offered. While it's quite thoughtful to have included it, the flavor of the game, the feel, is just so much more right when played even with the Basic System. Scenarios: There are three scenarios, using two maps (all scenarios use only one map), the First and Second Battles of Manassas, and the Battle at Chickamagua. The First Battle of Manassas (First Bull Run), is a great introduction, with very few units on the map initially, and both sides receiving reinforcements as the battle goes on. This allows you to get used to the mechanics without worrying about an overload of counters. So far this is the only scenario I've played (more appropriately begun to play) but it appears that the other two scenarios provided increase in complexity and numbers of units, but never overwhelmingly so. Grade (Rules & Scenarios): A+ Gameplay: One word. Smooooooth. Well, ok.. One more word. Visceral. Within moments of setting up, I was moving units like a pro (well, ok, so I made some mistakes with terrain movement costs and the like). The very nice thing about this Chit Pull system is that while you have to keep an idea of overall strategy, it takes away the wondering of 'Ok, which do I move first out of these 20-50 units?' that sometimes so paralyzes me when starting a turn, _especially_ the first turn of a new game. I don't know how many games I've set up, looked at all those pretty counters sitting on a gorgeous map and thought, 'Ok.. What the hell do I do now?' When you pull a chit in this game, it basically activates between 2-6 counters. Kind of a side advantage of this is, each 'command' of 2-6 counters takes on a life of its own, with their own immediate goals in attack or withdrawl. This does make it more difficult for the player to keep overall goals in mind as you worry about how to withdraw units suddenly in trouble, or push ahead an attack on some routed enemy units. I've found myself giving 'orders' to the individual commands along the lines of, 'Attack that line of units.' or, 'Move through the woods to capture that objective.' I've just recently bought 'Marengo' by The Gamers, which uses the Napolenic Brigade System (a modifcation of the Civil War Brigade system used by the same company). While the system is intriguing, and I think I'll enjoy playing it, there's an odd contrast... In 'Marengo' (and NBS and CWB in general I assume), the _rules_ force the effect of giving the orders. ie, giving orders to each command is an explicit, and quite complex set of rules. The combat and movement rules seem secondary in many respects. In 'Glory' the rules focus on movement and combat, with the chit-pull system leading the player very naturally to the mindset of giving orders to each Command. It's quite hard for me to put into words at the moment, but simply put, NBS and CWB games seem very much an Effect first system. The designers knew the effect they wanted and made that a set of rules to force the player into that effect. In 'Glory', the designers simulated the causes of the same 'Effect', that of orders for given commands, and quite neatly the Effect flows, so 'Glory' is what I consider a Cause first system, and a very elegant one at that. Ok, I mentioned 'Visceral' in regards to gameplay. This is the first game that I've played where I actually had a mental image of the battle. The situation was this in the First Manassas battle: One of the infantry units of Cocke's Command started the process of rolling up the flank of Tyler's command before they could be completely activated (in the game, this Command had been through a nasty previous battle and so is slow in reacting). They moved through the forest and then fired on the Union troops. A Disordered effect resulted. Then, flushed with victory, the Confederates charged the Union position in the trees only to meet with return fire that broke the charge, leaving the Confederates in as disordered a state. Great, great stuff. Grade: A+ I'm sure there's more I've left out, I'm sure there's more here than many people want to read. I'm sure there's much more gameplay left for me with this gem. Robert Gamble Subject: Re: Glory (by GMT) From: rmt66@juno.com (ROBERT M TITRAN) Bob, Nice review. I agree with a lot of what you said, but our group didn't find the rules as clear as you did. Brief, yes, but not quite clear. The biggest source of headaches were the retreat rules. Determining just where a unit was allowed to retreat to was the topic of much conversation. I used to think that less "competitive" players would more easily agree on how to handle retreats, but several other new Glory players I've met have run into the same issues, so I don't think it's just us. I'd enjoy hearing how you (or anyone out there) has resolved retreat details. We were also confused by the fact that units suffer a -1 fire strength when disordered, and that the printed fire strengths are 1 less on the disordered side of the counter. We initially thought the reduced value on the counter reflected the -1 of the disorder, but later found that the -1 was applied to the reduced fire strength. Big difference. Other minor nits included - Why call a morale check a "CCDR"? Why call stacking "piggybacking"? We also penalized the game's "utility" score for counter clutter (recalling what all those numbers in different places mean is a pain), no terrain chart on the Chickamauga map, and backprinted markers where both sides are the same. A good game, yes, great to look at, fun to play, and you even learn a little history in playing it. But I think it's a notch or two shy of great. Still a bargain at $18. Would like to read your comparison vs. A5A if/when time and money allows. Bob Titran rmt66@juno.com Last Played - Russian Campaign, Up Front, Down in Flames ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From: ROBERT