Recommend
12 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

The Guns of Gettysburg» Forums » General

Subject: I hope once this beauty is published, he makes an Antietam sequel rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brad Mysterio
United States
Culver City
California
flag msg tools
I'd really like to see the Napoleon's Triumph design applied to more civil war battles, and Antietam seems perfect (even better than Gettysburg) because it wound't have required as many changes due to only really being one day.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
The Freedom Rider - Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
badge
The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil - George Saunders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LainfordExpress wrote:
I'd really like to see the Napoleon's Triumph design applied to more civil war battles, and Antietam seems perfect (even better than Gettysburg) because it wound't have required as many changes due to only really being one day.

The Guns of Gettysburg design is new from the ground up. It isn't based on Napoleon's Triumph.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In a similar vein, there is this effort via Cyberboard:
Baptism at Bull Run

I helped play test it and it was pretty good. It has its own unique rules but uses pieces and features inspired by BaM and NT.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Heberer
United States
Lake Stevens
WA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I did a little review on Baptism. I am not a historian, I am a gamer. But, I really like wargames, especially ones that teach me about the time period that it's gaming in. But the main point of it is a game that both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning.

As printed, I don't think the victory conditions for BaBR are very favorable to the union side. It'll probably come out in the bid, but I think the bids should be in the range of like 3 or 4 morale given up to play the confederate side.

If you do that, I think BaBR is a really good game that needs more exposure. If it was kick started, I would certainly buy it if it was any reasonable price.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
The Freedom Rider - Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
badge
The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil - George Saunders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out to lunch wrote:
His next project is about the East front campaign anyway.

The project after Guns of Gettysburg is actually the second edition of Bonaparte at Marengo. I don't know anything about the East front game beyond what's in the blog, but both GoG and BaM2 are more less finished in terms of development, ready for production. I'm hoping they'll both be available before too much longer.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Harrison
United States
Fisher
Illinois
flag msg tools
So long ...
badge
... and thanks for all the fish.
Avatar
mb
As Sphere pointed out, BaM2 is already essentially done.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
The Freedom Rider - Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers
badge
The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil - George Saunders
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out to lunch wrote:
Right. Stavka is the one due after GoG and BaM though it' probably in its very early stage of development.

Stavka is the working title, but I have it pegged mentally as Kuhrusty's Dream.


HarryFlashmanKBE wrote:
I'd be far more willing to fork out for Stavka or GoG, than I would for BaM2. I suspect Mr Simmons is a perfectionist. Also I believe he is unwell, so whatever we can get would be great.

Mr. Simmons is absolutely a perfectionist, as evidenced each time he releases a new title. Re-doing BaM wouldn't have been my first choice, either, but Mr. Simmons is also an artist who follows his own muse. Personally, I'm happy to go along for the ride, and hope only that we'll see a great many more games from him in the coming years.

(BTW, while I greatly enjoyed BaM, BaM2 is a better game.)
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Prizzi
United States
West Newton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
i7dealer wrote:
I did a little review on Baptism. I am not a historian, I am a gamer. But, I really like wargames, especially ones that teach me about the time period that it's gaming in. But the main point of it is a game that both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning.

As printed, I don't think the victory conditions for BaBR are very favorable to the union side. It'll probably come out in the bid, but I think the bids should be in the range of like 3 or 4 morale given up to play the confederate side.

If you do that, I think BaBR is a really good game that needs more exposure. If it was kick started, I would certainly buy it if it was any reasonable price.


I agree that one of the great things about boardgames (and wargames as a subset) is that they can help the players learn about history. I'd disagree that having a game where both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning always or usually goes along with that.

In reality one side often has a more favorable position. "Balancing" the game by presenting "victory" merely as doing better than the weaker side did historically, distorts the campaign. It steers players towards more conservative decisions than their historical counterparts often made. For two examples consider the CSA in the War Between the States or Japan in WWII. Both powers, knew that the deck was in many ways stacked against them which led to the taking of greater risks in order to overcome the long odds. In a game where the Confederate player "wins" if he hold on to June 1865 or the Japanese to January 1946, even though they are ready to collapse at that point is in reality silly. It didn't make much difference to those powers whether they were defeated now or 3 months from now. They weren't try to lose in a slightly less "loserish" way.....they were trying to win.

