Review | Thunder On The Mississippi | MMP | The Players' Aid

[@kaiax33]

GBACW vs GCACW are totally different scales. Both are great.

[@thomasblessing1948]

One of your best reviews, excellent dialogue with great back and forth! Really conveyed well what you both liked and disliked and who the game is likely good for.

[@richarddefortuna2252]

The GBACW Shiloh game, Into the Woods, came out about a year ago. The Death Valley campaign games are like a multi-pack in that there are several small battles included, and even more if you grab the expansion. The next GBACW game to be issued, By Swords and Bayonets, (designed by Stiglr, no less), is similar in that it 8ncludes multiple smaller-sized battles. It's currently at the printer, so I expect it to issue sometime in the first half of next year. An updated and revised Three Days at Gettysburg is also on the P500, if you're interested!

[@gregmougin8937]

I know Grant likes games where activation is determined by lots of chit draws. The only difference between chit draws and dice rolling is that chit draws are (typically) sampling without replacement and dice rolling is sampling with replacement.

[@PatricksTacticsTutorials]

I haven't let you down, Alexander! Here I am. This was a great video- probably the first time I've ever seen you two disagree. It's very worthwhile for folks to see. Yes, to agree with Grant- it's not for everyone. Does everyone need to try it? Nah. If you are like Alexander, or me, or those interested in the nuances found at the Operational-scale of the American Civil War, then the GCACW will be a rich dive into that- more than just 'rolling dice'. To answer Grant's question about why *I* like this system- it was the perfect balance of detail I was seeking between the abstraction of Grand Strategic, like For the People (which I also love), and the battlefield-level of Tactical scale (GBACW, Blind Swords). This scale focuses on efficient movement of Corps and their component Divisions, effective use of terrain for that movement, and the weighty decisions inherent in knowing when and how to engage in battle against your opponent. Are there a lot of die-roll modifiers (DRMs)? Yup. As you both agreed- that's both a product of it's age, and the addition of chrome to properly reflect the newly developed campaigns (it can't be one-sized fits all). In fact, the original artillery rules in the Avalon Hill box sets was hopelessly cumbersome for the battle calculations. The creation of the Standard Series rules to streamline everything (now over 20 years ago), was essential to bring all of the titles into a manageable ruleset and modifiers. The rewards of this system really come from continued play, to the point that you become comfortable with the DRMs, the Flank modifiers, and the Retreat rules. To the outside new player, those rules look needlessly complex- but they *do* become second-nature very quickly. I can't emphasize enough how much this series truly shines with the Advanced/Campaign scenarios. The Basic scenarios highlight pieces and parts to get you used to the system, but the are very limited microcosms of the full banquet of decisions and planning that you are given in the Campaigns over the Basic. By comparison in my own personal experience- in the GBACW (Berg) titles, the rules are truly baffling from my vantage point when compared to GCACW. Some of that opinion is born of my inexperience with that series, but much of it is my lack of desire to get bogged in the minutia of Regiments and Brigades in setpiece ACW battles. **Correction on this title: The ties are not automatically CSA- most of the western theater titles break it up. In this one low ties (1-1, 2-2, 3-3) go to the Union, while the high ties go to the CSA. So, yes, there are a ton of dice rolls. And yes, they often suck in critical moments of movement or battle. (I invite you all to watch most of my recent Thunder on the Mississippi videos for evidence to that). But, what keeps me coming back are the shining moments of narrative (yes, narrative!) that are born of watching plans fall into place and successfully thwarting my opponent in clutch moments. Luck is a factor- just like in the American Civil War, but so is smart decision making. ** Update (just finished)- The last 10 minutes successfully articulate many of my concepts above- and seem to entice Grant about why he should be enjoying it. Good job! ** I hope that helps, Grant! 🙂 Alexander, I'd be happy to play sometime!

[@craigforrest]

Good video guys! I do agree that this system is not for everyone. I love it, but I can see why others do not.

[@igycrctl]

I’ve been playing the campaign game and it’s glorious!

[@strelnikoff1632]

I was very happy when yall took this game up recently because it's probably my favorite system and I felt you guys would like it as well. I was 50 % right. I don't need to watch any more reviews of games in this system now by the Players Aid. I understand the positions. It's been a very popular system for at least 30 years so that's says something anyway. "This game is not for everyone "... I'm having a hard time thinking of one that is. " Dice can't tell a story"...? Disagree. It's one mechanism for building a story (as seen in hundreds of war games). I guess if we all thought the same we'd all be married to the same woman! Horses for courses as the Brits say? Keep up the good work men.

