The Far West option makes all the difference to decide a close game. This game is quite well balanced and the FWO is a great addition to the campaign game

I do not understand your problem, There are a lot of Counters, but they are all clearly marked, I never had any trouble setting it up, it was, and still is one of my favourite war games, it truly represents the struggle for Italy, I just wish I could find someone willing to play it theses days, such is life.

Clipping counters this way should be punishable!

I have purchased this game from Compass and will be playing it. Light for sure, but seems to have quite a following. I bought the strategy article off of war-game vault and it is 75 pages long! Anyway, a nice overview. By the way, over at My Own Worst Enemy You Tube channel , he is doing a play through of Mr. Madison's War which I have sitting on my shelf.

My friend and I have been playing "The Civil War - 1861-1865" for years now. We use the same fan made markers. We had to because years back those greasy markers were too tasty for some mice. We use disks for the armies as well. It may take us a while to finish one of our games but we certainly love hearing the call of "Pulse!". We have been using the 3rd edition rules with no extra leaders. We use the main map. We have always played with revealed leaders. We might even openly compare leaders during the turn. I'm sure it changes the strategy but it has worked well for us. If I recall, we are starting game-turn 10 and I have Grant about to upgrade to a 4-star!!! Great game!

8:24: The symbol on the top right corner of the reverse side of the counter is color coded to identify its corps so that you don't have to turn it over.

Also btw, I read a few pages from different books each night one of which you suggested: “The War for America 1775-1783” by Piers Mackey.

take good care of yourself sir we enjoy your shows and games😄

I am really impressed with the quality of your graphics for what is a basic working rough draft of your game. Do you have the ability to print your maps and counters on your own pc, or did you go to a graphics shop for this work? The game has a better look to it than a lot of the finished products I've seen over the years.

I like the feel of this game. You might consider tuning the combat tables... you had a lot of "no results" for both sides, sometimes for two or three rounds of battle in a row... Not that the battles should be exceptionally bloody or anything, but you just end up rolling repeatedly to get where you end up in the end. Also, I may have missed it, but what kind of supply rules are there?

I appreciate your efforts; the period is difficult to illustrate. "A Few Acres of Snow". shows a brilliant, if abstract, feel for the period with seiges, sea power, and Indian raids. This would make a fine block game. You dislike chit pulls- ("Battle Hymn," video). Rather than a battle board, tactical cards as in "1776," seems it might have more flavor. Morale? Militia and the savages were unknown factors in combat. Garrisons? Why as in "Mr. Madison's War," just give them an automatic strength? No Rogers' Rangers? Bon chance. As previously stated, difficult to simulate and difficult to please gamers.

Love your videos

The game looks great, Gilbert! The publisher is going to have a hard time improving your component's physical and graphic quality, too! Cheers!

Gilbert - I'm sold! Have enjoyed playing both your other games. This seems like the best one yet! I'll need the movie score to "Last of the Mohicans" when I play this-). Interestingly, I own Wilderness War and Bayonets and Tomahawks. Both have some interesting elements, but not enough history IMO. Yours I like because it includes notable locations (William/Henry, Ft. Edward). You have a knack for creating games with good balances between playability and historicity. Any timeline on this one? Keep em coming, my friend!

Just finished the videos of this game being played out. The flow and result is pretty close to the first time I played 1754: Conquest (Academy Ganes) as the French player. Full bore petal to the metal and then hang on for the inevitable Brtitish riposte. Good stuff here. Seems a bit faster to play then 1754 and certainly feels more historic with named units, rather than abstract cubes. Both have their place. But this is much closed to my heart. Good job and keep at it!

Ok, I haven't completely thought this out.. but to get the idea on the thought board. I'm ok with moves not being certain (requiring a die roll). But allowing leaders to to choose to move, roll, then the next leader to repeat the process, etc .. I do have a problem with that. Essentially leaders get to wait to see how the others have fared. I would suggest having arrow markers to mark the final spot a leader plans to move to. A player declares all leader moves before rolling the "successful die roll". Or some such. Maybe and advanced rule, but I would do something like this from the first game.

Question.. yes it is a game. Got that. With regards to the number of land and sea actions... what exactly is being modeled? It appears just to be random, which is not a good thing without some explamation why one side gets 1 or 6 turns (or anytning in between). Some thing or things in history must be accounting for the possicle variabilities. Attitudes of the french and english courts? weather? economy? Let's say it's just those 3 factors that we make as key deciders based on historical notes. at the start of the game, each side is at 3 actions, Roll a die for each factor (political support, weather, economy) - 1-2 one less action, 3-4 no change, 5-6 one more action. this also mitigates a single die from giving a radical result (1/6 really bad) across multiple dice, making it harder to get super bad or good actioms, as well as not moving so radically from one end of the track to the other. It also allows players to resonably plan ahead - if they have 4 action this turn, they know they will likely have 3-5 actions next time. may be throw in a +1 bonus of they do well in the previous turn if thet started with less than 3 actions (morale pick up). Really looking forward to this game.

From this play test, I have already determined that I'm going to re-work the Action Point system. At present the 'dice system' has variables that are much too large. I was thinking of doing 'cards' instead but I have now decided to utilize a 'chit pull' system that allows me to control the wide swings in luck much better.

For playtest components, Gilbert, those look pretty darn good.

Why are you calling the Indian forces Coureurs de Bois? Certainly, they were woods runners, but the term was used to address the private French-Canadians who were trading with the Indians, not the Indians themselves. Also, I know almost nothing about the French and Indian War. However, my Impression was that the lack of French support was due to its activities on the continent, not the British fleet. Is that mistaken? Great and admirable effort by you.

