The dice differential is a major innovation given most games on the market. From the video this game has potential, and I can see why one would wax lyrical over the play, and indeed the game components. Needless to say one needs to play the game, minus the advance rules pro tem, to evaluate and appreciate the finer points the game has to offer. All credit to Mark for producing what looks like a must-play game. Great video as always. (I also visit a website from a guy called "Stuka Joe" who also makes informative and interesting videos.)
Always enjoy your videos, Gilbert, and I agree about this game. It's a beauty. That map is stunning, especially the coastal areas, which are incredibly detailed.
Thank you, Gilbert, for this concise, brief but engaging review and intro. I got a copy of this game as a reward for building a Vassal module for someone, but I'm not that much into strategic level **anything**. However, if there is an era where I might be willing to expand my focus "upward", the War Between the States is likely to be it. You've given me reason to perhaps have a closer look at this one. You did a good job of explaining the Cliff Notes of this game. Now, whether it's a "masterpiece".... well, I might just have to see about that...
Thanks Ray. I'm playing two games of it now. A face to face, multi-session game and an online Vassal game. Agreed, one must play this thing to appreciate the 'beauty' of it. There is much that has been ported over from Eric Smith's "Civil War" for which Mark gives all due credit.
I would mighty surprised if any Civil War afficionado didn't like this game. I forgot to mention that many of the rules from the old Victory Games "Civil War" are easily recognizable in this one. I'm pretty sure that this one will go out of print fairly quickly.
This is a terrific simulation of the entire war. Don't be turned off by the numerous questions about it on Consim. The rules are fairly complete and if common sense prevailed there would have been a lot less questions about it.
Whoa! That's a tall order since a lot depends on what historical periods you are interested in. Victory Games does make a lot of very small 'introductory level' game that might be a good starting point if you have never played a war-game before.
Great review, Gilbert - between you and Marco you've just spent all my Christmas money! I'll have to send Mark congrats on this masterpiece! Too bad I couldn't have worked on the map...... ;-) Kidding there, as Mark's a master at such things.
with regard to the cards...just assume that intelligence has revealed "action" in the area specified and make your decisions for both sides with these cards revealed. It actually adds to the fun in my opinion. I am thankful for this beautiful game.
Actually I use that little 'Counter Cutter' available online. But, Nail clippers work just as well. It's just with the clipper I can do about 8 counters at a time compared to one at a time.
+Gilbert Collins I bought this awhile ago from amazon.com. Have rounded literally thousands of counters with it so far. Works great. www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G2G340O?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage
Hello, hangar flying. The trays are obtained from the company GMT who sell them as a separate item. Check out their website. By 'Clipping Counters' I mean cutting the corners off with a nail clipper or a utility knife. Many hard core gamers have been doing that for years. If you cut the right, they look a tad better and are easier to pick up with tweezers or your fingers because the 'burs' at the edge of the square counters don't catch. Which sometimes happens when you don't clip them. You don't have to of course. The game is perfectly serviceable 'as is'.
I have read the book Gods and generals, watched the film Gettysburg and am currently reading the Shelby Foote trilogy of The US civil war, i find this makes me feel i'm there while playing this game.
Yes, I have followed the same 'reading regime' myself and even more. Another great series is Douglas Southall Freemans' "Robert E. Lee'. It's a Pulitzer Prize winning 4 volume set. This game, in my opinion is the best out on the entire conflict.
@@XLEGION1 Thank you, Gilbert, for another superb game review. I owned and played Eric Smith’s “The Civil War” by Victory Games for many years. It was a favorite for me and my former father-in-law. Such a great game. When I recently discovered TUSCW from GMT I immediately recognized much of the gaming system lifted from TCW but was especially impressed with this game as being the logical evolution forward from that classic old title. I decided to retire my well-worn old copy of TCW from my collection and sold it this week on eBay. Yesterday I found a new copy of TUSCW (2nd Printing with 3rd Ed. rules, etc.) on eBay and immediately placed my order. It arrives on October 1st. I am chomping’ at the bit and cannot wait to get it and starting playing it. I will close by noting that I’ve been dormant from gaming for about 20 years, but this will be the game that “activates” me again! I’m really looking forward to setting up the beautiful, fully mounted maps and the large size unit counters. The full color graphics in vivid colors just blow me away. Wargame quality sure has improved in recent years. Games like this are LIGHT YEARS better, (in terms of being physically higher quality of manufacture), than the old AH and SPI titles that I cut my teeth on back in the 1970’s.
I thought so at first Mariano but the 'proof is in the pudding'. This is a fantastic game. Once you start playing it, you don't even notice the change in leadership. Mark didn't want it to be about the commanders and it isn't.
