In practice there is little undue wristage. Play alternates between players, pick a stack, roll one or two dice and move, next player please... It plays so smooth that you can crank through turns. The nice part of rolling the dice helps to avoid analysis paralysis on players parts as you can't count on subordinates to do what it is you want them to do. It adds a dollop of historicity to boot. Once you run a few battles then combat falls into line as well. Balkoski creates games that appear at first to be complicated, yet during play and in practice the apparent complexity fades and allow you to focus on what it is you need/want to do. This system is his gem and crowning achievement. Give it time and don't assume anything as to the efficacy of the system.
As for Balkoski, I've found his designs in general to be great. He is also an accomplished author. Though some titles are hit or miss or under developed at best. Ive played enough GCACW to be comfortable with the system, just not deeply immersed in the best ways to play and draw out the history.
@@war_gamer Rules As Written really is the best way to play and draw out the history. It's a deceptively simple system that yields remarkable narrative that is historically accurate. With a little imagination, watching a GCACW game unfold on the table is like reading Shelby Foote. Some folks have issues with the Initiative mechanism in the series, but they seem to all fall into the categories of being either control freaks or min-maxers. This is not a game for folks who expect to be able to do exactly what they want with every one of their pieces every turn. It really does remind me of Eisenhower's quote, "Plans are nothing, planning is everything." This game practically epitomizes that. But that's not an enjoyable experience for everyone, so the game can be an acquired taste, unfortunately. I'll second the OP's thoughts on the amount of dice rolling in GCACW. There really isn't a more efficient way to handle initiative determination than RAW. Each side literally rolls a single die, and you're done. I would advise strongly against skipping initiative determination or using some other mechanism, because the design is very much built around the variable initiative determination each activation (to include those dreadfully long runs where one side wins consecutive initiatives). I also wouldn't roll dice for initiative and movement simultaneously. It doesn't save that much time, and knowing what the movement result is can easily affect which unit or leader is chosen to be activated. For example, if you roll 2 dice for initiative and a third die for movement, the player winning the initiative will know exactly how many MP's whichever units he activates will be getting. Which means if a certain unit needs 5 MP's to get into position, but another one only needs 2, the player can choose to activate the closer unit if the movement die is only a 3. It gives the player more control than the system intended. Personally, I've never had an issue with the game bogging down because of dice rolls. Yes, you will roll a lot of them over the course of a big Advanced Scenario (like you are about to play), but it's hardly debilitating or time wasting. Good luck! Very interested to see how things play out. I'll be watching!
