Gettysburg - High Tide of the Confederacy

[@markherman50]

Nice analysis on the number and types of Gettysburg games. This is one of my two favorite classic hex and counter games on this battle. I played it last just a few months ago. The other contender is the same one that you show. I guess we have similar tastes here. The companion Chickamauga game using the same system is my favorite Chickamauga game.

[@XLEGION1]

Thanks Mark. I think this one deserves a bit of a play through so I will probably work one up doing the first day battle at least. I don't own the "Chickamauga' game but I suspect it is very well done too.

[@markherman50]

Its titled, "Chickamauga: River of Death", here is a BGG link: boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20300/chickamauga-river-death

[@elcarto22]

What, no love for Dave Powell's games? ;-) I'm in agreement with you and Gilbert about these two being the best from when they were published, although there have been a lot of good games on the subject coming out in the years since. I'll have to pick up that Chickamauga game in this series, as i like the Gettysburg version - also, Dave and I are slowly working towards a Chickamauga game using the 'Blind Swords' system from Revolution.

[@devilpup60]

Just got this. Your video helps alot.

[@kennethnied5242]

"Moving these skyscrapers around..." Ha! Good way to phrase it. Nice review. The only thing missing is a example of play as in some of your other Gettysburg reviews. Even in limited form it could have demonstrated the game's mechanics.

[@elcarto22]

I believe Gilbert follows this with two lengthy videos on the actual gameplay, so your wishes are answered! ;-)

[@kennethnied5242]

I've already watched both parts, Rick. Just what I was looking for. Gilbert is good at these types of reviews.

[@justRayEvansopinion]

Well-presented video. I like the map board; functional without being over-bearing (unlike perhaps Gettysburg 77). The little drawings are quite naive, which is a nice touch. The only thing I'm not too keen on is the silhouette on the counters. A side view is more natural and what one would see in a battle. But that is only a minor detail on what looks to be a very good game of this iconic battle.

[@elcarto22]

'It's what one would see in battle' is a little arbitrary, given that the player's view is from a Helicopter. ;-) Probably the most 'accurate' view would be that in the CSW series, or Markus Sumptner's games, where you actually see a full double line of small figures at the front/top of the counter. I'd agree that a single figure on a Brigade scale counters is a bit of a disconnect.

[@XLEGION1]

Yes, this game kind of surprised me. Much better than I thought it would be. I don't like the chosen are either. It would be a lot of work for me to make some new counters. I like the 'top down view' of soldiers in a line but I kind of warmed up to the graphics chosen in G'Burg 77. The corps badges for Union was very good, especially with them being color coded.

[@sergeantrock1]

Good review Gilbert. I was wondering where Guns of Gettysburg was on your list.

[@XLEGION1]

I did a video already on "Guns of Gettysburg" and it is on my play list. My feelings toward that game have changed now that I have played it several times. The designer has really though "Out of the Box" and the game has some outstanding TOTALLY NEW ideas. Her analysis of terrain is outstanding. But, in the end, no name leaders an abstracted Order of Battle and no named counter for artillery were kind of deal breakers for me. However, it is the best Gettysburg game to put you in the shoes of Lee or Meade. It is the 'uncertainty' of the simulation which makes it shine.

[@paulmarcone]

You should take a look at Pickett's Charge by Yaquinto. It's a one-mapper, brigade level game with some great concepts. An excellent game IMHO. Would love it if you could do a video review of that classic....

[@stephenowen9382]

Just noticed your comment. Gilbert is not a fan of the system used in Pickett's Charge. It was ported over from the Napoleonic games that Yaquinto distributed on Waterloo (The Thin Red Line) and Borodino (The Great Redoubt). I have played and enjoyed all three but believe the system favours the Napoleonic more than the ACW era. Gamers in general hate paper sheets to delineate strength and morale losses but I rather like them.

