GMT U.S. Civil War

bboyer66 · February 12, 2016, 11:17:48 AM

Love the look and almost everything about the new Strategic Civil War offering from GMT.

However the way leaders are handled seriously bothers me. Especially compared to the great Civil War by Victory Games. Leaders are promoted and removed (killed or removed as happened historically) based on strict turn schedule. None of the randomness of the leader being killed in battle or having to use influence to promote or demote them. It just happens. This obviously could lead you to developing strategy based on being able to see the future and leads to very "Gamey" situations.

Also the great leaders like Lee only have say a +2 die roll modifier over say Hooker who has a +1. Not nearly enough to show how much of a better General he was. In the Victory Games version there was even whole re-rolls for commanders with a good Army command rating.

The Leader ratings are also very questionable. Burnsides at the 2 star general level, has the same attack and defense rating as say Hancock.

Anyways, the way that leaders is handled has really kind of turned me off from the game that I was so initially excited about. What are your guys feelings on this?

GJK · February 12, 2016, 05:21:14 PM

I have both games but haven't yet delved into the GMT offering as of yet. I have followed the discussions about it on CSW however and I express the same concerns that you do. Probably the coolest thing in the VG's version was the leader system that almost had a roleplaying effect added with them. I wonder if that system could somehow be incorporated into the GMT game without too much difficulty (maybe some homemade counters at most?). I'm certainly going to try GMT's version with RAW and see what I think but I suspect that I may borrow some things from the VG's version to suit my tastes. Have you thought of trying this?

bayonetbrant · February 12, 2016, 05:26:48 PM

I know a lot of people love the GMT game, but ACW isn't my schtick so I have no firsthand knowledge

Ubercat · February 12, 2016, 10:36:11 PM

I also hate the leader scripting in USCW. Just yesterday I finished my first game, losing as the South in Spring of '64, so I feel that I have a right to criticize. Before actually playing a game to completion I hesitated to give my reservations much weight, but that's all over now.

One of the reasons given for scripting was that random leader placement and unpredictable deaths were open to gaming by the players. I would argue that scripted leader entries and exits are every bit as exploitable as the alternative. With so many games to learn and play, I've decided not to tackle USCW again unless/until someone makes some optional rules to increase leader variability in the game. :'( I was pretty turned off by the impossibility of having better than a middling skilled general in the western theater without the prohibitive difficulty of sending Lee out there. You can't transfer 3 star generals in the game unless it's scripted. ::)

bboyer66 · February 12, 2016, 11:00:02 PM

Quote from: GJK on February 12, 2016, 05:21:14 PM
I have both games but haven't yet delved into the GMT offering as of yet. I have followed the discussions about it on CSW however and I express the same concerns that you do. Probably the coolest thing in the VG's version was the leader system that almost had a roleplaying effect added with them. I wonder if that system could somehow be incorporated into the GMT game without too much difficulty (maybe some homemade counters at most?). I'm certainly going to try GMT's version with RAW and see what I think but I suspect that I may borrow some things from the VG's version to suit my tastes. Have you thought of trying this?

I have thought of trying ....... well at least waiting for someone to do it for me ;)

bboyer66 · February 12, 2016, 11:04:58 PM

Quote from: Ubercat on February 12, 2016, 10:36:11 PM
I also hate the leader scripting in USCW. Just yesterday I finished my first game, losing as the South in Spring of '64, so I feel that I have a right to criticize. Before actually playing a game to completion I hesitated to give my reservations much weight, but that's all over now.

One of the reasons given for scripting was that random leader placement and unpredictable deaths were open to gaming by the players. I would argue that scripted leader entries and exits are every bit as exploitable as the alternative. With so many games to learn and play, I've decided not to tackle USCW again unless/until someone makes some optional rules to increase leader variability in the game. :'( I was pretty turned off by the impossibility of having better than a middling skilled general in the western theater without the prohibitive difficulty of sending Lee out there. You can't transfer 3 star generals in the game unless it's scripted. ::)

Thanks for confirming my fears ;P I'm going to keep this on the shelf for a while it appears.

Toonces · February 13, 2016, 10:01:19 AM

Having scripted entry/exit sure seems like a questionable design decision. I wonder why they didn't make an optional rule to use a VG-like system?

I was reading a review of a Civil War game (For the People) the other day, and one thing Civil War geeks are serious about is their leader ratings.

bayonetbrant · February 13, 2016, 10:29:56 AM

Quote from: Toonces on February 13, 2016, 10:01:19 AMand one thing Civil War geeks are serious about is their leader ratings.

uh, yeah - the most over-studied war in the history of wars attracts a lot of fanatics

GJK · February 13, 2016, 11:24:49 AM

Space wars and dungeon and dragons games are the most over-studied topics on this forum but I digress....

The ACW was mostly about the personalities. Napoleonic tactics carried forward despite the evolution of the weaponry meant a likely massacre en masse with the old "tried and true". Aside from the fact that it was an unprecedented circumstance in American history was the personalities of the conflict. To not persecute that and exploit it is a short coming of opportunity and availability....that is what makes gaming the ACW a treat. Thus, I'll have to evaluate this title with scrutiny once I do get the chance to play it and I'm speculating; but I'm guessing that the VG's treatment of it will be the one that I go back to.

Nefaro · February 13, 2016, 12:57:22 PM

Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 13, 2016, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: Toonces on February 13, 2016, 10:01:19 AMand one thing Civil War geeks are serious about is their leader ratings.

uh, yeah - the most over-studied war in the history of wars attracts a lot of fanatics

Yes, WW2 certainly does have singular devotees.

W8taminute · February 13, 2016, 07:11:35 PM

I'm still in the process of reading the rules having picked up the game a few weeks ago. Looking forward to playing this game.

Scripted leaders however does not bother me. It would ruin the experience if say in a game I was playing that Andrew Jackson was still alive in 1864. Ahistorical things always turn me off and for me that trumps game play variability any day. My OCD sickness, which I'm quite proud of, is to play the same thing over and over and over again and making sure everything happens as close to it did in real life. IOW I revel in repeating history as close to how it really happened over and over again.

Pinetree · February 14, 2016, 02:35:51 AM

Quote from: GJK on February 13, 2016, 11:24:49 AM
Space wars and dungeon and dragons games are the most over-studied topics on this forum but I digress...

...and here I thought it was boobs...

besilarius · February 14, 2016, 10:12:43 AM

+1

bboyer66 · February 14, 2016, 12:24:14 PM

Quote from: W8taminute on February 13, 2016, 07:11:35 PM
I'm still in the process of reading the rules having picked up the game a few weeks ago. Looking forward to playing this game.

Scripted leaders however does not bother me. It would ruin the experience if say in a game I was playing that Andrew Jackson was still alive in 1864. Ahistorical things always turn me off and for me that trumps game play variability any day. My OCD sickness, which I'm quite proud of, is to play the same thing over and over and over again and making sure everything happens as close to it did in real life. IOW I revel in repeating history as close to how it really happened over and over again.

No one is looking for stuff like AJ being alive in 64. We are looking for stuff like being able to have generals in different theaters than historically. Or the possibility of them being being killed or wounded in combat. Stuff like that. Not just out of the blue, the leaders disappear or appear, and you know beforehand when it will happen. Sets up situations where say instead of attacking with Grant this turn, I wait till next turn when I know he will be promoted and have better stats.