Game: Gettysburg

Image

gittes — 2008-07-01T19:26:27+00:00

An original advertisement for the game.

Thread: Re: Victory Conditions?

desertfox2004 — 2007-11-24T07:45:24+00:00

carlofab wrote:
I'm familiar with this game since 1958, and for what it's worth believe you are right on both issues.

According to VC rules as written, result you describe is a tie.

The HQ units were included for historical purposes only, and never served any purpose in play. AH continued to include HQs in D-DAY and others,
but those also served no purpose until the 1977 D-DAY rules rewrite.

Simply omit HQ units before play of GETTYSBURG. At least, I always did.

ms

Yes, I also agree with these positions. A tie under the circumstances you describe, and just leave the HQ units out of the mix.

Thread: Re: Victory Conditions?

carlofab — 2007-11-24T05:55:41+00:00

I'm familiar with this game since 1958, and for what it's worth believe you are right on both issues.

According to VC rules as written, result you describe is a tie.

The HQ units were included for historical purposes only, and never served any purpose in play. AH continued to include HQs in D-DAY and others,
but those also served no purpose until the 1977 D-DAY rules rewrite.

Simply omit HQ units before play of GETTYSBURG. At least, I always did.

ms

Thread: Re: Confusing rules

carlofab — 2007-11-23T06:14:21+00:00

Whether this sheds any light, I can offer some information...

1958 RULES:

I bought this game when first released in 1958 -- rules were really sketchy and apparently based on miniatures:

The unit counters were a bit longer than 1964 counter (and had green ersatz felt backing, very classy).

Play diagrams suggest units were not INTENDED to fit in squares. The example of play diagrams depicted units placed and faced in a natural way in the terrain on map, without regard to where grid lines fell

The square grid seemed to be for (1) approximating distance a unit can move across map in "square equivalents"; (2) approximating the ZOC of a unit's front in "square equivalents"; and (3) recording the position of "hidden units".

A unit which "could not be seen by opponent" due to ridges or forest concealment could be removed from map. and its grid position recorded on paper. The obvious problem that two opposing units removed from map may be able to see each other (over even be in same place) was not addressed.

The question of whether you could "pass behind" an enemy unit by not allowing your ZOC to fall on it was also not addressed.

1964 RULES

The 1964 edition had units that actually fit into a square, and introduced the notion that you could attack an opponent frontally, by partial or full enfilade, or rear attack.

Again, the question of whether you could pass in rear on an opponent's unit by "not" throwing your ZOC on it was not addressed.

Our general house rules were:

(1) you could not move past the adjacent front of an enemy unit, as you would enter its ZOC, and ...

(2) ...we did NOT allow you to move past adjacent rear of enemy unit. You
had to stop on moving adjacent, and face your unit for an attack.

(3) Our general rule was upon moving adjacent to an enemy unit you had to stop. But could then face your unit as you wished, so long as its ZOC covered some part of enemy unit for your obligatory attack.

Any help or no...?

Thread: Re: Gettysburg 1964 edition

wargamer55 — 2007-11-20T00:23:31+00:00

Never tried the hidden units rule.

Thread: Re: Gettysburg 1964 edition

GROGnads — 2007-11-19T09:45:54+00:00

I have to kindly inquire if YOU had ever tried the "hidden units" movement 'Rules' for this? For best with that, then have 2 or 3 "games" with an 'Umpire' on this? Were there to be as many of it ALL with as many people involved in that "Best OF..." series, it would become quite the 'test' on some as of yet untried "game" within an OLD 'classic'.

