$10.00
Recommend
15 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2  | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: ACW noob looking for advice - GCACW or RSS? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
G. Harding Warren
United States
Arnold
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
pepe le moko wrote:
At the end of the day it depends whether you want the operational or the tactical treatment. Personally I find all the maneuvering more interesting because most battles of the ACW (at least for the first half of the war, I am only on the second volume of Foote's trilogy) strike me as not very decisive and it feels like often the side which attacks, or attacks first, ends up losing. On the operational scale though, it all seems very fluid with plenty of marches counter marches, wide flanking movements and attempts to put the enemy out of position. But for someone not too familiar with this conflict, the battles themselves appear heavily skewed in favour of the defender which is maybe not the most thrilling situation to have a game on.



That's interesting you say that. In the Designer's Notes for Stonewall Jackson's Way, Joe Balkowski indicates that thoughts like that were the genesis for his GCACW series.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
olivier R
France
flag msg tools
Heh I haven't got SJW but I am awaiting the reprint, this spring perhaps?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G. Harding Warren
United States
Arnold
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
pepe le moko wrote:
Heh I haven't got SJW but I am awaiting the reprint, this spring perhaps?


Perhaps, indeed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Hoffman
United States
Ashburn
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
UHB1 wrote:
pepe le moko wrote:
At the end of the day it depends whether you want the operational or the tactical treatment. Personally I find all the maneuvering more interesting because most battles of the ACW (at least for the first half of the war, I am only on the second volume of Foote's trilogy) strike me as not very decisive and it feels like often the side which attacks, or attacks first, ends up losing. On the operational scale though, it all seems very fluid with plenty of marches counter marches, wide flanking movements and attempts to put the enemy out of position. But for someone not too familiar with this conflict, the battles themselves appear heavily skewed in favour of the defender which is maybe not the most thrilling situation to have a game on.



That's interesting you say that. In the Designer's Notes for Stonewall Jackson's Way, Joe Balkowski indicates that thoughts like that were the genesis for his GCACW series.


I agree. I tried South Mountain and it just didn't hold my attention [OK that and the fact that the LOS rules gave me a splitting headache]. The GCACW games being so very much more about maneuver than combat just seemed to hold my attention *and* kept the game tense throughout--even in games where I had no hope of winning [like every game in the GCACW tourney I played soblue ].

(Next time you're wandering F:AT, ask GarySax about my managing to race ahead of him and cut-off his supply train in one of our Battle Above the Clouds games--just wait through the string of expletives that will likely follow. He ended up smoking me in several others, but the "race to the pass" was one of the most entertaining scenarios of played of any in the series.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomas Syrovatka
Czech Republic
Beroun
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wargames » Forums » General
Re: ACW noob looking for advice - GCACW or RSS?
dogmatix wrote:
UHB1 wrote:
pepe le moko wrote:
At the end of the day it depends whether you want the operational or the tactical treatment. Personally I find all the maneuvering more interesting because most battles of the ACW (at least for the first half of the war, I am only on the second volume of Foote's trilogy) strike me as not very decisive and it feels like often the side which attacks, or attacks first, ends up losing. On the operational scale though, it all seems very fluid with plenty of marches counter marches, wide flanking movements and attempts to put the enemy out of position. But for someone not too familiar with this conflict, the battles themselves appear heavily skewed in favour of the defender which is maybe not the most thrilling situation to have a game on.



That's interesting you say that. In the Designer's Notes for Stonewall Jackson's Way, Joe Balkowski indicates that thoughts like that were the genesis for his GCACW series.


I agree. I tried South Mountain and it just didn't hold my attention [OK that and the fact that the LOS rules gave me a splitting headache]. The GCACW games being so very much more about maneuver than combat just seemed to hold my attention *and* kept the game tense throughout--even in games where I had no hope of winning [like every game in the GCACW tourney I played soblue ].

(Next time you're wandering F:AT, ask GarySax about my managing to race ahead of him and cut-off his supply train in one of our Battle Above the Clouds games--just wait through the string of expletives that will likely follow. He ended up smoking me in several others, but the "race to the pass" was one of the most entertaining scenarios of played of any in the series.)


Hehe, that sound fun. I read Gary's review of BAtC and it sure catched my attention. The comment about lots of maneuvering is interesting, sounds like it would be quite a difference compared to the mostly static fronts in Kiev to Rostov. I will probably grab both BAtC and None But Heroes to get a feel of both systems. If I don't like it, I can always frame those maps and hang them in our wargame room as a decoration Thank you for your post Justin!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2  | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.