IT IS WRONG TO THROW AWAY THE LEADERS FROM THE GAME,BECAUSE THEY DIED IN HISTORY,WHAT IF STONEWALL JACKSON LIVED AND THE UNION LOST GETTYSBURG BECAUSE JACKSON CAPTURE THE HEIGHTS, STONEWALL JACKSON COULD HAVE AN INPACK ON THE GAME! JACKSON WAS A GREAT LEADER AND ATTACKER! IT'S NOT BEING ABOUT THE COMMANDERS IT'S BEING ABOUT THE GAME,IF THE LEADERS ARE NOT TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME HISTORICALLY THEY WILL HAVE IN THE LONG RUN SOME INPACK IN THE GAME, WHY NOT PLACE A VARIANT IN THE RULES AND UPGRADE THE LEADER CHARTS THAT THE LEADERS COULD STILL PLAY IN THE GAME, [ VARIANT OPTION ] IF PLAYERS WANT TO ,SO PLAYERS COULD HAVE A CHOICE TO PLAY ETHER WAY, THIS WOULD MAKE THE GAME INTERESTING! THE GAME IS NOT ABOUT THE COMMANDERS,BUT DON'T THROW THE COMMANDERS AWAY BECAUSE THEY DIED IN A CERTAIN HISTORICAL YEAR, KEEP PLAYING THE LEADERS UNTILL IF THE BATTLES CAUSES THEIR DEATH IN THE GAME. I HOPE MARK WILL MAKE THIS A VARIANT OPTION IN THE UPDATED RULES, GIVE US A VARIANT TO KEEP THE LEADERS IN THE GAME UNTILL IF THE GAME BATTLES KILL THE LEADERS ,AND THE GAME COULD STILL BE KEPT THE SAME WAY, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HAVE THE VARIANT OPTION IN THE RULES PLEASE SEND MARK THIS POST, LET MARK KNOW THIS VARIANT FOR THE UPDATED RULES THANKS,MARIANO
Yes, I think 'US Civil War' is now at that sweet spot. It is very close in my opinion. Oh, the Union has all the bells and whistles but in order to win they have to have all of their ducks in order and get those initiative pulses. A slow initiative pulse game favours the confederates.
Thanks Joey. Come on over on Consim where we will be starting a 'staff game' of the entire war. I will be taking the Confederates against Fred Finckenbinders Union.
Well, now that I'm trying to get into Civil War games, this will be another one I'll have to add to my collection, because I love all the Mark Simonitch's 194- games. And if Master Collins says it's great, well that's good enough for me. (Now to pay for it I can forget about the ex-wife's birthday later this month and I guess skim some money out of the monthly food allocation...lol)
Good one Charles. This is a very good game. Be aware that the 3rd edition rules and and new set up charts have been posted on the Consim folder. I'm play testing it now myself and it is still the great game that it is. It is going to be reprinted with the 3rd edition rules of course.
@@XLEGION1 was out of gaming for a while got back in... good lord three and a half years I've been retired... So I got some of the Mark's games on p500 that I missed out on, though I couldn't wait and bought a first edition Ukraine 43. Also decided to wait and get 3rd edition Normandy 44. Holland 44 sold me on his games.
I have never played this game before but sounds great. On the GMT site it says for 2 players. For those who have played it, do you think it is a good game for 4 people to play?
I really wish that when they made computer civil war games they would just copy this instead of using lurid graphics and odd shaped polygons instead of hexes.
I have been looking for one for years. The only two that I have that even come close are: "Age of Napoleon" from Phalanx Games and "Napoleon Against Europe" from Hexasim. Both are 'Euro' in general conception. Both are quite nice looking but somehow neither is 100% of what I'm looking for either.
Would love a simulation of the 1861 scenario, using both basic and advanced rules; I stumbled with my first game of it as a union player. any visual assistance as in a video would be helpful.
Hello Gilbert... another strategic game about American Civil War. Not available now in Spain, waiting for the new edition. I think that at first it attracts me more than FTP and more than GCACW and GBACW (I have both of them and the second because of its complicated and the first because of its scale, maybe they don't attract me too much). Decidedly my scale of play has the most operational-strategic level. . . Being different, better FTP or USCW?
Hello peezebuponyou, no the audio is exactly that same as I have always done. Playing back on a Windows 10 machine and an iMac the sound is ok. Wish I could help.
I'm not sure how I would do that, since the BP system is really mathematics and doesn't lend itself to a visual interpretation very well. Doesn't the Play Book have an example?
I like how you organized your counters in the tray and would like to emulate it. Did you organize the leaders based on what turn they arrive? Any chance I can get a close up of the labels on the tray?
