Game: Gettysburg: Badges of Courage

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

sagitar — 2008-11-17T19:01:49+00:00

Money from a Scotsman, that must be like squeezing water from a stone.

I'm not yet sold on buying this game.
Especially the comments on the small board seem a bit ofputting.
Okay one can have a larger map made, but that would only make the game more expensive ( yes at this end we don't part with money that easy either) and if you buy a game you sort of expect it to be all there.

Pete's question asto if there is any freedom in moving around was very interesting. Unfortunatly there wasn't an answer, or may I have overlooked it?
It sure would be interesting if you could position troops and fight the whole battle your own way, rather than be forced to copy historical 'mistakes' ( with that I mean that in hindsight some things could have been tried differently)

And wouldn't it make the game more fun if we were allowed to try them differently, but I reckon you'd need a MUCH larger board for that.

Thread: Re: Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. Morning of the first day.

Jan van der Laan — 2008-10-09T19:35:17+00:00

I've never heard of this Mulligan rule but it's sure worth a try. My gaming opponent is always complaining about how bad his dice rolls are compared to mine (as if that's the sole reason for him of loosing the majority of the games we play together). Maybe introducing this Mulligan rule will satisfy him and will give me the opportunity to state that I'm really the better player (after winning a game of course).

Thanks a lot for introducing and explaining this rule!

Thread: Re: Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. Morning of the first day.

Morocco Mole — 2008-10-07T01:40:13+00:00

Thanks! The Mulligan rule means (in our case) the game starts with one extra "administrative" piece, we use a spare block painted black.

At the start of the game, neither player has it. The first time its used, it can only be used by someone wanting their opponent to re-roll an attack. In that case, the player who lost a valuable unit takes the "Mulligan" piece, and gives it to the attacker, to force them to re-roll. However the re-roll turns out, that's what you get.

The person who receives the Mulligan chit cannot turn around on the same attack, give it to the defender, and re-roll again. You can't Mulligan a Mulligan.

Once the piece is in play, it can be used by giving it to your opponent. That lets you re-roll either your attack, that fizzled, or forces them to re-roll their attack, if it was just to much!

If your opponent has the chit, and more horrible luck happens to you, you just have to tough it out. There is only one Mulligan chit.

There are lots of variations, most a bit more liberal.

Thread: Re: Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. Morning of the first day.

Jan van der Laan — 2008-10-06T13:43:38+00:00

I've enjoyed your detailed AAR a lot. It seems to be a tense game. But what do you mean by: "We use a Mulligan style house rule" or better: what is a Mulligan style house rule?

Thread: Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. Morning of the first day.

Morocco Mole — 2008-10-05T22:33:29+00:00

There were just three of us for last weeks game night, so we pulled out Gettysburg: Badges of Courage, a game we've been trying to get better at. We use a Mulligan style house rule, and a Day One Confederate Victory rule. The Confederate victory rule pressures the Union player to hold Gettysburg as long as possible on July 1st. Reynolds and Heth both start at strength 1, and there is only a 25% of the initiative changing each turn. Mike and Andy took the Union, I gladly took the Confederates.

July 1st, Eight A.M. Initiative – Mandatory Confederate

Heth's division, moving off of Herr Ridge toward Gettysburg, encounters Buford's cavalry in positions across Willoughby Run, and on McPherson's Ridge. Heth decides to engage, and sends Davis across Willoughby Run (to G12). Pettigrew (H12) is at the bridge, confronting Gamble. Brockenbrough moves up alongside Pettigrew, and Archer moves up to the river on the right (I12). Garnett stays with Heth at Herr Tavern (H13).

Buford has Gamble contesting the bridge (H11), and Devin watching his right flank (G10). Tidball is positioned with Buford at McPherson's farm (H10). Reynolds and Wadsworth, with his troops, hurry north on Emmitsburg Road.

Nine A.M. Initiative – Union

Reynolds moves up onto Seminary Ridge (H9) to confer with Buford. Wadsworth (in column, I8) approaches Seminary Ridge as well with his brigades; Meredith (in column, I9), and Cutler (in column, H7). Doubleday (U12) and Robinson (X13) enter, and move their divisions north on Emmitsburg Road, Wainwright moving ahead of them (Q10).

Meanwhile, Heth orders a co-ordinated attack to push Gamble back from Willoughby Run. First, Brockenbrough volley's on Gamble, with no real effect; but Garnett, even at long range from Herr Tavern (H13) scores a hit. Then Davis moves across Bender Run to threaten a flank maneuver (F11); Pettigrew and Archer wade across the river and assault Gamble (H11).
Melee 1st Round
Gamble: A3 (modified) 2 dice; 1 hit on Pettigrew.
Pettigrew: B2 (modified) 3 dice; 3 hits on Gamble. The Union player takes the Mulligan chit, and gives it to the Confederate player. The reroll turns up no hits, and you cannot Mulligan a Mulligan.
Archer:- (modified)
Melee 2nd Round
Gamble: Gamble, who has just seen his life pass before his eyes, contemplates, and withdraws to McPherson's farm (H10).
Pettigrew: -
Archer: -
Pettigrew and Archer are now across Willoughby Run (H11), and Brockenbrough regroups in behind them as well. -The Confederate player now holds the coveted Mulligan chit.-