[@Uhlan_]

I'm with you on the stacking and the ranged artillery, and you get a thumbs-up for that on it's own :) but, as I commented on your recent Gettysburg 77 (G77) vid, this appears to be yet another brigade level game where drastically different sized brigades are represented by a single counter - and no account is given to "frontage." See how compacted the cavalry is in these games compared to how it was actually deployed historically - brigades simply took up more space than these games allow for, and I think it adversely affects how the battle plays out. The difference is as gross as the difference between G77's Basic and Intermediate games. Advanced G77, and Thunder at the Cross Roads (TCR) take this on in somewhat similar ways using generic line counters to represent the troops and the brigade marker itself is the HQ. That spreads the brigade out across multiple hexes based on its size and the frontage it would occupy. Looking at just G77 advance and intermediate rules - see the huge difference that makes. In G77 each hex is 756 feet from flat-to-flat. Conservatively; each man takes up 2 feet (across) formed in 2 ranks, so you would have 756 men, in 2 ranks, across the hex. The average regiment at Gburg was between 350 and 400 men. Such a regiment then would occupy a frontage of 350-400 feet. A brigade of 4 regiments, all on the line, would take up 2.12 hexes. Obviously more than 750 men could fit into a hex's area, but it's what could be formed into ranks and fight that matters in a game - remember those games that only allow the top unit in a stack to fire - here's why. Most brigade level games; GMT's Glory series for instance, simply divide larger brigades into multiple counters; Cutler-A, Cutler-B, for instance. It isn't the detail level that A-G77 or TCR go for, but it gets the job done and could have easily been incorporated into I-G77/Bloody July, this game, and several others. Back when you and I read the rules via cave paintings ;) I actually made counters for every regiment in G77, ruled they had to be adjacent to some other unit in the same brigade or move to be so, set the stacking limit to 8 sp as in the advanced game, and played the intermediate rules (plus ranged artillery). It made for a very different game and is the only reason I still have my copy of Gettysburg 77

[@XLEGION1]

Yes, I understand what you are saying about the brigade size and 'frontages'. This aspect of Gettysburg games didn't trouble me as much as getting the artillery right. Of course there will be variables in brigade size. Rodes Division, for example with its five brigades is certainly bigger than other divisions. But, the brigade frontages or the way divisions are deployed varied greatly. When you look at the period maps you sometimes see two regiments in front and two behind or sometimes all adjacent covering a wider front. I have to conclude that the formation finally chosen was very much up to the brigade and division commander. Of course you can get some pretty small brigades too. I seem to recall that a brigade in the Union II Corps was very small. (Cross I think) But the brigade frontages were not a big deal with me. After all, in war-games some stuff has to be simplified for the sake of playability. We will never get a 100% consensus in the hobby as to what is abstracted and what isn't. Your project with Gettysburg 77 sounds fascinating. I thought half the problems with that game could have been solved with a larger board. But I think I have abandoned the advanced game forever now. Just too much counter handling to be worth the bother. I seem to have ruffled the feathers of at least one person discussing the Civil War Brigade series, which is rather strange since I said that they were probably the best simulations around. They are just not my cup of tea even though I'm hanging on to a few of them.

[@elcarto22]

The ultimate example of that would be the Irish Brigade, which mustered slightly less than 600 men en toto. That's the size of just the 26th NC in Pettigrew's Brigade, and not much more than the 24th MI in the Iron Brigade. No matter what scale you use, there's always going to be some 'disconnect' from reality. In Dave Powell's TatC II, you get those extension markers to get closer to actual frontages. In my Summer Storm, I have multiple counters per Brigade, representing roughly 5-600 men each.

[@Uhlan_]

Ok, I typed up my notes and scribblings from 1980ish, and posted a link to a draft in the forum for Gettysburg 1977 edition on the Geek, should appear under the forums tap on the game's page.

[@scarecrow810]

Hmm, yeah, those strength markers that have to be kept facing in the right direction would be a turn-off for me too, although I'd be willing to give it a go. Also, the longer the range of ranged weapons, the more line-of-sight issues will creep up, which is something I inherently despise. I can imagine the LoS questions that might arise when firing those extremely long range guns four miles across the countryside, but even the eight hex range of the normal artillery will pose LoS problems. You certainly have an interest in the Gettysburg battle, which brings up a question for me. How many times do the Confederates actually win in the various games? Do you have a percentage idea? The only game on the battle that I have is the AH 125th Anniversary Edition, which I think is the same as Gettysburg '88. The South has a hard time wining in that game, at least in the Basic Game, which is what I played against my beginner opponent. Edit: Actually, I also have Across 5 Aprils.