Just received my game, as you say the board is a work of art, i am currently reading through the Rule book ready to play the first solo game. I was wondering, what are the numbers for in the yellow boxes on theTurn Record Track, still got to get my head around the Status Track.
The yellow numbers on the turn track are the 'benchmark' figures that determine for the Union how well they are doing in the game. For example if the number is 10, it is a guide to how well you are doing. If you do not have 10 points on that particular turn (at the end of the turn) you are not losing but are beginning to fall behind. If you fall behind by 12 points at the end of a turn the union has lost the game due to 'sudden death' victory conditions. So you will want to monitor those figures carefully. Don't be intimidated by them, but watch them.
I just ordered this game-after watching not more that 3 minutes of your video. Where do you procure your counter tray? Additionally, what do you mean by clipping counters, and what purpose does that serve? Thanks!
Sir my wife's great great great uncle was captured at the Battle of the Wilderness and spend the rest of the war at Danville in prison. He was wounded. Would you recommend a game on the Battle of the Wilderness?
+Sando1975, yes. It's called War & Peace, and it's an Avalon Hill game from 1980. You can take a look at it on VASSAL. Rulebook 4.0 is available as well. IMO it's a beautiful and interesting game with several different scenarios covering the various campaigns as well as a grand campaign game.
In my opinion it can be played solo. You have to be 'fair' and use 'common sense' because you are not supposed to know what your opponents five cards are, but the game plays well solitaire.
To Great North Web: Try "A House Divided." It is truly playable and it is actually a good simulation of the strategic situation, assuming the use of most of its optional rules and some common-sense house rules (like not allowing a single Confederate cavalry unit to take New York or Philadelphia).
Mariano, there is little point in making every sentence of your argument in CAPITAL letters. It is not necessary to SHOUT out your replies. My last word on the subject is this: In the year of discussion that took place before the game was releases, many people, including myself were very wary of the game because the very point that you are SHOUTING OUT. However, upon PLAYING the game, not talking about it I, and the others, have found this to be an excellent simulation of the war. I say this in all fairness, one cannot know anything about this game, or pre-judge it, before actually playing it.
Hello Gilbert.I did not mean to shout,i just was trying to get my point across, i apologize, please don't take offense, much has been written about this on boardgame geek,and there was a very good variant response to fix the problem of leaders casualties from Bill Wood and Tom Willcockson. please see their post under Forums Variants: Leaders Flexibility In Game, please let me know what your feedback is on Bill and Tom's posts on boardgamegeek under FORUMS VARIANTS:LEADERS FLEXIBILITY IN GAME It's a Real Shame and Mistake that the designer making a great game on the Civil War did not add better the leader casualties rules as i have stated. I hope something will be done about this,because the game does not feel right without doing better in flexibility on the leader's casualties, if they add a variant to the rules and charts it would make the game better! Bill. Please see the post's on Boardgame Geek,i would like your feed back on this if you could,again i did not mean to shout just my italian in me to try to get my point across on this important issue, GMT needs to examined again the leader's casualties rule, and let the game's play take it's course to see who gets killed or not killed in battles,no one knows what tomorrow brings,but don't let history rule the game play! To me the proof is not in the pudding until the pudding taste right with the leader's causalities rule corrected, not just throw the leaders away in the game because they were killed in battle, in history! I hope the GMT Civil War game designer's sees this! Gilbert,All in All thanks for agreeing with my point of view Gilbert,thank you,if you could let then know at GMT this would make for even a better game! let me know, thanks,Mariano
Even before the game came out this was a controversial matter. I wasn't in favour of it either. But now that I have played the game for several years now, it is no big deal at all and I don't even think twice about it.
Personally, I like the US Civil War better than For the People. The latter game is 'to open' in my opinion the way the cards work. I would have liked it better to have more control over the card deck. Maybe an 1861-1862 Deck and so on. It isn't realistic to have events like "Draft Riots in New York" when there was no draft in 1861. Or "Red River Campaigns" in the first year of the war. Just wouldn't have happened. It's a fine GAME but to open as 'history'.
Gilbert Collins - Thanks for the reply. I’m 68 and American Civil War has long been my favorite game. I’ve not played much in recent years but getting back to it. I saw this had been redone and my heart kept! I have never used Vassal but it might be time to do so. Best wishes and stay healthy.
Whoa! You couldn't have played the game out to the end then. It is at least a 20 hour game. As for luck....you must be kidding. Of course there is some luck but it is the more skillful player who will very likely win.
Wow! That has got to be one of the more illogical statements that I have ever heard concerning this game. Any game with dice has an element of chance in it. This game is no different. But to say that it is all determined by luck is completely a false statement.
Illogical? Hardly. Its just my opinion. I prefer games that are not dice heavy and card heavy. But I still enjoy your videos Gilbert, its nothing personal.