Thread: Gettysburg 1964 edition

wargamer55 — 2007-11-19T04:12:55+00:00

The classic edition of Avalon Hill's Gettysburg had an impact all out of proportion to its its quality -- it was the first. First published in 1958, Gettysburg was the first historical board wargame. Prior efforts like Tactics and just about every other previous military-themed wargame were either based on fictionalized settings or merely used a historical topic for inspiration
Charles Roberts' Gettysburg, on the other hand, was an attempt to model an actual historical battle with an authentic order of battle fighting over a map of the actual terrain. This game basically inaugurated the historical board wargame hobby.
That's not to say that the game doesn't have some serious shortcomings. After starting off with a square-gridded map, the game took a brief detour to hex-based before returning to a square grid in the 1964 edition, which is the version reviewed here.
Gettysburg's retro move to squares aside, hexes were the wave of the future, to the point that board wargames are commonly referred to as hex-and-counter games. Squares have significantly more distortion than hexagon grids, so Gettysburg is unusual in that respect.
The game's counters are also unusual by being rectangles instead of the typical squares. Each unit has the usual combat strength "factor" and movement "factor," but also has a directional arrow showing the facing. Rectangular counters would be unusual for many years, although more wargames have used them recently.
Although a simple game, Gettysburg has some fairly involved facing rules for that era, with attacking units getting a bonus for attacking from the side or rear.
The game uses the classic 3-1 D-elim CRT seen in many other Avalon Hill games ( By my count at least 8 games used it).
As history the game isn't all that great. The lack of any sort of morale or command control rules (headquarters units have no game function) means that the opposing armies are far more active than their historical counterparts, so the game will be played to a decision in much less than the 49 available turns. That decision is an unusually brutal one for a wargame victory condition -- total elimination. No victory points. No geographical objectives. No morale targets. Nope, it's last man standing wins.
There was considerable debate back in the 60s over which side was favored to win. The Confederate player has the usual Gettysburg battle advantage of more powerful units, while the Union player has more units. Handled well (and with good luck), the CSA can defeat the Union troops in detail. A few missteps or bad die rolls and the Union numbers start to tell. I don't think a final answer was had before players moved on to more realistic wargames, including a couple dozen on Gettysburg itself.
There's very little reason to play the game today. Like most of the AH classics outside of the possible exception of Afrika Korps, Gettysburg is mostly of interest to collectors now.

Thread: variant on that variant

clonea — 2007-09-04T16:45:39+00:00

Mods to Gettysburg 1961
I read the first variant entry and liked most of it. But I thought I would write my own variant on the variant. (my own comments).

---Movement: Roads are 2x speed. (I fully agree this has to be done. I don't really care about historical accuracy. I care that the game ENDS before anybody fought because it took too frickin long to move across the board.)

---Artillery can't fire if they move. You need to put a special marker on the units to show they can or cannot attack. They can defend, but the attackers can't get damaged. Now if artillery did NOT move, they can damage attackers like normal. (I remember hearing somewhere that it takes time to setup big guns. This also gives the troops a better chance to take out guns before they are brought to bear).

---Artillery is 5 hex range
Hills/Woods block line of sight.
Woods still give 2x defense against artillery.
Hills no longer give 2x defense against artillery.

---Combat: No Damage to Attacker (I find it very annoying that the best way to win, is to do nothing, to force the other guy to attack. He will lose more guys this way. So you have two players just sitting there taunting each other?)
Troops have attack range of 1, artillery range is 5. So if artillery is out of the defender's range, it should not be able to take any defensive damage.

Per the new rule, Artillery can't fire if they moved, so troops can attack and should not be able to take any defensive damage from defending artillery.

In both cases, the defense odds are still used. It just means the attacker can't get damaged.

---No night fighting. Night movement is fine. (I agree this makes a lot of sense. You can't see what yer shootin' at).

---Different Victory Condition:
The Confederates have to take and hold the main road to Washington. This is probably Baltimore Pike. To make it easier, perhaps they have 5VPs per road to hold ANY road leading South or East, and 10VP's for Baltimore Pike. (This allows the Rebels to try a semi-surprise move instead of always going for just Baltimore Pike).
The Union just has to keep the rebels below 5VP's.

(I threw out the take half damage rule because I didn't want to increase the number or units. It's a bit ironic that I add a new marker for if the artillery moved. But that could be a button or coin. )

Thread: Re: some ideas

TedW — 2007-05-18T01:10:01+00:00

DarrellKH wrote:
I have a simpler solution - obtain a copy of Terrible Swift Sword.

Given the depth of TSS, sounds like a more complex solution....

I have been looking for a good intermediate level Gettysburg game. TSS, This Hallowed Ground, and Summer Storm are a bit on the heavy side. The AH Gettysburg and SPI Quad are a bit light.