Ten A.M. Initiative – Union

Buford decides to fire and maneuver with his men, and relocates to the adjacent woods (G9) while giving the orders. Gamble and Tidball volley and fire into the Southern ranks (H11), both to no noticeable effect. (The Union player mumbles something about “dice” and “microwave”...) Devin moves to Oak Hill (E9), a move that does not seem to upset the Confederate's at all. Meredith forms line and moves forward (I10), Wadsworth moves in next to Reynolds (H9), and Cutler moves to the Lutheran Seminary (I9) and forms line. Wainwright continues to move north (I7), as do Doubleday (O9), and Robinson (R11), with their troops. Howard (T11), and Barlow (V12) with his division enter and move north on Emmitsburg Road, coming in behind Robinson. Schurz (Q6) enters and moves north on Taneytown Road with his division.

Heth pushes forward to Bender's farm (G11) with Garnett. Davis moves up onto Mcpherson's Ridge (F10), as does Pettigrew (G10). Brockenbrough moves into the woods on the south (I11). (At this point Buford regrets having fired with Tidball, and begins earnest prayer regarding initiative.) Hill, Pegram, and McIntosh enter, and move to Leiper's farm (H12). Hill consults with Heth, then sends men and supplies to Heth and Pettigrew.

Eleven A.M. Initiative – Union (sigh)

Buford happily moves Gamble and Tidball back into the cover of the woods (G9). Meredith shifts north to fill in for Gamble (H10), and Cutler takes up position on Meredith's left (I10). Wainwright moves up to the Lutheran Seminary and deploys (I9). Doubleday continues north reaching Gettysburg (I7), with Robinson (L8), Howard (N9), and Barlow (P10) stretched out behind on Emmitsburg Road. Schurz (N9) continues north on Taneytown Road with his division. Osborn (N5), and Steinwehr (R6) with his division enter, and also move north on Taneytown Road. Buford sends the last of his available men and supplies to Tidball.

Heth (G11) prepares his division for an attack on the Union position at McPherson's farm (H10). Garnett (G11) and Pegram (H12) both fire at long range, doing no harm, and Brockenbrough (I11) volley's, also to no effect. Now Pender's division becomes available, and shifts south off-board to the Fairfield Road entrance. The lead element, Perrin, is placed just on the map, in column (N14). The rest of the division will follow next turn. Pettigrew and Archer, with rebel yells, shot, and bayonet assault Meredith's position (H10).
Melee 1st Round
Meredith: A3 3 dice; 1 hit on Pettigrew.
Pettigrew: B3 3 dice; 2 hits on Meredith.
Archer: B1 (modified) 3 dice; no hits. (The Confederate player mumbles something about “dice” and “microwave”.)
Melee 2nd Round
Meredith: withdraws (to H9).
Pettigrew: -
Archer: -
Archer regroups to Pettigrew's left (G10). Hill (H12) sends the last of his available men and supplies to Heth (G11) and Pettigrew (H10).

The Situation at Noon.

Union divisions and assets from I Corps and XI Corps continue to rush north toward Gettysburg. Both Gamble and Meredith barely escaped being shattered, but the line is holding for the moment. Meredith's position is by far the most tenuous. Wainwright's guns will be of immense help if the Union keeps the initiative. If not...

The Confederate's are doing fairly well. Heth's division is as strong as it was at Eight A.M., and he's gotten across Willoughby Run, and up onto McPherson's Ridge. Sadly, no Union brigades have been shattered, yet. Pender's division will add a much needed second maneuver element, and of course Ewell comes in from the north at One P.M. Hill is exhausted, but Lee will be in soon enough. More to follow.

Image

oneilljgf — 2008-09-20T17:39:10+00:00

Detail of Longstreet's I Corps prior to their assault on the Wheatfield on day 2 of Gettysburg.

Image

oneilljgf — 2008-09-20T17:37:00+00:00

Day 2 of Gettysburg. I've set this up for solo play using a 100cm x 70cm perspex poster frame.

Image

oneilljgf — 2008-09-15T17:24:30+00:00

3-D Custom Turn Marker made from a leftover block, appropriately painted and adorned with a couple of cut out flag markers from my Battle Cry set.

Thread: Re: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

elcarto — 2008-08-30T14:43:48+00:00

John - sorry to be such a newbie here at BGG; I just don't get here as often as I should I see that theres been some scans posted, but the 3 map set, with all the variant rules and scenarios, is available from me directly through my email address - elcarto@comcast.net

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

oneilljgf — 2008-08-24T20:41:44+00:00

Brian,

With all the fuss about "hate mail" these days on the Geek, I thought it was about time that I sent one to you.

Some months back, I read your review of Gettysburg: Badges of Courage and a fine review it is too. So much so that the game has been preying on my subconscious until I finaly broke down and purchased a copy (£54.99 in Scotland).

I am not disappointed. It is a great game.

So, are you bloody well satisfied that you have prised fifty-five quid out of a Scotsman?

And to show that all hate mail should be anonymous, I am copying this into the comments section on your review.

Jim
Est. 1949

Thread: Re: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

bentlarsen — 2008-08-04T12:29:57+00:00

Yes, I too am interested in purchasing a set of these maps, Rick.

