I owned the 1964 Gettysburg game (it was my very first), the Chancellorsville game, and 1977 Gettysburg. This was in the early 1970’s when I first tried war gaming with AH titles. I had completely forgotten about the Chancellorsville game until you displayed it in this video. Wow! Talk about a blast from the past. I hadn’t thought of that game in 45 years! LOL! I really loved the ‘77 Gettysburg. The map was pretty and so were the unit counters for that era. Like most people I mainly played the intermediate game. The advanced game really intrigued me because you could literally control the shape of the infantry and cavalry battle lines which I thought was very cool….but sadly it was too ponderous and tedious and the novelty of that soon wore off. But while I experimented with that I did get a kick out of watching the brigades physically diminish in size as their casualties mounted and their battle lines shrank. It was a neat experiment in realism that just wasn’t conducive to smooth and fast game play.
Another great overview and history lesson. Your always able to clearly examine the games in a comprehensive way. This really helps in game purchasing decisions. Your comment about being overdone or too complicated for their own good is so true. Simple rules and great game play seems to be what most gamers want.
A copy of this game arrived just today, I'm planning on playing it solitaire tomorrow. Super quality components, and just the series of ACW games I have been waiting for! I'm in for the whole series on this one I think! My Dad was a big fan of the original AH Gettysburg, I think it was the 64'? The one before the 77'. He said it was easy to learn, fun to play, reasonably historical and you could finish it in an evening. My Dad kinda fell out of historical war gaming because he said the games grew too long to play, had gotten too complex, and lost that easy to learn/fun to play factor. Of course work and family were factors for him, so he was definitely in the medium to short playing time crowd. When I heard about this planned series, I was hoping that it was going to hit that "Goldie Locks" zone that my Dad always liked. That it would be "just right" on complexity, time to play and ease of learning. It sounds like my Dad would've liked to play this game, it appears.🙂 Gilbert Collins, I highly value your opinion in your reviews, I have very very similar tastes in historical board war gaming as yourself. I'll give the game a solo run through tomorrow myself; but I was super glad to see your take so far on this game! 👍👍
Thanks for the kind words Robert. Hey, I might be around your Dad's age. I remember with found affection 'Gettysburg 64 version'. I mean its hopelessly dated by todays standards but what a game for 1959!!
Rifles were used as clubs and bayonets where used freely as the Union soldiers thrust there weapons behind stone walls ( description of fighting at Fox Gap Prelude to Antietam) Let us not forget Fairchilds Brigade making a Heroic Bayonet charge at Antietam. I agree in principle with all your comments in reflections. Further I am going to add this game to my wish list based on your great review. Perhaps some sort of rule could be created to allow for the occasional bayonet charge. It was a high risk chose to make and something could reflect that. I see the series has moved on to Shiloh and inevitability Gettysburg will follow. At that point the designer will have to consider the little Round top Bayonet charge? Never the less again your reviews are fantastic and have greatly influenced my game collection.
Good observation. After about a 20 year hiatus I’m drifting back into war games again and one of the biggest reasons is because the overall production values of the games has improved immensely since I played in the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Maps have vastly improved in graphics and far more companies finally figured out that gamers prefer their maps pre-mounted on sturdy backings. (I detested folding paper maps.) Also, unit counters are way more detailed and beautifully printed, as are game playing aids. Rules books are much better written, organized, and illustrated, etc. I used to regularly shell out $25 to $50 for wargames 40 years ago that were nowhere near as nicely put together as what is available today….and that was pretty expensive back then. I honestly do not mind spending $75 - $125 today on new game titles that are so attractively and carefully made. I especially like the recent trend towards larger hexagonal map grids and larger counter sizes. It’s not only easier on my aging eyes, (I am 60 now), but it makes manipulation of counters on the game board something that can be easily done with one’s fingers instead of having to use tweezers and other instruments to manipulate large numbers of counters crowded together in groups on the map. Lastly, I really appreciate some of the new innovations like card draws designed to introduce random (chaos of war) events into the game play. One of the flaws of the old wargames is that players saw and controlled nearly everything as if they were Olympian Gods toying with the mere human mortals depicted in the unit counters. This was grossly unrealistic and led to a lot of ruthless game play where expert players exploited this knowledge to engineer rapid victories - but also very unlikely and almost always ahistorical ones. The truth is that no battle plan has ever survived first contact with the enemy and they never will. These game card draws help ensure that this is represented in the newer games. You can be General Patton if you want, but you cannot be omnipotent Patton with godlike control of everything. This is as it should be, though the control freak players always violently disagree. (All control freaks tend to be pretty disagreeable. They can’t help it.)
