Recommend
36 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

The 6 Days of Glory» Forums » Reviews

Subject: The First of a Great Series rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Review [+] ClashArms [+] Napoleonic [+] GITTE [+] [View All]
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The 6 Days of Glory is an operational game covering the battles of Champaubert, Montmirail, and Vauchamps. This campaign is usually considered to be one of Napoleon's masterpieces, forgotten mostly because while it bought time, Napoleon ultimately was defeated in his attempt to hold Paris.

Gameplay (26 out of 28): The 6 Days of Glory is the first game in Kevin Zucker's DAYS series (which includes 1806: Rossbach Avenged, The Last Days of the Grande Armee, and The Seven Days of 1809). The system is simpler than Zucker's Campaign series, but more complex than the system offered in Napoleon's Last Battles. In this game players must use their army commanders to activate corps, which in turn allows them to move and fight. You have to really pay attention to how your units are positioned; poor positioning can hamper the movement of a corps because a commander can only give orders within a certain range. A corps out of range of an army leader must activate on their own, unless they are given a march order at night or they have recently arrived as reinforcements. Command control is an important part of success.

The 6 Days of Glory uses fog-of-war, which only increases the tension. In order to find out what is under that stack you can either attack or be more prudent and simply send light cavalry forces, called vedettes, to investigate. As it is this combination of hidden units and command rules make for tense gaming. Some people don't like the CRT because it is simple, but I feel it gets the job done.

Fog of War in Action:


Operational (5 out of 5): The sessions have their own flow and you must balance out classic operational problems of supply and position with the choice of aggressive or defensive strategies. I like that movement isn't random like in Stonewall Jackson's Way; instead movement is either made in full because the corps has orders from the army commander or they passed an initiative check. Otherwise no movement. I like this because too often in games like Grant Takes Command I'll wonder why Hancock is moving slowly while Burnside marches fast and furious. In this game though you have a reason for Marmont not moving: Napoleon hasn't sent him any orders! If a battle is nearby a commander's chances of moving on his own are improved, representing the classic rule of gunpowder warfare: "march to the sounds of the guns."

Accessibility (3 out of 5): This is the weakest link here, because the original rules are a bit disorganized and the system has been remade. Download the new rules and all should be well.

Components (4 out of 5): The game looks very good, with the map getting the highest marks. Clash of Arms likes a hand-drawn style for their games, and while it works here, sometimes it is hard to read the information on the counters.

The Map is Very Evocative:


Originality (2 out of 2): This game started the series, and while many tried and true concepts remain in practice, such as hexes and CRT tables, the system remains my favorite on the operational level, since it is accessible and remains true to the history.

Historical Quality (5 out of 5): Napoleon must hit the Coalition forces early before they have a chance to consolidate and receive reinforcements. Historically Napoleon won and the French have better units and commanders, but their position is shaky, and an unwise attack can end in disaster. You'll find yourself having to make realistic decisions about attacking and defending, but most importantly victory points are determined mostly through causalities. This captures the spirit of the battle: Napoleon sought to inflict heavy losses while keeping his forces intact.

Overall (45 out of 50): The 6 Days of Glory started the excellent, and unappreciated DAYS system. It captures the spirit of the campaign and is easily accessible for veteran wargamers, since the rules are direct and unambiguous and the counter density is low. I've heard rumors of a a gamey auto-victory strategy for the Allies, but I don't see the evidence.

The French Edition:
32 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Hung
Hong Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
> I like that movement isn't random like in Stonewall Jackson's Way; instead movement is either made in full because the corps has orders from the army commander or they passed an initiative check. Otherwise no movement.

Thanks for the quick review of the game, Sean. I like how both series handle the command as they are both simulate what was happening realistically. For example, in the Napoleonic era, commands were more rigidly made and the hierarchical structure of the command system imposes great restraint on the generals and subordinates. They were more on the side of the conservative and couldn't bear the cost of failures. After all, Napoelon was an "Emperor" and his instructions must be followed or otherwise no action without instructions from the "highest" to avoid making mistake.

The American Civil War was about the people fighting for freedom. The "individualistic" elements on both sides were more prominent than the Europeans and Corps commands were often revolved and organized around the individual general's charisma and capabilities. Speed was often emphasised more than anything else especially when the South was outnumbered and outgunned. I can therefore see why movement in GCACW is a variable dependent on leadership initiative is more appropriate than using the command system in DAYS system. Look what happened to George B. McClellan when he sticked to the rigid command structure and how movement was severly slowed down and opportunities slipped away when attack pursue should have been warranted.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magister Ludi
Australia
Fremantle
Western Australia
flag msg tools
Roll low!
badge
You are a paradox to me, a contradiction You're a predicament for me, and a prediction
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great write up! I think the 1814 Campaign really highlights Napoloenic concepts of manouevre and the decisive battle. I was inspired by F.L Petre's book , Napoloen at Bay' to get into this camapign and this game gives some excellent insights into the tactical/operational level without becomimg overly bogged down.

The map tones really do add a lot of flavour...veyt similar to the 'Jena!' game by Ed Wimble.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the reply. I've got to add some comments and questions.