Thread: Lost Triumph

wargamer55 — 2008-07-10T04:29:43+00:00

Back in April I looked at how someone could use a wargame (Gettysburg '88) to evaluate an author's theory (Tom Carhart in "Lost Triumph") that Lee had a secret plan to coordinate Pickett's Charge with a attack on the rear of the Federal Army by Stuart's cavalry. Carhart's theory is that Lee's brilliant plan was undone by the Boy General Custer and his unexpectedly effective resistance during the cavalry battle on Low Dutch Road on July 3rd, 1863.

I concluded back then that the wargame didn't suggest that the scheme was workable, but noted that few Gettysburg wargames allow players to really look at that end of the field.

A newer game that indirectly allows a look at the prospects for Lee's alleged plan is Columbia Games' Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. While not including the Low Dutch Road area, an optional rule allows for an off-map cavalry battle that could, conceivably, allow some of Stuart's troopers to arrive at 4 p.m., around the time of Pickett's attack.

Chances are so low that this will happen, though, that player's interested in the notion will have to tweak the Day 3 scenario somewhat.

Instead of playing the Cavalry battle exactly as written, player's can goose Stuart's chances by implementing the following measures: Assume Huey doesn't arrive and assume Custer stays with Kilpatrick's Division instead of joining Gregg. Add Jenkins to the off-board CSA cavalry force. Playing this out, though, will still reveal that Stuart's surviving force, if it can defeat Gregg, will often be too weak to attack the Union rear.

So as an alternative, there's the "Lost Triumph" variant, or Carhart's Fantasy scenario. Assume that Huey doesn't arrive and Custer is assigned to Gregg, but assume that the Union player rolls really, really bad and Custer, Gregg and McIntosh's brigades, Robertson's guns and the Gregg divisional leader are all eliminated while the Rebels just lose Jenkins in the fighting. Have Stuart, Beckham, Hampton, F.Lee and Chambliss arrive on the Baltimore Pike at full strength. In addition, on the 4 p.m. turn no Federal units within 2 hexes Powers Hill can move.

From my game blog at http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

pete belli — 2008-06-26T03:22:41+00:00

You can see the maps here...

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/32492

...in the Gettysburg: Badges of Courage comment under item #9 of this GeekList.

Thread: Re: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

akrongehl — 2008-06-26T02:57:51+00:00

Rick, are you not going to respond to us, we have expressed interested, feed our interest so that we will purchase????? General

Thread: Re: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

akrongehl — 2008-06-24T16:52:56+00:00

Yes, I may be interested, but would like to see the map before I purchase it. John

Thread: Re: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

Tudeh — 2008-06-15T10:23:36+00:00

Is it possible to look at the map somewhere on the net?
Thanks and greetings,
Tudeh

Thread: El Carto's revised maps for GBOC

elcarto — 2008-06-11T12:14:59+00:00

Just wanted to mention that I've designed and printed a three map set of revised maps to use with Columbia's GBOC block game, as well as my variant rules to work with them.

I found the original map to be far too constricted in terms of space to maneuver (common to most Gettysburg Games), but also pretty poor from a cartographer's viewpoint. My revised maps about double the area to play over, are far more accurate in terms of the ground analysis, ans are at a true 400/hex scale.

My set also includes a third map covering a plausible alternate site for the confrontation between Lee and Meade, this time much closer to Harrisburg, in the wide gap at Dillsburg, PA, between the ends of South Mountain and the Conewago hills to the east. It's a nasty, hourglass shaped battlefield that plays like a cross between South Mountain and Antietam from 1862.

Several folks herein already have these maps, but if you're interested they run $40 incl S&H, and come rolled in a sturdy tube. Paypal, Check or MO all work for me, so leave me a message here if this piques your curiosity.

Rick Barber

Thread: Re: Would anyone like to play

BarryRoy — 2008-05-15T11:23:06+00:00

anyone? anyone?

Image

pete belli — 2008-05-10T00:23:03+00:00

Variant Map -- Eastern Section

Image

pete belli — 2008-05-09T22:28:30+00:00

Variant Map -- Dillsburg Alternate History Section

Image

pete belli — 2008-05-09T22:16:56+00:00

Variant Map -- Western Section

Thread: Re: Almost Great

Cage — 2008-04-28T01:03:34+00:00

I've played this loads, i really like it...i feel i've had some good historical results out of it, so the rules for me after many plays hold up well.

Thread: Re: New Sticker Design: Requesting Comments & Suggestions

Cage — 2008-04-28T01:00:13+00:00

Looks pretty good. Interesting play points too, i like the system and it's certainly a ruleset you can add as much extra historical accuracy or fluff that you like.

Thread: Re: New Sticker Design: Requesting Comments & Suggestions

elcarto — 2008-03-29T19:19:07+00:00

The new sticker design looks fine. In my own play and testing, we decided to add a dot of color (Blue/Inf; Red/Arty; Yellow/Cav; Gold/Leaders to the edges of the blocks. At the sighting ranges we're dealing with here, you'd have no trouble telling what type of unit anybody was, but wouldn't know their identity or 'strength'. We decided that it was pure fantasy that the Union player (either, for that matter) would be able to bluff his opponent by loading a hex with nothing but leaders. We have come up with a few 'blank counters of each type, and are working them in to keep a certain amount of FoW, but to have ALL units unidentified at these ranges is very unrealistic.