I dug out a copy of Command's G'burg game (Lee's Greatest Gamble) and this seems about right; just haven't had a chance to play it yet....

Thread: Re: some ideas

TedW — 2007-05-18T01:06:06+00:00

I recently visited Gettysburg and dusted off a copy of the 125th anniverary edition game by AH.

It is not a bad little game. The combat mechanics are a bit, uh, dicey but the end result is not that unpleasing. The game plays quick too. Might be worthwhile checking that out rather than trying to resurrect a very old game

Thread: Re: some ideas

DarrellKH — 2007-05-17T20:10:30+00:00

I have a simpler solution - obtain a copy of Terrible Swift Sword.

Thread: Re: some ideas

Tom Jensen — 2007-05-17T20:04:29+00:00

Yeah, I dusted this game off, thinking I might interest some munchkins in wargaming. But the 1958 rules are downright awful! First of all, the first few turns happen at 10 and 11 PM of the night before. So I set up Gamble, Devin, and Heth. The two Union cavalry units took a choice spot on the hills overlooking Cashtown Pike. Then Heth fought Devin at 2-1 odds, eliminating it and then eliminated Gamble at 2-1 odds. He was then in a position to take Cemetary Hill... all before Dawn of July 1st!

The '77 Intermediate game starts with these units at 7 AM July 1st, historically correct. So the '58 game needs a LOT of fixing. I'm gonna devise something and have the victory conditions be that who ever has possession of Cemetary Hill by sundown of July 1st will win the game: short, sweet, and historical.

Thread: Victory Conditions?

them — 2007-03-12T06:53:03+00:00

1961 hex edition

The victory conditions state:
"Gettysburg is a time limit game - it ends after the July 5, 8 am turn."

Either side wins if they completely eliminate the other before that time.

Otherwise, the Union wins if they reduce the Confederacy to ≤15 combat factors - "only at the time limit - not before". The Confederacy wins if they reduce the Union to ≤20 combat factors with the same time proviso.

Question: What happens if neither side is so reduced by 8 am on July 5? Is it a tie? Does the game continue until those conditions are met? I'd guess the latter, except that might be at odds with the choice of words ("at" and "limit") in the phrase "at the time limit". On the other hand, in our current game, with only July 4 and 5 left (short game days), both sides still have 70-80 combat factors left - the kind of reduction neccessary for anyone to meet the victory conditions in the time left seems unlikely to me to happen. Could be wrong, though! What do y'all think?

Unrelated question - what are the HQ units good for at 0-4? If they are automatically removed by falling into a combat unit's ZOC, then they can't really be used to help control any areas, right? They can't remove enemy HQ units, either (right?) - so what are they for?

TIA!

Image

KSensei — 2007-03-04T22:53:21+00:00

Thread: Re: Confusing rules

ianh — 2007-01-08T21:23:34+00:00

Yes, I guess that makes sense. There are still some things in the rules like the following I mentioned above
The rules also say that you must attack all enemy units in whose ZOCs you have units (Page 8, point 3).
but I guess the rules are just wrong.

One thing:
When you move a unit so ANY enemy is in your front 3 squares then you must stop.
Does this mean that you must move in the direction you are facing? I think that a unit has no facing while it is moving and chooses its facing only after it stops. I think you must stop when you move adjacent to an enemy, regardless of facing.

Thank you for your help.

Thread: Re: Confusing rules

RaffertyA — 2007-01-07T17:57:40+00:00

Ian,

When you move a unit so ANY enemy is in your front 3 squares then you must stop. These units must be attacked by your units that have enemies in their front three squares. If odds are less than 1:6, your unti is eliminated without counting as any combat at all. Those enemy units still in ZOC must still be attacked. Of course, since you can rotate your units AFTER movement, you could put an enemy in your rear 3 squares and not be required to attack. In his turn, he my move away or attack you at double (or more) strength.

OK?
Tim

Thread: Re: Confusing rules

RaffertyA — 2007-01-05T06:23:02+00:00

Ian,

I expect to have some time this weekend. I can look at the rules but I think a common sense solution will be evident.

