Gettysburg 1st Day Replay - Avalon Hill 1977 edition

[@Uhlan_]

Played this game to death when it was new. Like you, I was impressed by the research put into the order of battle and order of appearance. The basic game was a waste of time. The intermediate game was playable, and the advanced game wasn't worth the huge effort it required. My problem was primarily with the map. At first I looked at a real contour map and thought "WOW - that's cool!" and then I tried to play on it. In a manner of speaking, we actually played on the map in the back cover of the rule book, because we kept having to go there to figure out for certain elevation, where woods were, as well as hexside items like steep slopes. In the end I actually wrote the elevation numbers on the map and added some point-of-interest. This made the intermediate game much better for me, and I still pop it out for a solo game now and then. Back then, when I was young and full of energy, but broke and unable to get TSS, I actually made regimental counters and played using the intermediate rules. What can I say, I was a Civil War reenactor and wanted to see the regiments, not just brigades. :) I'm commenting very late on this vid, but I've been looking at and enjoying your other videos to date. I don't care for most of the war gaming vids on BlewTube - too many suck their teeth through the whole video or are too condescending to listen to for long before I want to run my sabre through the monitor. Your videos I find conversational and informative. You certainly sold me on GMT's US Civil War, and I finally got a copy. I agree with you that it truly is a "masterpiece" in form and function. Thanks

[@Uhlan_]

A note on retreat and advance in this game: In retreat, units may retreat 1 OR 2 hexes, owner's choice. In advancing, the unit may advance into a hex adjacent to the vacated hex, but it must also be adjacent to the advancing unit, they can only advance 1 hex.

[@dfdabbs]

Agreed. That is also how I read the rule, as opposed to how it is done in the video. But thanks to Gilbert for directing me to it, I had never noticed that wrinkle!

[@judsonkring464]

Enjoy your replays! Thank you for creating and posting them on KZbin.

[@markbrooks3722]

Thanks for giving this game some life. My friends and I played it numerous times back in the 80s. We only played the intermediate game. You are correct that the basic and advanced games are not playable. Overall, fun game that provided hours of enjoyment.

[@Stiglr]

Nice play-by-play! Good explanations of the rules and a good sense of the flow.

[@dfdabbs]

I think the video misses Combat Qualifications 5 & 6, which limit participation in a 1-direction attack (generally, 2 adjacent hexes against 1) to one infantry or cavalry brigade per hex. Two brigades can only defend against a 2-direction attack (generally, one that covers at least three sides of the defender's hex). Enjoyed the video, though. It does a nice job showing the ebb and flow of battle on the first day.

[@XLEGION1]

I would recommend the 1977 edition if you want anything like a 'simulation' and a 'game'. I never could understand how the 1988 edition caught on so well. Probably because it was 'available'. It is a game all the way, and almost has no simulation value. Confederate divisions can attack, unplug from combat and just move to other attacks in a single turn. It is just a game. A fun game, but of very limited simulation value.

[@garryeckert5929]

It's been long time since I played this now you making want to play it now.

[@peacefulamerican4994]

IMO the concept of this game was the best. The execution was the words. Again, only my opinion. No hate mail please.

[@EricAlainDufresne]

Gilbert, I'm in Ottawa if you're ever looking for an opponent. Cheers and thanks for another great video. Eric

[@dennishill2343]

This was my first wargame ever, I bought it before my deployment to the Med. in 1977 or so. The basic game was so simplistic and we had no experience in wargaming, so that the games degenerated into 2 long lines moving side to side to encircle the units on the flanks to destroy them. The intermediate game was somewhat better but the advanced game was overly complicated and scale seemed wrong. The best game we ever had was using the brigade pieces and the advanced rules with none of the lines. With fewer pieces, and casualty taking it was the best. The only problem the first time we played was, wemessed up the advanced road movement rules and as the Confederate player I ended up being force into a small beachhead with Heth's division being pounded to pieces and forced off the board. Was it realistic no, but I can still remember my frustration with what was happening and my emotions as I tried to save my men. From this one I moved to Terrible Swift Sword, too many pieces, took too long, and on a ship playing was not really practical. The only scenario we really played was Longstreet's attack on the Union left flank. Later I would buy the SPI set s of 4 Civil War Battle which were much more suited to playing on a ship both in size and time. In my opinion regimental level may be alright for small battles but for large battles, brigade size are better, no matter how detailed you get with movement, casualties and such as there are fewer pieces. That said back then I liked all of them. Love your nostalgic look at wargaming. I still have TSS, Shiloh and Antietam , Little Round Top, Gettysburg 1st day and more, though as I get older and have no opponents, they stay in the plastic totes and mostly I just have the memories. On yeah, I almost forgot, while looking through the pieces there was one piece with the state of Texas on it and as I read the rules, I discovered from the color of their strength (red) they were elite troops, some of Lee's best, this rekindled my interest in the War Between the States, something I had forgotten about since the early to mid 60's and my Civil War playset and I would go on to read many books on our War for Southern Independence.

