Reflections on the "Great Campaigns of the Civil War" system

[@gregorycampagna8138]

Loving your introductory overview videos for classic games & systems - offering great insight for us noobs. Thank you, sir and please keep it up

[@XLEGION1]

As I have now had a few months with the system, I can at least mention one aspect that I don't particularly care for. I'm finding that some of the scenarios are a little 'too scripted'. I'm not against certain limitations that were imposed on certain commanders or situational type stuff that commanders couldn't engage in. But the whole point of playing some of these games, at least for me, is to explore 'historical alternatives'. For example in the "Meade Moves North" scenario of "Roads to Gettysburg II" There is a LOT of scripting. Stuart can't enter Adams county unit...So and so is frozen for the entire game, stuff like that. Some of this feels rather artificial to me and robs me of the ability to explore the alternatives. Simple enough to play them without some of those rules and I think that is what I would like to do. I'm finding that with some of the scripting, like having the town of "Gettysburg" worth 20 points, is almost like forcing the players to move and fight there. I would like to find out if other plans were just as viable. Anyway, I love the series and have lots of hours of play to explore.

[@philmercer8993]

I'm in the throes of learning my Stonewall in the Valley that I've had for about 25 years. As you say, the game system (once you've grasped it) is "rewarding". I may even look to adding to my collection. Looking forward to future videos.

[@MikeStoddart]

Excellent video, thanks Gilbert. The map is beautiful and the game looks very intriguing.

[@XLEGION1]

Thanks Mike. I'm really getting into the system now. I just purchased a mint copy of 'Grant Takes Command' and am anxious to try that one. Also practicing for WBC as I would like to enter the tournament. I'm a rookie at this game so I will probably be taken to the cleaners but I will learn from the best.

[@charleslatora5750]

Very well done sir. As always.

[@WojennikTV]

Another great Civil War video. Thank you Gilbert!

[@XLEGION1]

Vortex, if you can't see it I can't possibly explain it to you, but there are a lot of Civil War games out there and they seem to be doing just fine. Play balance was never an issue with me.

[@laserprawn]

I think rather the operational scale reveals the pertinent information available to a commander at that level - it is not correct to say that concentration of force decides battles, but rather that this is really all the theater commander can see and use as a metric. The theater commander can only be so confident in this idea so long as the generals under his command are rational and will perform the same every time they go out - which we know is not the case. What can go wrong? Everything, and then it's force concentration be damned. The "Meade Goes North" scenario reflects that - both sides are simply concentrating towards the road nexus. Some historians have a tendency to go further and further up the chain - at some point, only the amount of tungsten you can mine will decide the war, apparently. But I think this is just hindsight, and is disproved by generals winning battles they couldn't win - Lee especially, convincing the Union that he was much more formidable than he ever was. Or, look at Napoleon - he never ignored concentration, but he won plenty of battles when he was outnumbered (Austerlitz, for example). I think the gem to glean from this is that many generals have never been convinced that winning battles will win a war - from Hannibal to Barbarossa, this seems to have been true. Battles are not foregone conclusions or decided by manpower, but the war will not end when you take Moscow, or defeat the Roman army: the Russians will not surrender, and the Romans will raise more armies.

[@griefjunkie]

It's a fantastic system, Gilbert, you're going to have a great time. I have SJW (original) and OTR in this series, many happy hours spent with them.

[@e-4airman124]

thank you again for a fine show.

[@tomdefranco816]

I’ve tended to prefer the battle games myself. I owned the original version of Roads to Gettysburg, but sent it to auction several years ago. I have always loved the maps in this system and we use it for our CWRT’s discussion group meetings. Perhaps the reason why I’ve shied away from this series is that I’ve had the perception that it favored the Rebs. You’ve definitely piqued my interest in the campaign level, though. I’m not a total stranger to the campaign level, having played several games of Clash of Arms’ Civil War Campaign Series. I really enjoy the way that system illustrates cavalry usage on campaign. I also like Plenty of Blame to Go Around. J.D. and Eric are good guys and very good authors and researchers. I also enjoyed their book about the retreat, One Continuous Fight. It puts Meade in a much better light than many have thought. That brings me to a question: Does the game include a scenario from July 4 through July 14?

[@e-4airman124]

thank you so much

[@johnc.4871]

I was interested in this system but saw the cost and all the out of print stuff that I turned away. However you say that 3 titles are in this one box and I think those are the ones out of print as individual purchases?

[@XLEGION1]

This set contains 'Roads to Gettysburg', 'Here come the Rebels' and 'Confederates in Washington'. AND, within those 3 categories there are a whole bunch of scenarios. Check out the manufacturers website or check Board Game Geek.

[@Jubilo1]

Campaign versus tactical battle seems to indicate maturity.