We also require that any Leader whose troops have all been shattered be removed from the map. Just a thought, but it avoids some very unrealistic play

Rick Barber

Thread: Re: Almost Great

pete belli — 2008-03-19T10:12:47+00:00

If you're interested in seeing a new design concept for the blocks:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/300749

Any comments would be welcomed.

Thread: Re: Almost Great

Genghisx — 2008-03-19T03:15:15+00:00

1. You should try the Stonewall Lives variant on the Columbia web site.
2. Or try playing the JEB Stuart cavalry battle on the third day prior to the first day set-up
3. You can fire AND melee through a hex side, this is in addition to artillery fire
4. Melee bonuses for the defender only apply in the first round
5. Some game balance rules -1 die firing uphill and/or +1 die firing downhill and allowing units to remain in melee (no mandatory attacker retreat)
6. The Union is tough to play because the lack of sustainable fire fights compared to the Confederates
7. Not allowing for units to manuever out of command range greatly improves the game play
8. The advantage of the Confederates to mass artillery is a huge asset because of the artillery commanders
9. Overall a great game!!!
10. If I get off my lazy butt, I'll design scenarios for the other battles.

Thread: Re: New Sticker Design: Requesting Comments & Suggestions

pete belli — 2008-03-18T03:42:10+00:00

This photo shows the Confederate II Corps under Ewell deployed on the map:

]]>

With the color-coded symbols in the center of each block a player should be able to tell at a glance which brigade belongs to which division. The corps assets have a yellow background.

Thread: Re: New Sticker Design: Requesting Comments & Suggestions

pete belli — 2008-03-18T02:01:37+00:00

This is an example with square stickers:

]]>

By aligning the unit symbol/combat rating boxes slightly to the right I have more room for the brigade commander's name. I also had extra space for the corps designation in the lower right hand corner.

Image

pete belli — 2008-03-17T10:22:32+00:00

Confederate sticker sheet

Image

pete belli — 2008-03-17T10:20:02+00:00

Union sticker sheet

Thread: New Sticker Design: Requesting Comments & Suggestions

pete belli — 2008-03-17T03:35:07+00:00

Gettysburg: Badges Of Courage arrived in my mailbox recently.

As a devoted Civil War buff I have been keeping an eye on this game here on BGG while working some ideas out in my feeble game designer brain.

Please take a look at these sample unit stickers I’ve created and then we can discuss the changes… I think the modifications might be beneficial.

]]>

]]>

I plan to use standard infantry, cavalry, and artillery unit symbols… determining the branch of the service is extremely important, of course, but the information need not take up quite so much room on the counter. By doing this I was able to squeeze the combat rating in the same space. We loose some flavor but we may gain some clarity.

For division commanders and their subordinate brigades I used the standard red/blue/white color system employed by the Union army simply by changing the ink color inside the central square. The corps designation is still in a corner, but this combination seems to provide a better visual cue for the players than the little diamonds, squares, etc. In addition, this color coding is a little more visible when the units are partially screened by friendly forces.

I used a gold background for corps assets. The leaders will have a star ranking inside the central square... we know the unit is a leader by the presence of stars and we know his command range by the number of stars: Reynolds is a 3 in this example. This helps to prevent the command range from being blocked when a leader is screened by other units. Unfortunately, the corps designation remains in a corner. The notations on the sample artillery unit should be self explanatory.

Suggestions are welcome! I’d be delighted to hear what experienced players think about this system, even if the comments are entirely negative. Thanks.

Image

WatchmanX2000 — 2008-03-10T00:52:27+00:00

Game at Origins 2006

Thread: Re: Almost Great

sherron — 2008-03-08T03:48:25+00:00

How much and where do you get a copy?

I just ordered a map for my Gettysburg War of States game and I contacted Rick Barber at elcarto@comcast.net. It cost me $25 and it includs shipping & handling. One can pay by Paypal.

Thread: Re: Almost Great

nhojput — 2008-03-08T03:23:01+00:00

maybe it was my opponent that got the good rolls.

Thread: Re: Almost Great

Kozure — 2008-03-08T01:29:05+00:00

gittes wrote:
Usually hen I lined up my artillery guns and blasted away at Cemetery Ridge, the results were uninspiring. Maybe you go a lot of lucky die rolls?

Same here. nhojput, you've made adjustments for range and double-checked the artillery rules?

In two games as CSA, I've never gotten much results from long range artillery bombardment - at least, never enough to justify the long period of positioning and manoeuvre required to get at least four or five pieces firing on Cemetary.

Thread: Re: Almost Great

gittes — 2008-03-07T23:47:39+00:00

Usually hen I lined up my artillery guns and blasted away at Cemetery Ridge, the results were uninspiring. Maybe you go a lot of lucky die rolls?

Thread: Re: Almost Great

nhojput — 2008-03-07T22:56:43+00:00

contray to this review,in our plays we felt that the artillery for the south was too strong compared the historical results. my friend and i abandoned this game after a few plays after finding out that a patient csa could line up their artillery and seriously weaken the union lines even on culp's hill. the game was fun and has great graphics and the potential of the double move adds some uncertain excitement and some gamey situations. with the great components this game might could use a redesign to make it more historical but in doing so might take some of the fun out of the play.