I am really enjoying watching you play your game. Congratulations! I hope to make one myself one day. When is it available for purchase and where will we be able to buy it?

Man I've been eyeing this one. I gotta say seeing it played really takes a lot of the out of the box rule reading away. Thank you for the play through!

The First Nation / Native American talk is abit tedious and takes away from this clip - they are still Indians

Nice video! Thanks! Trip down memory lane… 😎

The tally stick is to keep track of the modifiers which are plenty!

I like you never fully understood the naval combat aspect. I had acquired this game in the late 80''s when I was 17. Can someone provide a list of rules clarifying the naval combat? Thanks

Great video. Thank you

Why are the Italians brown and the Austrians green? Who's idea was that? I mean, sure, I can understand why the Russians are red, even though green would make more sense and the Austrians could have been red, but the most obvious choice would have been to make the Austrians brown/orange/yellow, the Russians green, and the Ottomans red.

The original Axis & Allies was my first 'wargame.' Had a ton of fun with it back in the day, great memories of coming home from school to play.

if your short Russian battleships, I would think you are supposed to use the poker chips. I don't think the chips are meant to be infantry only

The global version looks cool ,,, have trouble getting in England,,,,, can get cards for this,,,, lots of diplomatic options,,,,, s&t Goeben!!!!!! 🌊🤺

Thanks, I for one have not played any Axis & Allies game either, despite being in my 40s now (so missing the 1st wave of wargaming and only getting to the genre)...

Welcome to Axis and Allies. I bought this one back in 2013 and have had some very bloody, but fun games. This version of Axis and Allies is the only one that has opposing powers present in the same land zones and only one round of combat per turn which really gives the game a grindy trench warfare WW1 feel. The multiple powers being present in the same land territories will create a tight fit on the board, especially on the Western Front. ( A & A D Day also has only one round of combat per player turn). In almost every other version of Axis and Allies, there can be multiple rounds of combat which lead to faster breakthrough and movement. Overall, this is a flawed, but still fun game. The Entente have great strength in their ability to swing sizable forces quickly by sea. The Central Powers great strength is, well, their central location on the map and shorter interior lines. Beware that Italy and America's turns will be shorter and usually less consequential compared to the other powers. If you do end up enjoying this game, I would highly recommend researching A & A Europe and Pacific 1940, AKA Global 1940. It's just amazing looking on the table and filled with interesting choices and possibilities. Also D Day is quite good for a shorter Axis and Allies experience. My buddy and I can finish a game of D Day in 3 hours or less. I just got the new North Africa game and it's also very interesting in my opinion. It's more complex while still being a simple game to play. It's just the choices in what to build and where to attack and with how much along with some new A & A rules that adds to the complexity. North Africa also factors in supply, in addition to managing your armed forces. It's very new, but I like it a lot so far.

Combat in World War II games is different and adds more options with weapon combinations that give benefits. There are also more unit types.

I would recommend playing Globa 40 of this series (WWII). It is a light game, but the sheer amount of decisions you can make and the breadth of the game makes it more complicated by the game itself and the above, not by the rules themselves, and that is the best thing about this series for me. I replaced the miniatures with wooden blocks with custom stickers. This allowed me to put more chrome in the game and even introduce some new units and rules.

Must say your voice is soothing in these crazy times. Thanks, don't buy many of the games. but appreciate your POV and gaming experience. Any chance of a review of Red Dust Rebellion?

Too tactical, too many pieces; it resembles Risk on LSD.

Wow, not a game I thought you would cover considering that it's nowhere near historical. Love your vids but this is way out there.

ty

I have several copies of the L2 version.

War at Sea, WaSII and Grand Fleet fan looking forward to the Kaiser's HSF being available.

The issue I have with the game is hits are too severe. A 1D6 roll of a 6 means another roll for damage; a 5 or a 6 result will sink a "4" damage battleship; so a 1/3rd chance one hit will sink a battleship. If it's opponent was a 4 gun strength BB; it gets 4 chances to roll a 6 and then a 5 or 6 damage. I tried a 4 RN BB's vs 4 Italian BBs; 1/2 the battleships were sunk in one round. Think will try a house rule that a roll of 6 means one damage point hit.

The reason the Italians place first is because after the RN deploys the Italians have the option to withdraw. and avoid combat. However if the RN force includes the Admiral in the game, then there is a 1D6 roll. A 1-3 means the Italians have to stay and engage, while a 4-6 means they can withdraw.

Congratulations, Gilbert. I'm definitely picking this up when it hits the U.K. It is planned that my own design, The Troubles, is scheduled for a 2025 release. Take care.

I still have an unpunched copy of War at Sea, for some reason. I'm sure it'll end up at a garage sale somewhere.

Hi Gilbert, a possible solution is to shop a big classic drawing board, open it in two and put it on your table: then you have enough surface to set the three maps. Or you put a plexiglass rectangle 180x140 cm on your table. Or a wooden board. I'm surprised you do not have the begginer scenario "Herr's ridge" in your battle book. It describes the arriving CSA troops fighting US Buford two cavalry brigades. A very good learning experience. And C3i, GMT Games print magazine, published a very long time ago one or two other one map scneario as far as I can remember. I hope you won't give up, Gettysburg is a super wargame. Enjoy.

Gilbert, I have a copy of the L2 edition. I really does exist. There are pictures of this edition on BBG. Look at War at Sea third edition. I can send you pictures if you are interested.

Have you played the Clash of Arms version of V-burg (Mississippi Fortress)? If so, how do they compare?

I have the ah game. it's kinda messed up though.

Wellington was 46 at Waterloo. George Arliss was 66 when he played The Iron Duke (but he had good makeup and lighting, which the original Wellington lacked in 1815).