Game: War Between The States

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-07-08T23:45:36+00:00

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-07-08T23:44:43+00:00

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-07-08T23:43:08+00:00

Image

tac_ope_tokyo — 2008-07-08T23:42:12+00:00

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

nyhotep — 2008-03-31T10:51:41+00:00

I believe the star-rank system should be eliminated, and all leaders' factors reduced 1 if they command a corps, and reduced 2 if they command an army.

The problem with this is there were decent corps and army leaders on both sides, if every army leader gets reduced by 2 then they either start out as extremely talented divisional commanders or end up as underpowered.

Image

dking232 — 2008-02-28T18:09:04+00:00

The Campaign Game at start

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

Don Johnson — 2008-02-17T00:57:31+00:00

FWIIW, one can always write down production on paper and skip the spirals, if you are short of space. The spirals simply make it easy to produce units and have them arrive at the correct time.

At least at the start there are only about 20-30 stacks on a side, so supply checks do not really take much time.

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

Xtofyr — 2007-10-24T08:48:33+00:00

AnimalMother wrote:
Gorgeous map and playing pieces. Rules straightforward and clear. Obscene excess of tables and charts to cross-check for combat, supply, political events. Large amounts of table space are needed for them, too. E.g., both players must check three tables for each combat. Excessive energy is required for production, maintenance supply, and for determining units commanded by leaders prior to rolling for initiative, and for moving and attacking.
There are a lot of charts, but to call the number obscene is hyberbole. The majority of the charts fit on 2, moderate sized game cards, printed front and back -- I've found this to be average for a wargame of this complexity. The description of excessive energy is also hyperbole -- compared to most games of this size, I'd say the activity level is low, due to all the movement friction built into the system. I thought the rules could use some work, mostly in terms of organization. Found myself often having to refer to 3 or more rule sections to determine the correct procedure for one game step. However, this irritation was minimalized once I became more familiar with the game system.

The variant leader counters were disappointing, as they add another table to consult without adding any new leaders. Many great officers on both sides were killed early in the war, men who would certainly have become important leaders had they lived. These should have been included. I'll provide a list on my next post. I believe the star-rank system should be eliminated, and all leaders' factors reduced 1 if they command a corps, and reduced 2 if they command an army. E.g., McClellan made a fine division and corps commander.
I thought the leader rules were fine, for the most part, but this is an area of most games that are always easy to modify with house rules. One problem I had was there's a 1 in 6 chance that a leader used to affect the outcome of a battle will be captured -- obviously a silly rule. We changed the captured result to a wounded result and that seems to work fine.

As the rules stand, no sane Southern player would build ironclads or river gunboats,as any he builds will be very expensive and will be quickly destroyed by the stronger Northern Navy. Also, the South really does not have a decent chance to hunker down behind forts and entrenchments, as forts & fortifications are also too expensive & risky to build.
The South is at a disadvantage in these areas and rightly so. They are able to establish parity, though, locally, if not globally -- occaisionally they can even outgun the North, given the right set of circumstances. What to build as the South is one of the many enjoyable challenges of this game system.

The maintenance supply rules are cumbersome and make little sense.
I like the supply rules. A nice mechanism of the system is that players build prior to determining how many supplies their forces use, creating a degree of uncertainty regarding how much supply can safely be expended in the production of new units.

The cavalry probe rule in the second edition errata rules is good but the historical ability of cavalry to raid deep behind enemy armies is still not really supported in the rules, as cavalry cannot retreat before combat if there's a single enemy cavalry sp in the attacking force. This makes such raids a suicidal tactic. Cavalry should be able to retreat before combat unless completely surrounded or attacked by a force with at least 3/4 as much cavalry strength.
Cav is effective at it's job, but to enhance them further would make them superhuman (superequine?). Selective use of cavalry is the key to yielding good results.

The production rules are too time consuming and the production spirals take up too much space. Production once per quarter-year with a single type of resource point, not a combination of resource points and manpower points, would make the game move faster and eliminate the spirals. Also, players could hide their upcoming production in their private records. The Volunteer Calls and Drafts are one of the coolest features of the game, and could be included as impulses of resource points, each lasting two quarters.
The production spirals definitely take up too much space (we agree on something!). The rules achieve a very nice balance between material supplies available and manpower. Anyone with a moderate amount of experience at a large, strategic wargame won't have a problem with the system.

Considering the entire package, this game provides an amazing canvas to recreate the American Civil War on. I expect this to be the only wargame I play for years.