Thanks for posting this one. I'm a big American Civil War buff and I've always been especially fascinated with the Battle of Antietam. It's probably because I live about a ten minute drive from the battlefield and have been there many times. I will look into picking this one up. It really looks nice!
Terrific video about an amazing series that I totally love (and hope will get new modules for it soon). Worthington seems to be capable of producing incredibly simple while also detailed games, full of historical flavor but totally accessible. I understand that there are some faults in production here and there, but errata happen to everyone in the hobby and the final result is nothing short of outstanding.
Excellent review! I recently bought this game (my first hex and counter game) and though I've only been able to get it on the table once so far because of the holidays, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Easy to learn rules, clean, high quality counters, and a history lesson as you play. Can't ask for much more. I definitely agree that it's nice that they didn't lead off with Gettysburg, in fact last I saw I think it was slotted in as volume 8 out of a planned 10 volumes/battles for the series.
A truly great review w/ some very insightful pointers: hex size, unit hierarchy, melee combat. Big thank you for your review. Very encouraging w solo play too. I’ll put on my list.
Thanks Gilbert for an excellent review. The historical info was most welcome. Most criticisms against McClellan pertain to his failure to pursue Lee's army following the battle. That certainly was President Lincoln's view.
Another great video Gilbert. I really like your short pithy reviews of games. Good to see a modern game with simple clear graphics and rules which unfortunately is an exception nowadays.
Great video! I'm tempted to get it but I'm so back logged. Im busy playing war and peace that Gilbert's video convinced me to purchase. Keep up the good work
I agree with the design concepts of this game - and series if it turns out to be financially successful for Worthington - with one glaring exception. And that is IGO-UGO. The hobby has come a long ways since the 1970's, and the "bite-sized" turns that a turn-continuation table or a chit pull system have, at least in my opinion, revolutionized the simulation of gunpowder-era gaming. In the body of your review you mention that the Little Mac rule of only being able to activate 2 corps can, in fact, be applied to many other commanders in the ACW. And that even Lee admitted that he couldn't get all of his corps to attack at once. In the pre-radio days of the 19th century and earlier, that just was physically not possible. So piecemeal attacks are the rule of the day back then, and I find a mechanism like chit pulls really simulates this quite elegantly. Of course, you can really overwork this concept and make a simple game run on for hours longer than an IGO-UGO system, but if kept simple the work load and time element are kept within normal constraints. So I'll be adding such a system to my copy, and your review convinced me to get it. I think the components - especially the mounted map ... [give a Rebel yell here!] - are superb. The counters are easy to read, as you point out, and the map beautifully straddles the difference between a Simonitch-simple map and one of the Barber calligraphic maps.
The 'Chit Pull System' may be the 'new kid on the block' but there is plenty of abuse in the use of it also. In particular, they are better used on grand strategic systems where each turn or each physical area/hex is large. A particular 'weak' one in my opinion is "Battle Hymn - Gettsyburg" and "Battle Hymn - Pea Ridge". The latter particularly weak. In that game if you pick a division that is behind another one on a forested road, you aren't going anywhere. Gettysburg has this too. Where if you pick say Pender's Division, it can't move except to go right through he division that is ahead of it. There should have been some provision for units arriving on a road but there isn't. I eventually gave up on this one, as beautiful as the map and counters are.