[@richardstone3473]

Just a ramble. Agree in the main with Gilberts contention that conflicts are won at the campaign level. Loooong time ago myself and friend fought tactical micro armour battles WW2. Germans always won. Uuum as we got older the big question was how did the allies win then? Devolved down to the Tiger tank. Could shoot up anything that came it's way. Reality . Tigers were expensive gas guzzling prone to breakdown high maintenance vehicles. So tactically very successful under favourable conditions but a strategic failure . I would say roughly the same of Lee.May I refer to Bonekemper's book The Myth of the Lost Cause. Why is Lee still so glorified. The disasters of Malvern Hill. Picketts Charge. His failure to understand the Western MississippiTheatre. Anyway just contentious thoughts. I really do like Gilbert's presentations.

[@XLEGION1]

Thank you Richard: As I get older and the accumulated reading of decades take hold I am convinced that most of the wars are 'really' won at the Campaign level. Gettysburg is a very interesting to read about but the campaign was more or less lost by June 30th. The fact of the matter is that Meade concentrated far faster and better than Lee. Credit should be given to Hooker also, who left the dispositions of the Union Corps in good shape for Meade.

[@MJPeterson100]

Great video. You mentioned teaching videos. Are there any in particular you recommend?

[@XLEGION1]

I don't have the exact line but the ones done by 'Stuka Joe' are very informative.

[@MJPeterson100]

@@XLEGION1 Thank you!

[@Nachocheese86]

I am currently playing through Stonewall Jacksons Way (the original) and am really enjoying it. So much so that I ordered Roads to Gettysburg 2 and Atlanta is Ours. Will you be doing any campaign play throughs?

[@asgaard636]

Gilbert: Hope you'll do an "On to Richmond" review when you've had a chance to get stuck in.....

[@pdogone1]

Gilbert..any thoughts on the leader ratings? being an operational game and not really a tactical game not sure if they matter that much?

[@XLEGION1]

This aspect of the game didn't trouble me too much because it is so 'all encompassing'. You begin to see that leadership, although an important factor, is not the only deciding factor in a campaign. Had Hooker remained in command would the outcome have been much different? I don't think so. It's one of the best systems that I have ever seen to show campaigns of the Civil War and I got 'late to the party'. Although I have war gamed the Civil War since 1969, I only discovered this system a few years ago.

[@pdogone1]

@@XLEGION1 hard to say after Hooker had what would considered a bad concussion today..he was doing very well up to that point..guess it why we play the games eh! tks

[@jacknakash2677]

Wow you have the rate On to Richmond game?? First Rate

[@jacknakash2677]

rare*

[@Pericalypsis]

Coming soon in a reprint containing 3 games: Grant Takes Command, On to Richmond, and The Petersburg Campaign.

[@Jubilo1]

If Colonel Marshall could have wrtiten a lucid order the Pennsylvania Campaign may have ended differently.

[@XLEGION1]

I have read quite a bit about this and the answer is complex. I'm a Lee fan all the way but I must admit that Lee's orders were rather discretionary and I'm sure that he had it in his mind to have Stuart perhaps duplicate the kind of ride that he did around McClellan back in 62'. Unfortunately, as far as the confederates were concerned, the situation wasn't the same. Hooker/Meade's army was on the move and Stuart was caught behind moving Union columns. Incidentally, I don't think Hooker has been given enough credit for his ,over in the campaign. When Meade took command, the army corps were all in pretty good positions.

[@Jubilo1]

"Battle Hymn," looks better and better.

[@scarecrow2885]

So, is Heth's name actually pronounced Heath?

[@laserprawn]

Strangely, yes

[@briank2251]

Where did you find the extra PAC?

[@XLEGION1]

What is a PAC?

[@robossuperchannel9434]

Player Aid Card

[@Jubilo1]

And your American Revolutionary War game is coming out when???

[@XLEGION1]

At this point it is a complete "black box". I have a prototype that I have playtested but I'm not 100% happy with it. I will be making another push at completing it this winter but if that doesn't work out I may abandon the project all together. I don't want a "monster" on the subject yet it is proving to be a difficult task to keep the game play under 6 hours or so.

[@Jubilo1]

Yes, you've quite a task. Good luck; with your passion for history and games savvy I'm confident of our success. You may depend on it sir !

[@Phalanx11]

And when the Revisionists go full bore unchecked they will come after Gilberts elaborate volume of Civil Wargames... :)

[@Phalanx11]

From a gaming standpoint I wouldn't think the Civil War has much to offer. The South was outnumbered 10 to 1 in manpower naval, industry and rail... What is the appeal?.

[@johnc.4871]

I think it is the flip flop of so many different factors on the war that make it a good subject. once that is exhausted you have the what-ifs to look at if like.