[@XLEGION1]

I never really had a problem with 'line of sight' rules. My friends and I always took the view that if there was any discrepancy - you don't take the shot. That is why I emphasized in the video that setting your artillery up properly was the way to go. Seminary to Cemetery Hill is a no brainer for sure but there is a lot of intervening and blocking terrain in this one. The number counters that I thought were so disturbing back in 1981, I don't think twice about now. This game has a lot more going for it than even the more recent games designed.

[@scarecrow810]

It was a very good review, in any case, and I agree that it's a beautiful box cover pic, even though it's from a painting and not original art.

[@elcarto22]

And in what way is a 'painting' not 'original art?" My problem with this otherwise excellent painting is the inaccurate way it shows the actual terrain, but this was obviously a 'design for effect' by the artist, and not an attempt to do an accurate game map as a cover painting.

[@scarecrow810]

It's not original to the boxcover.

[@elcarto22]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of at least ACW games do NOT use 'original art', but rather a leased copy of art from such artists as Troiani and Rocco. MMP uses Keith Rocco on all it's 'Great Campaigns' games, and I certainly used him on my 'Summer Storm'. In contrast, I've done 'original Art' for a lot of the earlier Clash of Arms games, and Rodger MacGowan does his art for most of GMT's. It mainly depends on whether or not there is artwork out there that fits your game, and how much money they charge to use their work, vs. commissioning or producing your own work for the cover. Computer graphics have made it a lot easier for many publishers to do the latter these days, but 'back in the day' it was a lot easier to simply find and lease the use of existing artwork. Those multi-edged markers are called 'Pollard Markers', after, IIRC, the first Designer to use them. They are slightly more fiddly than single number counters, but as Gilbert points out, they save a huge amount of precious space on the counter sheets, (And thusly the price of the game!) and are functionally no more difficult to use than having to constantly sort through and replace markers that only show a single number per side. My Summer Storm uses 'semi-Pollards' in the first edition, with just two numbers per side, but in that game you don't have to lift up the unit to 'find' its actual strength like in High Tide; it takes five Cohesion Hits to flip the counter, so you you only need to track four, but you always just use the values on the side of the counter that's 'up.'

[@briandenison2325]

Have you ever played the Smithsonian Gettysburg game?

[@XLEGION1]

I'm getting a copy of this one again and will be doing a video on it.

[@elcarto22]

Didn't find my copy in storage yet, but good to see this long a video. Unfortunately (being Me) it also showed plainly just how inaccurate the map really is. No matter what level of terrain analysis is, or what your game mechanics are, you still need to get things RIGHT within those parameters. With that said, though, this was easily the best Gettysburg game available when it came out.

[@Jubilo1]

Brigade level seems unnecessarily tedious and time consuming; are we looking back to the 1980's or forward?

[@XLEGION1]

M-m-m-mmm...can't agree there. I have tried the division level games and they are too simple for me. Gettysburg 88' could have been pretty good at the division level but the movement is far too liberal. Units engage, disengage and pretty well do what ever they want. Lee and Meade didn't have the luxury of that. Just study the positions of some of the divisions at the end of the first day of the battle. In many of the cases they are still there two days later. Moving a division is a big deal.

[@Jubilo1]

Much to think on !!! Thanks.

[@elcarto22]

All depends on exactly how the game is done, when deciding if it's 'unnecessarily tedious and time consuming.' I'll agree with Gilbert in that Gettysburg '88 seems too much of a 'great simple game for Dad and the kids' rather than any sort of meaningful simulation (despite it being a good tourney game at the WBC.) Markus Sumptner does great Gettysburg games at both the Divisional and Brigade levels, using his 'March to Battle' for the former and Hampton Newsome's rules for the latter. A lot more 'meat' on their bones... If simplicity is all you're after, just roll 18 gray and 19 blue dice repeatedly, with 6's being kills, until one side is gone - Don't laugh, it actually gives statistically historical results! ;-)

[@Jubilo1]

Gee thanks; gray and blue dice ! And all this time I was using blue and butternut !!!!!!

[@Jerry_Woodfield]

Hey Gilbert, saw this video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHXWqpmVrqyZarc and thought you might be interested in learning about this game since it's a successor to "High Tide". Not sure if you were aware of it, but thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware

[@turks1966]

I have it, I always felt the game play was nice but has an ugly board that seriously detracts from the experience.