[@ArnoVdVelde]

There is at least one where the Union wins ties on a 1-2-3 and the CSA gets it on the 4-5-6, I think there are things to be said about the initiative system that have issues. But I do think it is crucial that the CSA can act from the position knowing they'll get the initiative 58% of the time. Not sure historically that checks out, but it does mean the CSA and the Union need to plan their moves in a different way. With chit-pull that is constantly shifting. And to me weird that everyone gets the same number of activations. I do think it is not for everyone, but I am surprised by a lot of the comment on this video! Weirdly the worst thing about the series is the physicality of the fatigue and troop chits. I think this is very streamline besides a few little corners. I am also annoyed that MMP doesn't provide a better option for offboard display so people are forced to make their own. I do think this one is very interesting and different, but not sure it is the best one to start with. I think Stonewall Jacksons way, the one Alexander started with, is the ideal starting position. There is mor parity in forces and the terrain is a lot more forgiving. I do agree that it might be tiring how many dice you roll, but the activation system kind of makes it feel a lot more modern than it really is, but I can be on board that some other stuff makes it feel old. I think i just fall on the side that things it feels a lot more fresh and modern than old and dusty. I also think that playing a scenario that is longer than 3 turns does start to show the fatigue and the tempo considerations a lot more. The short scenario's are great, but they are very zoomed in and generally pretty tight. In the campaign you get to make a lot more decision on the amount of tempo. There you can make the consideration of pushing a position or going around. And be really stuck with the consequences of those choices and might stumble into situation where you have to act. In the short scenario's you are always in a position where you have to act. Grant is in for a rough surprise playing GBACW and comparing it to this. And at this point wait for the new GBACW, which is suppose to be an introduction. The other ones would be rough. Edit: Just checked By sword and Bayonet is at the printer so it is close.

[@josephgavinsyverson]

I see where Alexander is coming from -- the detail creates this vivid narrative and the practical difficulty of playing the game is justified by that return. But also with Grant -- so many new techniques, which the original designers could not have availed themselves of, are now available and can preserve detail while reducing practical overhead. I think that La Bataille bears similarities in design philosophy to GBACW and like it a lot. At the same time, I don't think I will ever find sympathy for the system among other people, unless they also just happen to like it. It's just too much to put up with if you're not die hard.

[@riff2072]

Shelby Foote says General Grant could be passed out from drinking, be awaken, told the enemy was attacking his camp and be stone-cold sober. Just a note. Thanks for the video men.

[@DonBuonasera]

It’s good to see one of you not liking the game, it gives as another perspective + it makes me trust your reviews more (wierd?). Nice video.

[@caomhan84]

This is actually great to watch. 95% of the time I hear nothing but praise about this system. So the fact that it just did not work with Grant at all, but Alexander seems to be so taken with it, is useful because these are expensive and involved games. If anything that Grant says resonates with a viewer, they can certainly save some money then.

[@ThePlayersAid]

Yes, this is def one of those systems/series where you don't commit unless you love, because of the price points and time investment.

[@ArnoVdVelde]

Also a little rules mistake. The Number on the leader counter isn't artillery, that is command. I kinda assume that was just a mess0up during the overview though.

[@robertmoffitt1336]

Sounds like B-17 Queen of the Skies as far as the dice rolling. That game is/was hugely popular, but the decisions that the player makes is somewhat limited. You're kinda along for the ride and the story that the dice will determine. This sounds kinda like B-17. Just off the mechanic of the initiative roll with the south winning ties, I think I'd bounce hard off this. Winning ties on a d6 roll is an enormous advantage IMHO. I think I'm with Grant, I don't tend to enjoy games where a dice roll determines so heavily whether or not you get to participate in the game, or just sit back and watch the other player. I much rather prefer that if one side is militarily stronger than the other, that the play balance be reflected in the victory conditions, and not in the game mechanics of how the two sides function.

[@jeroenkoopman3368]

I agree with Alexander completely about GCACW. You play these games for the love of learning about the ACW campaigns, not the battles per se. Also. I'm not an admirer of the scenarios, only play the advanced campaign ones. But yes. I agree with both of you that this system is not for everyone. If Grant doesn't enjoy them now I don't think he ever will.

[@ThePlayersAid]

This is definitely one of those cases where everyone should try it once. But I would never expect everyone who tried it to love it.

[@stump182]

Still wondering if Grant likes this game or not. :)

[@ThePlayersAid]

If you watch to the end he talked himself into wanting to give the advanced campaign a go, lol.