Pax
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
San Clemente
California
flag msg tools
Here the truceless armies yet / Trample, rolled in blood and sweat; / They kill and kill and never die; / And I think that each is I. // None will part us, none undo / The knot that makes one flesh of two, /
badge
Sick with hatred, sick with pain, / Strangling -- When shall we be slain? // When shall I be dead and rid / Of the wrong my father did? / How long, how long, till spade and hearse / Puts to sleep my mother's curse?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sphere wrote:
HarryFlashmanKBE wrote:
I'd be far more willing to fork out for Stavka or GoG, than I would for BaM2. I suspect Mr Simmons is a perfectionist. Also I believe he is unwell, so whatever we can get would be great.

Mr. Simmons is absolutely a perfectionist, as evidenced each time he releases a new title. Re-doing BaM wouldn't have been my first choice, either, but Mr. Simmons is also an artist who follows his own muse. Personally, I'm happy to go along for the ride, and hope only that we'll see a great many more games from him in the coming years.

(BTW, while I greatly enjoyed BaM, BaM2 is a better game.)


Sphere is right, as usual. One thing Bowen said was that he would not reprint Marengo unless he could add significant improvements to it, and the fact that he can agree to publish a 2nd edition of Marengo means that not only will a superb and innovative game be improved, but also that anyone who missed it the first time around can now buy and play this great game!

(_Bonaparte at Marengo_ was Bowen's first game from his then new company, it had a relatively small print run; popularity and demand always being difficult to guage, and often fatal if you guess wrong ...)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan
United States
Baltimore
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know whether or not "George Orwell was an optimist" but it appears that there are sufficient optimists at BGG. I mean," Subject: I hope once this beauty is published, he makes an Antietam sequel." and we haven't heard anything about GoG for a year.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prizziap wrote:
i7dealer wrote:
I did a little review on Baptism. I am not a historian, I am a gamer. But, I really like wargames, especially ones that teach me about the time period that it's gaming in. But the main point of it is a game that both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning.

As printed, I don't think the victory conditions for BaBR are very favorable to the union side. It'll probably come out in the bid, but I think the bids should be in the range of like 3 or 4 morale given up to play the confederate side.

If you do that, I think BaBR is a really good game that needs more exposure. If it was kick started, I would certainly buy it if it was any reasonable price.


I agree that one of the great things about boardgames (and wargames as a subset) is that they can help the players learn about history. I'd disagree that having a game where both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning always or usually goes along with that.

In reality one side often has a more favorable position. "Balancing" the game by presenting "victory" merely as doing better than the weaker side did historically, distorts the campaign. It steers players towards more conservative decisions than their historical counterparts often made. For two examples consider the CSA in the War Between the States or Japan in WWII. Both powers, knew that the deck was in many ways stacked against them which led to the taking of greater risks in order to overcome the long odds. In a game where the Confederate player "wins" if he hold on to June 1865 or the Japanese to January 1946, even though they are ready to collapse at that point is in reality silly. It didn't make much difference to those powers whether they were defeated now or 3 months from now. They weren't try to lose in a slightly less "loserish" way.....they were trying to win.

Pax


I agree with everything you said, except that I believe having victory conditions that require each side to last longer than they did historically is a perfectly fine victory system in most cases. Of course, the way the game is designed can make a difference. The reason I don't have much problem with it is that the historical sides WERE trying to last as long as they could - they were trying to win - to last "forever" and vanquish their foe(s). So if they did everything they could, they essentially "played the best game" they could, and they got to "X". If a player can beat "X", then that seems like a good goal.

When I say all this, I'm thinking of games/systems like Musket and Pike (victory margins set at historical levels, you need a better margin than history to win) and For the People (you need to last longer than the CSA did historically, or the USA has to end the war sooner) and Empire of the Sun (last longer than Japan did historically). I've never played War Between the States, which might have an unpalatable victory condition - a lot depends on how the game is designed.