Thread: Re: Confusing rules

ianh — 2007-01-05T00:18:09+00:00

I have the '64 edition with squares. The rules for ZOCs are more complicated than simple adjacency since a unit's ZOC extends only to the three squares in front of it, and a unit can only attack units in these squares.

Thread: Re: Confusing rules

RaffertyA — 2007-01-04T23:59:44+00:00

Wow! The 1958 edition is a D-O-G of a game. I don't recall the details of the rules nor if there are significant differences between the 1958 and 1964 'squares' edition rules. I believe you're dealing with the unplaytested 1958 'minatures' as a boardgame version. The simplest view might be that if two (or more) units are in adjacent squares, they have combat.... at whatever differential/odds that are mandated by this (these) relationships. If you REALLY want to try to play this travesty, I'll go look up the rules and help you sort it all out.

Thread: Confusing rules

ianh — 2007-01-04T23:41:52+00:00

I'm having trouble understanding the rules about zones of control. Any help or link to an errata page will be appreciated.

The rules say (page 7, point 1 under "Attacking") that an attacking unit must stop when it enters a "combat square". What does this mean?

Also, a unit initiates combat by moving its ZOC onto an enemy unit (Page 6 under "How to have combat"). Does this mean you do not have to attack enemy units you are next to if you turn so that they are not in your ZOC? This would seem to contradict the statement in example B (Page 14) that by moving adjacent to an enemy unit (square X), the artillery would have stop and attack it even though the artillery is not moving into the unit's ZOC.

The rules also say that you must attack all enemy units in whose ZOCs you have units (Page 8, point 3). What if this is not possible?

What am I missing? Is there something about ZOCs and movement I don't understand?

Thank you.

Image

IronMoss — 2006-11-17T19:41:56+00:00

The Commanders

Image

IronMoss — 2006-11-17T19:41:48+00:00

It wasn't his call, but it's his name that is stuck with an infamous ring.

Image

IronMoss — 2006-11-17T19:35:50+00:00

Although primarily remembered for Little Bighorn, Gen. Custer actually had a significant Union role at Gettysburg

Image

IronMoss — 2006-10-31T14:50:52+00:00

Gettysburg Board - Avalon Hill credit

Image

cmhladik — 2006-10-29T23:07:01+00:00

Avalon Hill catalog listing from 1975

Thread: Re: Gettysburg 1964

sherron — 2006-08-17T02:02:54+00:00

Quite amazing considering it's age. I had a copy and wished I still kept it. There were far worse gettysburg games that were put out. I think the 125th anniversary one was a good one too which I think they must have had the 1964 version in mind when they made it. The 64 lacked step reduction and different day scenarios. I agree with your review.

Thread: Gettysburg 1964

Sandy Petersen — 2006-08-16T21:31:04+00:00

This was the first wargame I ever saw. It didn't have the rules - only the counters and the game board. There I was, a little bratty kid poring over these cool-looking counters, eyeing the names and wondering what they meant. When I was 10, I found a copy of Gettysburg (1964) in a store and badgered my dad into buying it, which he did. I then took it home and made my friends play it many times over.

COMPONENTS
The game has what, even today, is a lovely map of the Gettysburg area. Look at the picture to see what I mean. Probably nowadays they'd color the ground brown or tan, but the white ground made a nice contrast with the pale green trees (yes I know they did it to save money).

The two sides were gray & blue - the correct colors (no guarantee in a 1960s Avalon Hill game). There are not a lot of counters, but there are certainly enough to spread across the map, especially as there's no true stacking. The infantry are long rectangles, and you line them up against your opponent, which produces what looks like a real front line. Cavalry & artillery are smaller rectangles. Commanders (which serve no game function) are squares.

GAMEPLAY
As in most Avalon Hill games of this time, the reinforcement table is mightily important. Your units stream onto the map from the various road edges and you try to get them into the combat zone. Infantry universally have a move of 2, which is appallingly slow, and force you to telegraph your attacks. Cavalry is faster (4), but very weak in combat. While you can't stack units, exactly, you can "attach" an artillery unit to an infantry unit and combine their attacks, making a single powerful unit. The two then move around together, one behind the other in the same square.