Thread: Re: Almost Great

pete belli — 2008-03-07T21:46:56+00:00

This map sounds interesting! I'd like to learn more about it.

I would like to see a larger board (in terms of the area around Gettysburg actually shown on the map) that would provide some additional room to manuever.

Thread: Re: Almost Great

gittes — 2008-03-07T21:36:40+00:00

How much and where do you get a copy?

Thread: Re: Almost Great

ScottH — 2008-03-07T21:34:03+00:00

I just paid for Rick Barber's great map for this. That should improve the block squeezing issue and look much better.

Thread: Almost Great

gittes — 2008-03-07T19:05:18+00:00

Gettysburg: Badges of Courage is Columbia's attempt at simulating the epic battle of Gettysburg using the block command system which I believe was first pioneered in Rommel in the Desert.

Gameplay (23 out of 30): Badges of Courage is based around command control, with division commanders moving anywhere from two to five brigades (depending on the size of the division) into combat. By doing this division commanders use steps, but replenish them through their corps commander, who in turn is usually replenished by the army commander. My last opponent described this as micromanagement, as a commander's command range and steps must be taken into account at all times, forcing the player to consider every move and placement. Add to that the tension created by fog of war, and you have turns that are true brain busters.

The system works well and goes a good job of hammering home the importance of command but I think it is ill suited to the Gettysburg situation for two reasons. The first is that the Columbia block system favors the defender by allowing him to usually fire first. Now I have no problem with this, but in Badges of Courage it can get silly. First of all instead of moving and shooting, it is switched. While is a strange choice, I see that the designers wanted to avoid an attacker moving and then getting to fire before the defender has a shot, however with random initiative you can run into a situation like this:
Top of the turn you move Hood's division to attack the Wheatfield, then the opponent fires back on his half of the turn. Next turn you lose the initiative, so opponent fires again before your men even pop a shot off. This leads to gamey tactics, like attacking on a turn where you lose the initiative, hoping to gain the initiative on the following turn and allowing you to shoot first.

The second problem is that the system used in Badges of Courage gives you advantages for the terrain you use, making it hard for attackers to take positions like Little Round Top. The advantages are so great that there are some places that are literally impregnable, and many of these are victory point locations like the Round Tops and Culp's Hill. With a battle like Antietam, where there were few forests or hills, this system would work wonderfully, but in the hilly terrain of Gettysburg a smart defender is king. This is historically accurate, but makes for a flat session because after the chaos and maneuver of the first day, heavy forces arrive and allow the Union to hold the positions indefinitely. Yet the defender bonuses can sometimes fly in the face of history. During the real battle Law's Alabama brigade tried to take Little Round Top and almost succeeded, yet the defender bonuses make this impossible in Badge of Courage.

The biggest error though is that the map, while big for a Columbia Game, is too small for the hordes of brigades involved. After day one the game is no longer one of maneuver, but instead force. If the Confederate player has failed to take some of the heights south of town, god have mercy on him as his graycoats attack the Yankee hordes.

Components (6 out of 10): The blocks are great, and many famous units like the Irish Brigade have a special look. However, I find the map to be sort of ugly, but functional.

Originality (2 out of 5): Having played EastFront, I see this as another from Columbia's most prolific system. Not too much is new here except the use of division, corps, and army commanders in getting your men to fight, which remains my favorite part of the game.

Historical Quality (4 out of 5): This is among the most accurate entries from Columbia Games, including the presence of I.R. Trimble as a confederate division replacement. Best of all, one really gets the feel for the Civil War era command and organization.

Overall (35 out of 50): The command system is excellent, and I love blocks and Columbia Games, but Badges of Courage is a bit of a disappointment. The game is almost great; I give it an 8 rating because I think the system is among the best out there, but ill suited to the Battle of Gettysburg because of terrain and the size of the armies. For now I eagerly await other games in the series, although the next one, Shiloh, won't be released anytime soon.

Image

gittes — 2008-03-02T03:58:38+00:00

Pickett's Charge!

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

kostek — 2008-01-20T14:23:14+00:00

alkaiser wrote:
... There was also a lot of complaining about why the fog of war was emphasized so much with the use of blocks.

At first blush it's not obvious why block style fog-of-war is appropriate at this scale. You figure your guys can see each other, right?

First of course, fog-of-war is always a fun game element.

On the simulation side, the fog-of-war from the blocks simulates the chaos and stress of the battlefield at an abstract level. I don't know exactly how well each side could see the other, but there was no doubt a lot of confusion. Having to remember what the other guy has versus seeing it seems like a good simulation of that chaos to me.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

bigcheese — 2007-12-18T22:17:35+00:00

mrbeankc wrote:
[I think the map size is a big problem with what is otherwise a great game. It makes game play unwieldy and literally slows down the game because you have to constantly be shifting blocks around checking and double checking to find units. The result is the game literally plays longer because you are spending all this time fussing around with the blocks trying to see where your stuff is.