[@XLEGION1]

As I hinted at in some of my 'Gettysburg' videos, this is the version that I keep coming back to. Albeit, with some tweaks.

[@captainnolan5062]

Excellent replay of a fine game.

[@mengshun]

Excellent replay, commentary and editing.

[@XLEGION1]

Thank you Michael, I do try to keep them interesting and moving along if I can.

[@TomR-cc2wn]

Bought the game after watching you talk about it and play it. I come back to watch for help with rules and see how you play it. However ... at 23:53 I think the Avery and Gordon stack violates stacking rules. If you ever see this would like to hear your take. thanks again

[@jonfscott]

I loved the advanced game and the rules seemed pretty easy to understand.

[@XLEGION1]

Hey Mark, I'm way up in Canada. Ottawa specifically. Face to face would be difficult but perhaps a vassal game is possible.

[@indy_go_blue6048]

'77 intermediate Gettysburg was one of my favorite games for years; I wish they would have VASSALized it along with the (IMO) almost unplayable advanced game.

[@froggleggers1805]

32 movement hexes? Damn hes got a fast horse! lol

[@XLEGION1]

Thanks, I hope Mick enjoys the video!

[@ARDRI2009]

I also like the intermediate version the best.

[@usapatriot4163]

Fantastic turn by turn gameplay! Excellent! Please continue to make more videos like this one! Can't wait for the next one!

[@ricks355]

This game looks beautiful but really complex lol

[@Rakkeyal]

If someone were looking at buying this game, would you recommend the 1977 edition here, or the 1988 edition?

[@kless98]

Great video!

[@MarkAMerrill]

I also have a copy of AH's Gettysburg '77. I would like to play against you Ftf if possible. I reside in Tx. Where do you live.

[@dennishill2343]

Where at Mark, I live in West, Texas, you know the Czech town that blew up 8 years ago.

[@terrystair2960]

Hello I have a question I can not seem too find the answer for. On the Intermediate order of appearance sheet there is ( 1mf) or (3mf) and so on what does that mean?

[@XLEGION1]

I don’t remember where in the rules this is stated. But I seem to recall that the numbers refer to the number of Movement points expended BEFORE the units actually enter the board. It makes sense because the units are forced to come on in column formation.

[@indy_go_blue6048]

@@XLEGION1 You are correct. That only counts on the turn of entry.

[@42Springfield]

This will make Mick Uhl happy. I will send him an email!

[@XLEGION1]

I agree with you. I don't like the Blitzkreig tactic either. Unfortunately the rules don't agree with you. Rule 1B under Advance page 8 says the contrary. Apparently you can advance into a hex that was adjacent to the original hex. Case B says that.

[@XLEGION1]

I never felt the need to modify this one at all. Which is weird, as all wargamers tend to be tinkerers.

[@screamingdean5]

Is there a Third Reich by Avalon Hill playthrough on youtube?

[@XLEGION1]

Go on to Consimworld and look in the appropriate folder.

[@airborneranger-ret]

Moving 5 hexes in any direction seems odd.

[@XLEGION1]

M.m.m.m.....that is about the strangest comment that I have ever seen about a war game.

[@XLEGION1]

Sorry, I never owned "Panzerblitz'. I don't have much interest in WWII land battles.

[@cbclimber]

Gettysburg 77 is pretty rough. Horrible rules, and a unit frontage in the advanced game that was way way way out of wack. Nice map and the state maps/corps insignia printed on the counters are nicely done. Still, there are just too many problems with that game.

[@sasha642]

You assumed the union knew that confederates were going to come down the northern road.....why

[@davidwormell6609]

The map looks awful compared to the '64 edition, except for the use of hexagons.

[@plrc4593]

Jesus... how ugly counters. What, the heck, are those blurs on them? And why don't Union and Confederate counters differ in the color?

[@jeffhale2982]

The Confederate counters show the state the brigade was from, and each Union corps had a different symbol, like a crescent moon. Yeah, the counter colors look mostly the same on the video, but they’re easy to differentiate in my actual game.