4. The U.S. Civil War - Report on 1863-1864 operations [GMT Games, 2021]

[@oriole21bird]

I've been binging through your GMT US Civil War videos and I just wanted to say that I think they are really well done and informative. Thanks for posting them!

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Thanks! Just be aware there were some rules errors on the early turns in this playthrough, as it was my first attempt.

[@x666x34b]

Still trying to learn the game and enjoyed the commentary, but the city of Decatur is pronounced De *kate* ur. Hoping you continue this excellent series, with maybe more emphasis on possible Union employment of amphibious strategies.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Yeah, thanks for noting; someone else pointed that out earlier [and I caught it in a documentary I watched yesterday]. Let me know if you catch any others that I mess up.

[@elroo7313]

Were did you get those blue arrow indicators from, they look great?

[@WiseGuyHistory]

I just 3D printed them, only took a few minutes.

[@elroo7313]

@@WiseGuyHistory Thanks mate much appreciated.

[@iamspamus8784]

is there not a way to convert states? At least to neutral?

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Only the three border states; they can swap sides based on control of ALL resource/VP sites.

[@przemekbozek]

Looks like the game really was an uphill battle for the Union. Do you feel the game is balanced seeing Confederate auto-victory? Any ideas on how prevent some issues, e.g. would Union have enough troops to leave some small garrisons behind to clear those pesky raiders? How about a more focused naval strategy for the Union with more ports captured (I've not noticed a lot on this side).

[@WiseGuyHistory]

This was my first campaign, and I made a lot of rookie errors. I think the Union had a fair chance of victory, but didn't protect their supply lines. In my second attempt at the campaign, the Union are doing a better job of this, which means their offensive can maintain momentum. Their naval strategy has also been more effective [and enforced at an earlier stage].

[@przemekbozek]

@@WiseGuyHistory Are you planning to film more on your second campaign as well, to see how both compare now that you have a better handle on the game?

[@pizzaspy]

Generally the game is considered to be slightly harder for the confederates

[@przemekbozek]

@@pizzaspy thanks, good to know and arguably historical😁

[@iamspamus8784]

@@WiseGuyHistory yeah, I think you need to leave more single units behind at key places. This should make it harder for the Reb cav. And always, always, always, leave troops in Washington DC... :) Also, is there no attrition for troops isolated (like Bowling Green)? It seems like those guys should just attrit away.

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

I couldn't stand the promotion/leader schedule in this game. It was a deal breaker for me. I even tried to introduce a variant to my opponent. It cause some pretty ridiculous situations in our game. I believe the older game that inspired this design didn't have this problem.

[@WiseGuyHistory]

I haven't played the older games so don't have much to compare this with; I just rolled with whatever it was.

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

@@WiseGuyHistory The designer states that he drew direct inspiration from Eric Lee Smith's "The Civil War 1861-1865 (1983)" and Mark Hermans "For the People". Your game is closest to the Smith game. In that one leaders come out at roughly the same historical time (a little randomized I think) and the leaders can rise up the ranks. They can get promoted or killed in battles and the player has to worry about command structures etc. What a lot of players did is take the harder to activate generals stick them in a backwater and never use or promote them. I understand this designer was trying to fix that but in my games, bizarre things happened that became laughable. Nathaniel Lyon disappearing in the wilderness, Stuart getting wiped out 3 times, then teleporting back to Richmond, Burnside doing amazingly and then getting demoted.

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

Im curious if you encountered anything similar. Any weird events because of the schedule or was I just lucky?

[@WiseGuyHistory]

Oh yeah, totally; I think it was in my first game where Hooker saved the day for the Union, and in two very tight consecutive battles defeated both Jackson and Lee, and forced the Confederates away from Washington and the Potomac River...and in the very next turn was demoted! I also agree that shifting those leaders around feels quite 'gamey'. In effect, I put the 4 MP leaders where I need high movement, and the 3 MP leaders where I don't [typically in Washington where they can launch Naval Invasions]. I wouldn't mind more rigidity around their movement.

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

​@@WiseGuyHistory Do you ever house rule or play variants? I can send you what I think can fix it. Didn't get to use it in my face to face game (a lawyer and rules stickler) but you may want to try it. Made smancy graphics and everything.