I agree that crowding is certainly a problem for the Union player on days 2 & 3 which are inevitably spent on Cemetery Ridge. The other problem is the use of (possibly historical) symbols for the Union Corps (rather than Roman numerals) which make them difficult to identify. Overall though it’s a great game that I look forward to playing again.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

alkaiser — 2007-12-16T03:23:20+00:00

Back when this game came out there were a lot of people who complained about this game. They said that all the Union had to do was walk backward and the South couldn't touch them. They said it was kind of boring playing nothing but a retreat action that just ended up with two solid lines of men slugging it out back and forth. You wonder if they'd played a Civil War game before! There was also a lot of complaining about why the fog of war was emphasized so much with the use of blocks. This was obviously done to allow for the differences in unit strength that are nicely (and it seems fairly accurately) incorporated into the game. I didn't really understand what all the complaining was about.

I loved this game the first time I played it. Columbia seems to have a knack for distilling a confrontation down to its essential components and emphasizing them but all the while keeping the game very playable. Rommel in the Desert has the supply element, East Front has the armored breakthroughs and encirclements, Hammer of the Scots has nobles switching sides and this one has command and control/divisional integrity. I think that this really brings out a key aspect of this conflict and forces the players to take notice of it. I especially like the differences between the structures of the Union and Confederate armies and how the game allows you to explore the advantages and disadvantages of that structure. Very nice indeed and something you don't always find in wargames at the lighter end of the spectrum (not that this is a light game just lighter than many).

I agree that overall this is a fine game for anyone wanting to explore Civil War battles in a game that keeps the complexity fairly low while still keeping the essence of those battles present.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

pete belli — 2007-12-15T10:27:15+00:00

Interesting review!

Union regiments were usually smaller than Confederate regiments because Federal authorities at the state level (with a few exceptions) choose to form new recruits into new regiments. This was done primarily to increase political patronage for Northern state governors. New recruits for Southern regiments were usually sent to existing formations.

I'd like to learn more about this game!

What are the victory conditions? Does this game offer any historical flexibility? In other words, are the players forced to follow the historical pattern of events, or can they use an alternative strategy? Can Longstreet stand on the defensive? Can Lee make a wide flank march? (I assume not, since the map is described as being too small.) What are the options for each player at the end of July 1st? Is Lee forced to continue the attack?

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

goldenboat — 2007-12-14T02:01:13+00:00

Cleitus the Black wrote:
goldenboat wrote:
These two features have kept the game from hitting my table as often as I would like, but I hope to enlarge the maps and set aside a weekend to get this one played again sometime in 2008.

Count me in Paul.

It's a date. That makes Gettysburg only about ... oh ... game number fifteen or twenty on our list, right?

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

goldenboat — 2007-12-14T01:59:43+00:00

mrbeankc wrote:
I've actually been kicking around in my mind taking the game to Kinkos and printing out a 50% larger sized version of the map.

Me too. Whoever gets a quote first should report back here. Deal?

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

Cleitus the Black — 2007-12-13T17:52:20+00:00

goldenboat wrote:
These two features have kept the game from hitting my table as often as I would like, but I hope to enlarge the maps and set aside a weekend to get this one played again sometime in 2008.

Count me in Paul.

I've only solo'd the game once, but I didn't find such a problem with the map. Yes, you often have four blocks in a hex and two of them are 'hidden.' But given the game's command mechanics, most brigades of a divison are very close together - and brigades from multiple divisions shouldn't mix too often. Plus divisional structures are fairly standard, i.e. a couple of infantry brigades, a general, and some artillery. So you pretty much have a sense of what's hidden based on what you see. I admit, though, that this general situational awareness of what's where breaks down in the face of the enemy and things can get mixed up.

Also, consider standard counters which are invariably stacked to some extent. In games with counters, we must constantly 'futz' with the units to see what's underneath.

In any case, good review Brian. I too felt the game simulated the battle pretty well - though I am hardly the expert you are.

Also, I like how brittle the units are generally. Once the bridages of a division take some hits, a general commits the division at great risk. It forces the player to cycle the corps in and out in a historical fasion.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

Harae — 2007-12-13T13:42:12+00:00

Although I can't comment if it is a good simulation, I tremendously enjoy this game each time I play it. It is nice to read that a Gettysburg buff actually praises the game for being a good simulation as well.

(I heard some voices stating it was not a good simulation as the Confederates are able to move too quickly but I read as well that Lee most probably lost Gettysburg as he was to cautious in his initial moves).

I think it is a great game: fast, furious and pretty bloody and I would love to see more titles (Jackson and Napoleon are already in development).

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

mrbeankc — 2007-12-13T10:47:28+00:00

goldenboat wrote:
Agree with you that this is an overlooked game, and that there is a usability problem as regards the size of the map. As was the case with the most recent edition of Columbia's Napoleon, I really feel the map needs to be blown up by ten or fifteen percent over its present size to let me see the terrain and easily arrange my blocks.

The game is also deceptively long; it can take a full six-odd hours to play a single day of the battle.

These two features have kept the game from hitting my table as often as I would like, but I hope to enlarge the maps and set aside a weekend to get this one played again sometime in 2008.

I think the map size is a big problem with what is otherwise a great game. It makes game play unwieldy and literally slows down the game because you have to constantly be shifting blocks around checking and double checking to find units. The result is the game literally plays longer because you are spending all this time fussing around with the blocks trying to see where your stuff is.