@@XLEGION1 I don't own that "Battle Hymn" game, but do own the designer's predecessor game, "Across 5 Aprils" (VG, 1992). A5A used chit pulls, and was the first time I had encountered the mechanism. From what I've read on Consim and BGG, Yaquinto's "French Foreign Legion" was supposedly the first game to use this mechanic. In A5A I never ran into the blocking problems you mentioned in "Battle Hymn," but can see that it could be an issue. That said, I had many an occasion when the combat chit came out too late for the side I was moving, or too early, for that matter. And many was the time that my plans were upset because my opponent grabbed a move before I could react - like McDowell dillydallying while Joe Johnston rode from the Shenandoah like mad to reinforce Beauregard at Bull Run. At any rate, each to his own, and I prefer imprecision of the chit pull mechanism (and Rich Berg's TCT system as well, though I must be one of only 3 or so who still do) to watching my opponent stand still while I dance my troops around his line. And any mechanism that breaks up IGO-UGO automatically makes for a better solitaire experience, again, IMHO. Cheers!
Well, you will never be alone in your praising of the chit pull system over IGO-UGO. Like I said 'it's the new kid on the block'. But your example of Johnston rising to Beauregards defence at Manassas is precisely the point I was making about the chit system. On the strategic scale it is just fine. Simulates the situation perfectly. Or, in an Ancient game where you are trying to co-ordinate armies all over say the Mediterranean, it works perfectly. The fact is, they couldn't co-ordinate so chit pull is perfect. But for battle games, at least many of them 'chit pull' doesn't work. Armies don't work that way. And battles are not totally 'interactive' at all. For Gettsybeug, Meade is on the defensive for three days in a row so IGO-UGO is a much better fit. When you try to use 'chit pull' you get wonky results as I described where one division in the read can't get by a division that is ahead of it. You described 'combat' situations that clearly mirror my experience with the game too. Nobody move, nobody moves, nobody moves, then the only corps that you game orders to moves last and not when he was supposed to. I feel with 'chit pulls' systems, I'm not really in control of anything, I don't take on the role of Lee or Meade, you are kind of a 'clerk' managing chaos. I heard a lot of good things about "Across Five Aprils" and this was supposed to be the perfection of it. But somehow, something got lost in the translation. Add to that the small board and no stacking and you just had large clumps of brigades moving across the map. Anyway the + and - of chit pull systems can't be debated here.
thanks for reviewing this. I think the ACW gaming world needed a modern, simple take on Antietam at brigade level with gradual reduction for casualties. I like the idea of 1 unit per hex also. I was hoping GMT's game on the subject from years ago would be the one but for some reason I did not enjoy it much. I hope this system proves to successful. The early endorsement from you is a good sign.
This has been my view for years. The gaming community has lacked a good simple brigade level ACW system for a long time. The American Revolution period has been adequately handled by Mark Miklos amazing series but we have had no equivalent for the American Civi War. I'm hoping this series could be the one. But I will reserve judgement until I see more titles. But this one is very promising.
Thank you for a most informative video. I have many hundreds of wargames but only rarely buy these days. Many seem under-developed and rushed and the ubiquity of copious errata and rule rewrites, living rules etc is unacceptable at the prices asked. I do not like KS or pre-order so often I will find a game already OOP when I wish to buy. The final issue as with this Antietam game is that invariably coming down the track is a second edition or deluxe edition with improved components and pricey upgrade kits for those who supported the first offering.
I sympathize with your frustrations. On the other hand, our hobby is such a small, niche hobby that I honestly doubt many of the better games that have come along in recent years would ever have been developed without going the KS route. Game companies are not charities. They must turn a profit or go belly-up. Sometimes the risk of developing a proposed game is simply too great with having gamers act, essentially, as investors in the development project to ensure that a sufficient paying customer demand exists to justify the development costs. Yes, this usually means having to pay for upgrades down the road, but it is a cost some of us are willing to support in order to have new games developed so we will have decent games to play on topics that interest us.
Great review a perspective Gilbert. I bought I would like regimental games more than brigade size games but I have to reconsider. I do not like stacking and having too many stacks of units on the map. It slows down the game. I’m going to try this system and shelf my regimental games.
Could'nt agree with you more about hoping they stay away from a Gettysburg game for a .while at least. I'd like to see them do Spotsylvania or 3rd. Winchester.