The game has facing, and uses it. If you attack a unit's flank, your attack is tripled. If you are directly behind a unit, your attack is doubled. Of course if you turn your unit edge-on to hit an enemy, odds are some other enemy will be able to flank you next turn.

Most terrain effects double or triple your defense. Combat is based on an extremely bloody odds table. At 2:1 it's possible to get an AE (attacker eliminated). 3:1 is the first odds level where AE is no longer a possibility.

BALANCE
The Confederacy has fewer units, but they are more powerful. Their infantry units are all 4-2s or 3-2s, whereas the Union are all 3-2s or 2-2s. Because it's hard to gang up a lot of units on a target, and the combat table is so punishing, it's hard for the Union to bring its superior force to bear.

On the other hand, the Confederates are on the offensive.

FLOW OF PLAY
It usually follows the actual battle more or less, controlled by the position the units flow in through. The Confederates have the advantage at first (as in the real battle), so the Union has to find a defensive position on one of the ridges. Then they dig in on their chosen ridge while the Confederates try to bust through.

Eventually one of two things happen. Either the Union line holds firm, and the final Union reinforcements are used to counter-attack, or else the Rebels successfully shatter the Union line, and the latter's final troops are thrown into the fray to lessen the debacle.

The game is pretty even. Both sides have a good chance to win. Pickett's charge is often reproduced by a giant 2:1 attack on the middle of the line, coming down to a single die roll. Of course, this is generally a move of desperation and more often the game does not rely so much on luck.

FUN FACTOR
I think it holds up pretty well considering its age. There are many better Civil War games but hey it's refreshing to see designers doing so well way back in 1964.

Image

theaney — 2006-06-26T03:18:49+00:00

The opening situation in the 1964 edition.

Thread: Re: some ideas

RaffertyA — 2006-05-11T04:31:19+00:00

It's the terrible victory conditions that make this game truly hopeless for the Confederacy. Your other suggestions would help but this game is one to look at for 'history' but then move on.

Thread: some ideas

lmans66 — 2005-12-14T19:16:10+00:00

This Gettysburg game is simply....as opposed to some of the others out there....

These are a few of the rules I was thinking of after replaying this game after many years.

First...movement along roads should be faster then movement along the hills, terrain etc.. Perhaps double or if not that, at least one space more if infantry and two spaces for artillery and cav.

Second....Artillery in the 1958 version had extended range. And this should hold true to keep the game realistic. In the real battle, artillery fired from several miles away as in the case of Seminary Ridge to Round Top or Cemetery hill. I would say that artillery should be able to fire at the odds they have, and force the results shown. NO loss to artillery so ignore. Forested areas for defense would be given double the odds in determining defense factors but nothing else would apply to the defense (facing, if on a hill etc). For the offense, they would be able to shoot 3 squares in advance or 4? Not too sure. The odds would be computed and losses taken but only for the defense. No offensive losses per the combat results table would apply to the offense since they can't be attacked.

Third.....I would add the value of commanding officers. Perhaps an increase of 1 or 2 to the overall combat factors but, the officer would die if attacked and units killed.

Fourth....Have factors built into play for losses but make this simple so as not to slow down the game...remember the ease of this game is what makes it so great. So have each unit have two loss facts, one is the full strength of the unit while the other is a loss of half. That way the units are not completely wiped out in an attack but are halved. A small dot or ? could be placed onto that unit to designate half factors for combat or defense. For cavalry, the decrease would to 1/2 factor fro the usual one combat factor.

Fifth....no night attacks. They weren't done...rather the nights were used to collect units, reposition for day or morning attacks. The game should play that way too....

Six...victory conditions.. Why have complete elimination of all troops...why not have the intent being control of the Baltimore pike leading to DC? Wasn't the importance of Gettysburg the roads and not the armies?... Change the condition of victory and make it more realistic for that was Lee's intent.

All else stays....you still have a simple game but add increased elements that will make for more realistic play.

Image

davebo — 2005-11-10T19:45:48+00:00

Image

Offa — 2005-08-17T12:55:19+00:00

Avalon Hill Gettysburg 1964 Gameboard (Note: Square spaces and starting points look like counters)