The map is 22 x 34 inches which to be fair is the same size as the average maps from GMT. On the other hand you've got 192 wooden blocks in this game and a good chunk of them crowded around the Cemetery Hill area.

I've actually been kicking around in my mind taking the game to Kinkos and printing out a 50% larger sized version of the map.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

mrbeankc — 2007-12-13T09:27:36+00:00

kostek wrote:
I am an aspiring grognard, sticking to the simpler end of wargames. How big is a brigade? Based on the fact that the game has 192 blocks, I guess a brigade is fairly small, meaning this game resolves the battle with fine detail.

In general the strucure of armies during the war was Army, Corps, Divisions, Brigade, Regiment. An easy way to remember the structure is to simply remember "A Cloudy Day Brings Rain". The general rule of thumb for the Army of the Potomac in 1863 was 4 regiments to a Brigade, 3 Brigades to a division and 3 divisions to a Corps. Regiments in general were 1,000 men but by time 1863 rolled around many regiments were greatly depleted. The average strength of a regiment was likely at Gettysburg 300-400 men. The 24th Michigan (a relatively new regiment) had around 850 while one of the regiments in the Irish Brigade had only 44. So it varied greatly.

Confederate brigades in contrast were generally bigger with there being 6 or even 7 regiments in a brigade and 4 or 5 brigades to a division. So you would literally have Confederate divisions the size of Union Corps.

For the most part there are two levels of civil war simulation. Either at the brigade level or the regimental. The regimental games tend to be monster games as you can imagine with there being over 100 regiments on each side. Brigade level is the more manageable level in civil war gaming.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

GROGnads — 2007-12-13T05:11:27+00:00

kostek wrote:
I am an aspiring grognard, sticking to the simpler end of wargames. How big is a brigade? Based on the fact that the game has 192 blocks, I guess a brigade is fairly small, meaning this game resolves the battle with fine detail.

What is typical?

My interests lie in the 2-4 hr range, but it sounds like there's simply too much going on to fit into that time frame. Have other people simulated this battle at different scales? I'm quoting from the following:
'Almark' "American Civil War: Union Infantry Uniforms" 1977, Page 5, 2nd sentence:
The Regiment (Volunteer): "As the war progressed, officially prescribed regimental strength became rather theoretical. If it was around 1,000 in 1861, average strength by 1862 was 650, at Gettysburg in 1863 it was 375, rising to about 440 in 1864".
This would further depend on how many "Regiments" were contained within any particular "Brigade", along with the amount of personnel that each currently had. Seth is correct in ascribing the "variations" for this on the TOTAL then.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

wargamer55 — 2007-12-13T04:18:00+00:00

Civil War brigades were usually 1,000 to 2,000 men. Gettysburg was the biggest battle of the war.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

kostek — 2007-12-13T03:20:49+00:00

I am an aspiring grognard, sticking to the simpler end of wargames. How big is a brigade? Based on the fact that the game has 192 blocks, I guess a brigade is fairly small, meaning this game resolves the battle with fine detail.

What is typical?

My interests lie in the 2-4 hr range, but it sounds like there's simply too much going on to fit into that time frame. Have other people simulated this battle at different scales?

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

goldenboat — 2007-12-13T00:33:00+00:00

Agree with you that this is an overlooked game, and that there is a usability problem as regards the size of the map. As was the case with the most recent edition of Columbia's Napoleon, I really feel the map needs to be blown up by ten or fifteen percent over its present size to let me see the terrain and easily arrange my blocks.

The game is also deceptively long; it can take a full six-odd hours to play a single day of the battle.

These two features have kept the game from hitting my table as often as I would like, but I hope to enlarge the maps and set aside a weekend to get this one played again sometime in 2008.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg i

zeotter — 2007-12-12T23:56:29+00:00

Great review, I too am a bit of a Gettysburg and Civil War buff (no where near you level, I have only been to Gettysburg once).

I think this game get a bad rap and it is nice to see it get a good review I am looking forward to Columbia Games next Civil War release Shiloh: April Glory.

Thread: Re: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

BarryRoy — 2007-12-12T23:22:01+00:00

Brian,

Would you be interested in playing the game via email or vassal?

Barry

Thread: brigade level simulation that scratches the Gettysburg itch

mrbeankc — 2007-12-12T22:28:59+00:00

I'm a Gettysburg buff. There's no question about it. I have a collection of over 100 books on the battle and vacation there annually. So as you would expect when it comes to games I have to try out every Gettysburg game I see. What do I look for in a Gettysburg game you ask? I look for two things most of all. (a) does it accurately simulate the battle historically and (b) does it do so while at the same time preserving the playability.

Currently Gettysburg: Badges of Courage is the only brigade level Gettysburg simulation in print that I know of. There have been others in the past however with the best game of that level being Thunder at the Crossroads of the Gamers Civil War Brigade series. Unfortunately that game is out of print and rather expansive to pick up off of Ebay. If you're looking for a brigade level Gettysburg game, this one is currently your only choice.