But I do like the idea that I can "lose" the war, which in many cases is historical, but still "win" the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Heberer
United States
Lake Stevens
WA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prizziap wrote:
i7dealer wrote:
I did a little review on Baptism. I am not a historian, I am a gamer. But, I really like wargames, especially ones that teach me about the time period that it's gaming in. But the main point of it is a game that both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning.

As printed, I don't think the victory conditions for BaBR are very favorable to the union side. It'll probably come out in the bid, but I think the bids should be in the range of like 3 or 4 morale given up to play the confederate side.

If you do that, I think BaBR is a really good game that needs more exposure. If it was kick started, I would certainly buy it if it was any reasonable price.


I agree that one of the great things about boardgames (and wargames as a subset) is that they can help the players learn about history. I'd disagree that having a game where both sides have roughly an equal chance in winning always or usually goes along with that.

In reality one side often has a more favorable position. "Balancing" the game by presenting "victory" merely as doing better than the weaker side did historically, distorts the campaign. It steers players towards more conservative decisions than their historical counterparts often made. For two examples consider the CSA in the War Between the States or Japan in WWII. Both powers, knew that the deck was in many ways stacked against them which led to the taking of greater risks in order to overcome the long odds. In a game where the Confederate player "wins" if he hold on to June 1865 or the Japanese to January 1946, even though they are ready to collapse at that point is in reality silly. It didn't make much difference to those powers whether they were defeated now or 3 months from now. They weren't try to lose in a slightly less "loserish" way.....they were trying to win.

Pax


I guess I should have subscribed to this thread, I didn't see the reply until now. I wasn't thinking so much about the hold out longer than historically goals but other things I've seen to balance it out. Like I said, I'm a gamer first and foremost and if it's not a game but rather a simulation or recreation in cardboard I'm not too interested.

I agree that minor victory conditions can be problematic and make people behave in an unhistorical fashion. I had a friend recount a game of Age of Napoleon where the French player decided his best chance was to not attack anyone and wait for the minor victory condition to occur. This didn't sound too fun, so maybe the victory conditions need to be tweaked.

But if you look at games like No Retreat where the performance of the germans in the first half sets a high water mark the russians have to beat when they go on the offensive, you can see there's other things to do then what I consider the lazy victory. Laziest thing I've ever seen from a game designer is to not even try and balance anything and suggest that the game should be played in pairs. I hate that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Prizzi
United States
West Newton
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
Fair points. One thing I saw recently while reading the rules for The Russian Campaign was the victory conditions: German player wins by conquering Soviet Union. Soviet Player wins by conquering Germany. Anything else by the time limit is a draw. That makes more sense to me than a "minor victory" for losing slightly slower than a side did in history.

Games are games and I agree that the tendency towards "simulation" has done a great deal of harm to the hobby. More details and more rules don't necessarily make for a more accurate simulation. If you want to simulate a war go out to the woods, dig a hole, sleep in it, get rained on, and have someone occasionaly shoot at you.

The obsession with "balance" is also something I disagree with. Obviously, one side shouldn't win automaticall, but I don't see anything wrong with one side in a game being more challenging to play than another. Victories with that side will mean more to the players.

Of course, different people look for different things in games...

Pax
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Heberer
United States
Lake Stevens
WA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yeah, I'm actually ok with something like 60-40 chance to win, or maybe even 30-70, it does make it sweeter when you win with the deck stacked against you.

But, If I feel like it's worse than 30-70 I would probably play for the draw and call it a win in my head.

I really like it when a game's mechanics guide me to do things that are realistic for the period, or show me that a unit is good at one thing but bad at another. The first time I played BaM I saw as the line stretched out while we tried to get the flank of another person and then when the assault began in the middle to punch through by sheer attrition I felt like I was learning about the tactics of the time. And I didn't particularly want to get someone's flanks, it just fell out naturally.

Or the way a cavalry unit is very good at screening against a single force in the family of games, that is interesting too.

But if I didn't feel both sides had a chance it doesn't matter how interesting it is, that's not what my goal for gaming is. As you say, different people want different things from their games. I can respect that, and I want to make that statement up front when I make a criticism of game play of something (like I did with BaBR)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.