Xto

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

Don B Johnson — 2007-08-17T00:19:31+00:00

This is a playable game, I have played and seen it played at Monstercon many times and elsewhere. I was the co-devloper of the second edition. It seems the reviewer wants to redesign the game, which of course anyone is free to do.

Production has 2 components, people and material, as the number of people are tied to calls for people and go down each month unless a new call is made, which costs political points. Having just resource points alone would not show this intended effect.

Check out the consimworld thread to see what people who actually play this game say about it, most have fun with it.

The new leader rules are entirely optional, if you do not like them, use the old leader rules, which is what I do.

The attrition rules work, without supply your forces will melt away over time. It is true that they take some time to do each month of game time, but you only check each stack and there simply are not many stacks. The only thinking involved is whether you supply your troops in the hex being checked or not, almmost always you want to do so if you can.

The cavalry rules also work, the North has a severe shortage at the start and the costs for it are much higher for the North. One needs to see how the whole system interacts, for example an infantry corps commander cannot command cav. so it is not always possible to use cav against cav. If you use just 1 point of cav it can easily be lost in the first battle as each unit must take a loss before any take 2.

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

stampdog316 — 2007-07-01T14:10:34+00:00

Nice review. I own this game, but haven't found the time to play it. I will definitely look at these issues when I do finally put it on the table. It has pretty good support at Consimworld. A couple of the veteran players are very active answering questions about the game there.

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

sherron — 2007-06-30T03:34:48+00:00

I had the old SPI one and sold it. There were many complaints about the charts not being correct and other things, even when it was reprinted by Decision Games. I have heard Mark Herman is working on compairable size CW game. Victory's CW probably the best one out.

Thread: Re: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

tyvek — 2007-06-30T01:25:09+00:00

Thanks for the review. This is a game that I had been considering, until reading your review. It seems like there were a lot of good ideas in there, that seem to have the same tragic episode, with far too many games. "For the want of a nail, the horse was lost..."

In this case, "for the want of more playtesting, the game was lost..."

If only there could be more playtesting, then these games, all with good ideas, could become more elegant, and really do something powerful in the field of gaming.

Thread: Could Be a Beautiful & Playable Game

AnimalMother — 2007-06-29T21:30:11+00:00

Gorgeous map and playing pieces. Rules straightforward and clear. Obscene excess of tables and charts to cross-check for combat, supply, political events. Large amounts of table space are needed for them, too. E.g., both players must check three tables for each combat. Excessive energy is required for production, maintenance supply, and for determining units commanded by leaders prior to rolling for initiative, and for moving and attacking.

The second edition's map rightly eliminates the non-existent Great Kansas Forest. Various other subtle map improvements were made.

The variant leader counters were disappointing, as they add another table to consult without adding any new leaders. Many great officers on both sides were killed early in the war, men who would certainly have become important leaders had they lived. These should have been included. I'll provide a list on my next post. I believe the star-rank system should be eliminated, and all leaders' factors reduced 1 if they command a corps, and reduced 2 if they command an army. E.g., McClellan made a fine division and corps commander.

As the rules stand, no sane Southern player would build ironclads or river gunboats,as any he builds will be very expensive and will be quickly destroyed by the stronger Northern Navy. Also, the South really does not have a decent chance to hunker down behind forts and entrenchments, as forts & fortifications are also too expensive & risky to build. The errata

The maintenance supply rules are cumbersome and make little sense. Each month, a pile of over 100 strength points costs only 3.5 supply points, on average, to supply, with an average attrition of under 14% if its supply not paid. At the other extreme, a stack of 1-5 strength points costs about 1 supply point to supply, on pain of a 50% chance of complete elimination of the stack if the supply is not paid. Every single hex with strength points (sp) must roll for its supply consumption once per month, and on another, attrition table if the supply is not paid. It would make more sense to require maintenance supply points only of stacks of 5 sp or more, and to require it every two weeks, on pain of elimination of 1/4, rounding up, of the stack's strength above 4 sp, if the supply is not paid. Such a rule would eliminate two unnecessary tables, and be more realistic. Forces in the field, surrounded and without supply could not hold-out one month.

The cavalry probe rule in the second edition errata rules is good but the historical ability of cavalry to raid deep behind enemy armies is still not really supported in the rules, as cavalry cannot retreat before combat if there's a single enemy cavalry sp in the attacking force. This makes such raids a suicidal tactic. Cavalry should be able to retreat before combat unless completely surrounded or attacked by a force with at least 3/4 as much cavalry strength.