]]>

Mechanics:

Gettysburg Badges of Courage is in a nutshell a block game simulation of the battle of Gettysburg at the brigade level. Each Brigade in both armies have their own individual block as well as Division, Corps and Army headquarters. The mechanics are very similar to many of the other block games currently available from Columbia Games. Each unit has a combat rating ranging from A-D and 1-3 located in the upper right hand corner of the counter. The letter signifies when the unit fires in melee i.e. units rated an A fire first and D fire last. The number next to the letter signifies what the unit needs to roll to hit. Finally the strength of the unit also signifies how many dice it rolls. Thus the unit above if at it's full strength of 4 would fire in the first round, roll 4 dice and hit on rolls of 1, 2 or 3.

]]>

Headquarter units are the key to this game's rather interesting supply system. In the game a division can not attack enemy units unless a division headquarters expends one point of it's strength. Once a division HQ is activated all of it's brigades within it's command range can fire. It's command range is the number on the bottom right side of the block. So for the block above it could order attacks on two consecutive turns to all it's combat units within two hexes of it. Now that may not seem like a long time but that's an hour in game simulated time and most brigades would be out of ammunition after an hour.

]]>

Divisions and brigades are resupplied in the game in sort of a cascading supply chain. It starts at the top with the Army headquarters. Above you see an example of the Union Army Headquarters which has a command rating of 3. The rating means that this unit can supply 3 points to other units within 3 hexes of it. These can be any units but most often it is to Corps Headquarters. The Corps headquarters in turn resupply the division headquarters who then can use those points to launch attacks or resupply brigades.

An example of this kind of cascading resupply would be the Union Army headquarters losing a step and sending 1 point each to 3 different Corps headquarters. Let's say one of those headquarters is 2nd Corps whose commander Winfield Hancock has a command rating of 3 as well. Hancock's HQ block would increase 1 step for the point he receives from army headquarters. With his command rating of 3 he could then immediately reduce one step and send out 3 steps each to his divisions headquarters that are within range.

It's a difficult system at first to get your mind around, but in the end it works extremely well. The system simulates rather well the importance of command and supply while making it all work together rather smoothly.

]]>

Components:

The game comes with a lot of blocks. All told there are 192 gppd sized wooden blocks. The stickers on the blocks are for the most part practical and the extra info of things like putting on the blocks the names of the units or what state's regiments were in it is a nice touch. The Iron Brigade for example above features it's famous black hats in the center instead of the normal crossed rifles most brigades have. This helps add to the game's historical flavor.

]]>

The one bad thing in this game is the map. It is unfortunately on the small side for the number of blocks that can be crammed into an area. An example of how this is a problem can be illustrated in the photo above. Many times you have 4 blocks to a hex. The hexes are only wide enough for you to place two blocks in a row. Thus you have two blocks in front and two blocks in back with the front blocks blocking your view of the back ones. This is especially a problem when you move full divisions as the unit symbols are on the bottom of the block. It's very easy to miss one of your division's brigades because you couldn't see it's symbol.

The map for this game should have been about 50% larger than it is. This would have greatly improved the ability to view your units during play and made things go more smoothly. As it is now time in the game is spent with players shifting and lifting blocks simply because they can't see what division the blocks are a part of.

]]>

Historical Simulation value:

Ok, now here's a big question. How is the game in terms of it's being a good historical simulation? I think it does very well. The game has a great deal of flavor to it. Units are marked with their Corps symbols, unit names, commander's name and states which helps give the pieces context. Instead of being a bland generic unit we know that a certain unit is commanded by Gordon and features mostly Georgia regiments. For the Union we have the Iron Brigade for example commanded by Meredith and featuring it's famous black hats. This is important to the game's flavor.

The rules themselves also recreate the battle itself well. Brigades can't go full bore the entire day. They need to rest and resupply. Command is important and it's important to keep your divisions grouped within range of their command headquarters which was important during the actual battle. Many units at Gettysburg stopped when they lost contact with their commanders because they simply didn't know where to go. This system works well in simulating all of this while keeping the system moving along at a nice pace.

Another historical accurate touch is the unit strengths. Not all regiments and brigades were the same strength. Confederate brigades tended to have more regiments in them than their Union counterparts. This is represented well by having many Confederate brigades being at a level 4 strength while most Union regiments are strength 3. Other units has suffered very poorly in previous battles and were much smaller than average. The Irish Brigade for example was down to 500 total men with one regiment having only 44 men and officers left in it at Gettysburg. The result is the Irish Brigade has but 1 strength point on it's block.

]]>

Summery:

Over all I think this is a very good game and simulates the Battle of Gettysburg extremely well. It has strong historical flavor that should please most Gettysburg buffs and yet has strong playability. The map is a bit small but the important parts are still there. The single day scenarios can easily be played on a weeknight and the full battle in one sitting as long as that sitting is about 6 hours.

I rate this game an 8

Thread: Re: Gettysburg, July 1st, 1863 - A Letter from the First Day

Kozure — 2007-07-03T14:49:36+00:00

bestbandis wrote:
Nice report. I don't know the game, but you certainly made me want to play it. It's a shame we're not going to hear about day 2 - another time, perhaps?

Great work.

Cheers,
Aaron

If we ever play through from the Day 2 scenario or start again and do the whole shebang, I'll write something along similar lines.