Hi Gilbert. I love your videos. Did you end up buying the Gettysburg 1863 game from Worthington? If so, I would love to see a review. All the best to you
Glad you like videos, I do like making them. Ah! "Gettysburg", no I didn't end up getting that one. My 'Gettysburg' game of choice is now the more ambitious title "A Most Fearful Sacrifice", but of course it is a much larger game and not as simple as the Worthington. title.
Gilbert, you gave this game an initial thumbs up after a limited play though. I am thinking of getting it. do you still have a favorable recommendation after more time?
Excellent review, though I'd like to know what is different in solitaire play. I had the designer's Chickamauga game from the 70s/80s so I recognized this system immediately. He has really refined it and cleaned up the graphics. That game, btw, was unsuitable for solitaire....but that's how I played it.
I was wondering what your take was on worthington's civil war games. Having been in the hobby a few years I see the value in beeing able to see what past games a publisher has done.
Enjoyed your review of this game very much, tnx. Was really hesitant to pick this one up because of the melee omission but you’ve softened me a bit on it. I suppose if one really wanted to it would be very easy to add a house rule to just add it for completions sake. Btw, I visited the Antietam battlefield this past Thanksgiving holiday and the sycamore tree depicted at the base of Burnside Bridge in the very center of the box cover is very much alive and well. Think of the memories that tree must have. Cheers!
I wouldn't let the loss of melee turn you off from the game. For brigade level games, as I hinted in the video, its not very realistic and yet they have become a state in most of our Civil War games.
Gilbert, I disagree about the CWB system, but that's okay - to each their own. Although I have to correct you on the point that the first game in the Gamers" system was In Their Quiet Fields (Antietam). What's the ground scale in this new series?
Yes, I noted that after the video was done. Their first game was 'Antietam' how odd that Worthington picked the same title. The new series has a ground scale of 250 yards to the hex. I really did give the 'gamers' a try but it just wasn't my cup of tea but I do acknowledge is was a very successful series.
Thanx Gilbert... Looks like an interesting and fun version of the battle to try... Will you be attending cangames this May? Think there is ACW Cross Keys tournament.
Hey Doug, I've been going to CanGames for over 30 years and usually running something. But this year, I don't feel like running anything, so I will probably go on the Saturday as a spectator.
@@dougwinslow3817 I don't get to play much in the way of 4 player games, so I'm going to bring a few board war games that are multi-player. For sure 'SpaceCorps' and some others. I will be there Saturday and Sunday. Very likely in the Ottawa Wargamers area on the main floor.
2% bayonet wounds even that surprises me. Of those a proportion would have been accidental or self inflicted. Sorry sarg I obeyed fix bayonets but cut my hand wide open. Sarg I got a bayonet stuck in my arse from Private Jones climbing up from the trench behind me.
I have played many of them over the years. They have quite a history. The trouble in trying to research what they have done in the past is the fact that their own web side erases all data from past games. I remember several of them though and they are no longer in my collection, which tells 'me' something. They have always had great components, that is their strong suit. But there 'quality control' over the final product is sometimes amiss. That is why I got a very pleasant surprise with "Antietam". It is very good. I had absolutely no interest in their 'Gettysburg 150' game. I thought it was terrible.
Melee is a word that is often pronounced differently depending on where on the globe you are. Common American pronounciation: 'May lay' with long a sounds Common UK pronounciation: 'Mi lay' short a sound, long a sound 'May Lee' is a new one for me, is that from a particular region or country? Honestly curious. Thanks for the vid, been curious about this game since it camd out, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.
Antietam was fought in September when the grass and trees would still be green. The map terrain is far too sparse and bland colored for my liking, unfortunately. Still, the system looks great so I may try it if it goes on sale.
I believe the different colors of grass lands is due to elevation changes, and the designers made the 'contrast' in color for easy viewing. Just an FYI. If already aware disregard. Happy Gaming.
I don't usually do AR videos, they are too lengthy and invariably you get constant 'feedback' on 'what you did wrong' in playing. I do them sometimes, more for my own learning curve but generally not.
