My first real board game, and I still have it. I was seven when I was given it by my Dad (in 1960). I moved to Baltimore in 1976 and after getting an apartment in Catonsville, I went to the address on the Avalon Hill literature (Harford Road). It turned out to be the warehouse, and the design work was done on Read St & St. Paul. I popped over, and Mick Uhl was working on the 1977 version of Gettysburg. Very cool! It's good to see this old friend.
Great story and one I can identify with only mine was a little different. On a trip down to Baltimore (from Canada) I just had to visit Avalon Hill at 4517 Harford Rd. I had no idea it was hidden down the hil from the Gas Station in front. Fond memories of those Avalon Hill days.
Rcvd the 1964 version when I was 12 for Christmas in 1970. No kids wanted to play this. So I played it solitaire, being fair for both union and confederates and was simultaneous commander, rules interpreter and umpire. Was never one of my favorites for reasons you mentioned. Moved on to Stalingrad and D-Day and eventually Squad Leader, which did become my fave.
Great video Mr. Collins. This game was my first board war game. It was gifted to me by Robert Graysmith, (yes, that R. Graysmith). I didn't know why he gave the 12 year old me one of the coolest things I'd ever received until later, (divorce). He was getting rid of a lot of stuff.
This makes me wonder about the crossover, if any, between miniatures war games and board war games. It looks like Gettysburg 1958 was inspired by a miniature type game, but with counters rather than miniatures, and a paper map instead of a 3-D map with contours, miniature trees and so forth. The realistic look may appeal to some people without having to spend scads of money on miniatures, especially since the graphics on counters can be so well these days.
This was my first wargame, a gift from my uncle when I was 12 y.o., the '64 version. Kind of astonished to see a review of this after about half a century.
TR I played this game apparently sometime between 1961 and 1964. I can say this because the copyright date on the box is 1961, but surprisingly the board has a 1958 copyright and the handbook appears to be identical to the 1958 one in your video. Either way, I greatly enjoyed this game, but was slightly older than you being about 15-16 at the time. My favorite Avalon-Hill game was Wooden Ships and Iron Men from 1975 which had more freedom any actual historical battle. Thanks for the video. I was just about to put this game on Craigs List, but now might hold on to it for sentimental reasons.
I'm more of a 'history guy' than a straight 'gamer' so I sometimes keep game for their sentimental value over their 'history' value. This game has had a complex history. If you check on Board game Geek you can read about it. Basically the 1959 date is the 1st edition. It was a little 'crude' but it had features that the later games did not have, such as 'outpost' counters and a girdles movement system. They later upgraded it and then e-invented a hexagon version that didn't last long and then they went back to the 1964 edition which was basically the original without the gridless movement and no outpost counters.
I still own a copy of Gettysburg '58. My mother bought it for my father in 1959 when I was 10 years old. My father didn't like it, but I adopted it and played it often with my brother throughout the early 1960s (when Civil War Centennial reenactments were a big thing). We disagreed so much over the square grid and "hilltop" rules that we only played the Tournament version once we learned it. We wore the counter set out and the game is in poor shape today. I think I last played it over 50 years ago.
There are better ones now, but when it came out, "Terrible Swift Sword" by SPI may have been the most realistic and most complicated version of the battle in game form. It was a monster regimental level game, with each move representing 20 minutes and easily taking 20 minutes per turn to play. A "real-time" game. Because of all the details requiring attention, including unit supply, it was much more suited to team play. But any fan of Civil War board gaming should play it at least once.
Interesting. My 2nd ever wargame, ca. probably 1967-8 (??), must have been on the '58 version. A friend of my dad's must have loaned my brother and I a set (he had played Afrika Korps with me, a Jr. High School student, my first ever AH game!) and probably tried to interest us in the "Advanced rules" because I remember moving stuff around with equivalent of rulers and ignoring the grid, and then we played several more games on our own. I would say that trying miniatures on the map wasn't any more successful than adhering to the grid, as far as arguments go, because "Hey, you're pushing that unit too far!" or "No, you're definitely JUST out of range!!' could always result. Honestly I'd say that my very early experience with the "fuzziness" of this map/grid combo convinced me of the desirability of clearly defined terrain. (That said I also fell in love with Jutland -- one of TAHGC's most compelling box tops! -- but it was a beast to play and prone to the exact same "analog" issues as Advanced '58 Gettysburg.) Probably by the mid 60s AH was producing game maps that were free of ambiguity while retaining at least a semblance of "naturalness," thankfully D-Day did not become the norm.
Pub Battles makes those games with the wood bock and chain measurement movement. They have a few Napoleonic battles and a American Revolution game that I have seen in RU-vid reviews. Oh, you found them at the end.
Yes, I've been checking them out but the prices at present are far too high for what you get. I think Waterloo was nearly $300 US. Gettysburg was $140. I saw them down at WBC last year and was tempted to purchase one but with the Canadian dollar exchange being what it was this would easily be a $175 to $200 purchase. Just not worth it for the number of times that I would play it. If they could get the price down I think they might have a chance in the market.
thanks for all these videos. I happen to have the 64 boardgame version, and did I find it confusing and strange. You hit all the issues with which I have had difficulty. .
I just make them from graphics borrowed from other games. Get some good quality cardboard from an Arts Supply store and print them out on Avery labels. They are pretty serviceable and I'm trying to get better at it.
I have this 58 version , I love playing it I do find it confusing sometimes when things get close and multiple units are attacking multiple units on flanks and hills , and who occupies the hill first are they defending or attacking This creates odd fractions which don't appear on the results chart . Gets messy but I make some of my own rules to live by .and this game is awesome Other bad part is the calvary units are just too weak to matter much. But again they add so much of a realistic feel Have to play you someday
The version you have, was my first land based historical board game, I remember it with found affection. Yeah! We used to call the Cavalry units 'the flies' in derision. They were mainly used for surrounding and cutting off units. I don't play that version anymore as it has been eclipsed by better games on the subject, but I do recognize its status as being almost the 1st historical board game to be published in the modern era.
I am sure everyone knows this, still, in the '64 edition, if the two Union cavalry enfilade the Confederate infantry, the odds are 1-1. If the die roll is D back 2, (or, obviously, D elem), the Union wins on the first turn. If the die rolls A elem, there is one Union infantry division on the south edge of the map. Jus' sayin'.
True, but that is a very unlikely scenario. Heth just gets himself on a hill and his defence is now '8'. That attack would then be 1:2 if the Union tried it. Extremely risky and foolhardy.
@@peacefulamerican4994 But since one cav unit starts out north of town, the movement factor is not enough for both Cav units to reach Heth before he can move to a hill. BTW, if you compare the movement range in the '58 version, to the movement factor in the '64 version, you will find that the '64 version allows units to cover only 1/2 the distance in the same amount of time. If you double the movement factor in the '64 game, the game play is much more realistic.
@@peacefulamerican4994 Are you sure you were playing the '64 version. I think your strategy might be possible in the '58 version, but I no longer have access to a '58 version to check it out.