The production rules are too time consuming and the production spirals take up too much space. Production once per quarter-year with a single type of resource point, not a combination of resource points and manpower points, would make the game move faster and eliminate the spirals. Also, players could hide their upcoming production in their private records. The Volunteer Calls and Drafts are one of the coolest features of the game, and could be included as impulses of resource points, each lasting two quarters.

Thread: Re: Retreat

AnimalMother — 2007-06-29T05:02:29+00:00

The rules clearly state that asterisked results on the CRTs require retreats, and that movement of ground units into neutral Kentucky propels Kentucky into the war.

Thread: Re: Supply rule question & Scenario Rail Capacity

AnimalMother — 2007-06-29T04:53:48+00:00

The monthly Strategic Phase sees both players expend Supply Points from their respective Supply Display's General Supply. For each of their hexes containing ground combat strength which can trace a chain of supply, they roll one die on the [12.12]Supply Consumption Table, reducing their General Supply by the amount shown by the die roll on the table. If a hex does not have a Supply Line, its units' supply consumption may be satisfied from a Depot's or a Supply Wagon's supply points stacked with or adjacent to the needy units. If no supply points are available, the units suffer a roll on the [12.13] Supply Attrition Table, losing the number of strength points indicated.

The number of strength points each side can move by railroad in each scenario (listed on page 23 at rule [19.38]) is for each weekly game turn. In the campaign game, the monthly railroad capacity on the calendar is all you get for all four weekly turns, for both theaters, i.e., for all three maps.

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2007-02-17T20:03:32+00:00

Origins, Game in Progress

Image

Lawrence Hung — 2006-10-10T15:18:03+00:00

Thread: Supply rule question & Scenario Rail Capacity

bentlarsen — 2006-07-24T11:21:15+00:00

1) I am generally confused about the supply rules, especially with the individual scenarios. Do I deplete supply at the end of each turn or during each strategic turn? Do I remove supply from depots, or trace a river/rail line back to wherever?

2) This is an easier question: on pages 22-23 of the rules, under scenarios, it states the Union/Rebel rail capacity, but I do not understand what the numbers mean (e.g., a capacity of 3 for each side in the first scenario) especially when the game chart shows a rail capacity of 30 at the beginning of 1862.

And yes, I have Peso Pete doing me the favour of posting these question on ConsimWorld in order to get help.

Thread: Losing the Production Cycle: Is it possible?

bentlarsen — 2006-07-23T00:18:04+00:00

Does anyone have any ideas on how to drop the Production Cycle from WBTS? As much as I like this game, I have never been a big fan of the production cycle concept. I remember games like War in the East/West/Europe/All around the town, etc., and you never gets enough "bang for the buck" when it comes to things like the production cycle. Even if you get to create your own super army of Uber-SS Panzer Divisions (while losing the war in the process because you don't have enough infantry to plug the holes), it just takes to much "real" time and tendium for what you get in the end.

With WBTS, it is even sillier because your choices are so limited. "Hmmm, let's see. Do I create a 10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3 infantry division? Or should I make a calvary division? How 'bout those ironclads. Don't forget those babies--zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."

Has anyone created their own version of an Historical Reinforcement schedule that could be used for the Western/Eastern theatres in the years 1862/63/64? Has anyone tried this or have ideas about how to put something together?

Come on, American Civil War Geeks! Show us your stuff and share your ideas.

Thread: The 1862-1864 Scenarios: Has anyone tried them?

bentlarsen — 2006-07-17T23:50:55+00:00

The 1862-1864 Scenarios: Has anyone tried them? Are they any good? Where do you find them?

Image

Radz — 2005-08-29T01:57:52+00:00

Variant Counter Sheet Front

Image

Radz — 2005-08-29T01:57:52+00:00

Counter Sheet 2 Front

Image

Radz — 2005-08-29T01:57:52+00:00

Counter Sheet 1 Front

Thread: Retreat

TheErmine — 2005-07-22T21:03:49+00:00

Here is the issue... the South has a corps with leader on the Tenn side of the boarder with Kentucky which is still neutral in the game. If the Union surrounds the unit on all sides in Tenn and attacks and the South has to retreat can they 1) surrender instead of going into Kentucky? or 2 attack off march one of the surrounding Union units that didn't take part in the fight and if they win move to that spot and if they fail to take the hex surrender. Or do they just have to invade Kentucky and dash any hopes the south has of winning?

Thanks

Matthew

Thread: PbEM

tv_brahmin — 2005-04-12T19:15:44+00:00

Where on the net can I play this game PbEM or similiar?
Thanks in advance.