GAMBLE Subject: Re: Glory (by GMT) >Bob, > >Nice review. I agree with a lot of what you said, but our group didn't >find the rules as clear as you did. Brief, yes, but not quite clear. > >The biggest source of headaches were the retreat rules. Determining just >where a unit was allowed to retreat to was the topic of much >conversation. I used to think that less "competitive" players would more >easily agree on how to handle retreats, but several other new Glory >players I've met have run into the same issues, so I don't think it's >just us. I'd enjoy hearing how you (or anyone out there) has resolved >retreat details. I actually just got mail back from Richard Berg regarding the retreat rules. While up until now I'd been playing by the very restrictive 'always retreat towards a friendly entry hex' in spite of possible negative consequences for my first scenario. However, I did plan to change it to a system very similar to what Berg described as the intent of the retreat rules. He said that 'the least resistance' ideal should be used to avoid step losses. The intent of the rules had been to keep a unit from meandering around the map and avoiding the edges. So my interpretation is this. A unit retreats according to the following priority: A) If possible, choose a retreat hex not in an enemy ZOC that would cause a step loss, B) If possible, choose a retreat hex that doesn't pass through units that might be Disordered because of the retreat of this unit. C) In cases where there exist more than one 'equal' hex according to the conditions above, move the unit: 1) Towards a friendly entry hex. 2) If 1) is not possible then move the unit so that it stays the same distance from a friendly entry hex. 3) If neither 1 or 2 are possible, the unit may be moved in a direction away from a friendly entry hex. >We were also confused by the fact that units suffer a -1 fire strength >when disordered, and that the printed fire strengths are 1 less on the >disordered side of the counter. We initially thought the reduced value >on the counter reflected the -1 of the disorder, but later found that the >-1 was applied to the reduced fire strength. Big difference. Oddly, this one didn't trip me up though there is a certain sense to your first interpretation. I agree that there doesn't seem to be much reason to lower the fire strength and then give a negative DRM.. There is only one case I can see that this makes sense, determining odds ratio in a charge. >Other minor nits included - Why call a morale check a "CCDR"? Why call >stacking "piggybacking"? I didn't have a problem with this, possibly because I haven't played such a large number of games that those original terms have become second nature yet. >We also penalized the game's "utility" score for counter clutter >(recalling what all those numbers in different places mean is a pain), no >terrain chart on the Chickamauga map, and backprinted markers where both >sides are the same. This didn't seem to be all that big a deal to me. Combat strength(s) are in the lower left, movement in the lower right. Yes, there are two combat strengths on some units but it was easy enough for me to remember which was which. Fire combat seems more common, less devastating so that the first, lower value makes sense to be the fire value and the second strength being the charge value. The movement values are normal and extended, and the one that's larger than the other is obviously the extended value. The only other value is the cohesion value. Yes, in comparison to some wargames it's cluttered, but in comparison to others (Invasion: Norway) they seem downright clean. Note: This is not a jab at I:N, a game which is growing strongly on me. >A good game, yes, great to look at, fun to play, and you even learn a >little history in playing it. But I think it's a notch or two shy of >great. Still a bargain at $18. Would like to read your comparison vs. >A5A if/when time and money allows. There was one more piece of confusion I ran into, and that was the timing of combat. While charges are strongly implied to be (and confirmed by Berg) sequential (so that if one charge against a unit causes a retreat, a second charge by a unit _originally_ adjacent to that unit but no longer adjacent because of a retreat can not be made), fire combat is _all_ simultaneous. Nowhere is this specifically said, and so led to concerns about what would happen if a unit was routed by the first Fire Die Roll against it when other units had yet to fire. ie, do those other units get to fire, or does the routed unit retreat before those Fires are resolved. Berg confirmed that all Fire combat is sequential so all rolls are made, all damage resolved, and then all retreats made. This naturally means that all Fire combats should be announced before any die rolls are made (Something not explicitly said in the rules). In spite of these confusions, I still maintain that this is a clearer game than many other introductory games. Hell, I'm _still_ confused over some elements of D-Day by Avalon Hill. :) Finally, one complaint that didn't make it into my original review that was brought up by a previous poster.. After the wonderful Historical Commentary and Design Notes in Invasion: Norway by GMT (Same company that makes Glory) that there was _nothing_ along those lines in 'Glory'. I really enjoy reading those in games, in fact I tend to read them before I read anything else so that I get an idea where the game is coming from. For newcomers to the hobby this is almost essential, and is still sorely missed by myself. However, this is still one of my favorites, and I will be curious to compare it to A5A if I pick the game up. >Bob Titran >rmt66@juno.com >Last Played - Russian Campaign, Up Front, Down in Flames Robert Last played: Invasion: Norway, Ardennes, Glory