Quote:
Thanks for the quick review of the game, Sean. I like how both series handle the command as they are both simulate what was happening realistically. For example, in the Napoleonic era, commands were more rigidly made and the hierarchical structure of the command system imposes great restraint on the generals and subordinates. They were more on the side of the conservative and couldn't bear the cost of failures. After all, Napoelon was an "Emperor" and his instructions must be followed or otherwise no action without instructions from the "highest" to avoid making mistake.


I don’t think there was much of an overall difference. While I would not advocate the DAYS system for the ACW, by the same token the totally random movement is too much luck and not in the right way either. There is no difference between corps commanders and their movements within the game are at times laughably erratic. Lee vs. Grant does not have this problem.

Quote:
The American Civil War was about the people fighting for freedom.


Don’t see how this dictates operational warfare. Please elaborate.

Quote:
The "individualistic" elements on both sides were more prominent than the Europeans and Corps commands were often revolved and organized around the individual general's charisma and capabilities.


In the South yes. In the North corps commands were far more uniform and streamlined.

Quote:
Speed was often emphasised more than anything else especially when the South was outnumbered and outgunned.


Please provide evidence. btw, it appears these things were advocated and better utlized in Bonaparte's day.

Quote:
I can therefore see why movement in GCACW is a variable dependent on leadership initiative is more appropriate than using the command system in DAYS system.


Trouble is in GCACW Hancock is as fast as Burnside, so this individual aspect you speak of is in fact poorly represented.

Quote:
Look what happened to George B. McClellan when he sticked to the rigid command structure and how movement was severly slowed down and opportunities slipped away when attack pursue should have been warranted.


McClellan failed because of personality defects. However, his organization model was utilized by all Union armies by 1863, and it worked in the hands of Grant, Sherman, and Thomas.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
robert lindsay
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Lawrence Hung wrote:
> I like that movement isn't random like in Stonewall Jackson's Way; instead movement is either made in full because the corps has orders from the army commander or they passed an initiative check. Otherwise no movement.

Thanks for the quick review of the game, Sean. I like how both series handle the command as they are both simulate what was happening realistically. For example, in the Napoleonic era, commands were more rigidly made and the hierarchical structure of the command system imposes great restraint on the generals and subordinates. They were more on the side of the conservative and couldn't bear the cost of failures. After all, Napoelon was an "Emperor" and his instructions must be followed or otherwise no action without instructions from the "highest" to avoid making mistake.


Then your knowledge of the Napoleanic Era is very limited.

Let's take 1813 for example.
1) Murat is posted to command the wreck of Grande Armee Jan 1813.
He immeadiately hikes off to Italy.

2) Macdonald is told to defend behind the Katzbach
He crosses it and get trounced by Blucher.

You'd be better of linking the 1806 Prussians, they were much more
centrally organized.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Hung
Hong Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I don’t think there was much of an overall difference. While I would not advocate the DAYS system for the ACW, by the same token the totally random movement is too much luck and not in the right way either. There is no difference between corps commanders and their movements within the game are at times laughably erratic. Lee vs. Grant does not have this problem.


I don't think "laughably erratic" is an appropriate word. The fact that the system allows you to conduct a fast movment doesn't mean that historically the generals couldn't do so. The GCACW system is very well-received among the wargamers and if it is so erratic, I don't think the less-than-critical would spare it even though it has pretty and realistic maps. I have tried to compare the system on movement to designer's notes and some other sources and I do find that it is quite realistic.

Quote:
The American Civil War was about the people fighting for freedom.
Don’t see how this dictates operational warfare. Please elaborate.


Wasn't the war fought under a general spirit freeing the people, not limited to the slaves, from the institutionalized system? There is even a game on the war called "Price of Freedom". Operationally, that means the generals wouldn't be as inertia as that of the Napoleonic counterparts when there were no commands from the higher level. Initiative was encouraged, rather than discouraged.

Quote:
The "individualistic" elements on both sides were more prominent than the Europeans and Corps commands were often revolved and organized around the individual general's charisma and capabilities.

In the South yes. In the North corps commands were far more uniform and streamlined.


Agreed. It is a relative thing put under an overall context. The North was certainly more uniform than the South in terms of command. After all, the geniune "President" was on the North side. (Yep, I know Jefferson was also called the "President".)

Quote:
Speed was often emphasised more than anything else especially when the South was outnumbered and outgunned.

Please provide evidence. btw, it appears these things were advocated and better utlized in Bonaparte's day.


There were numerour runs and force march, weren't there? Lee himself conducted many. Sherman's Atlanta campaign, Jackson's Valley campaign...I am no ACW expert I must say though. But my limited reading does suggest that many campaigns were conducted with a much faster speed than the Napoleonic.

Quote:
I can therefore see why movement in GCACW is a variable dependent on leadership initiative is more appropriate than using the command system in DAYS system.

Trouble is in GCACW Hancock is as fast as Burnside, so this individual aspect you speak of is in fact poorly represented.


Hancock could, couldn't he? He wasn't imposed a superstructure of a command system like that of Davout.

Quote:
Look what happened to George B. McClellan when he sticked to the rigid command structure and how movement was severly slowed down and opportunities slipped away when attack pursue should have been warranted.

McClellan failed because of personality defects. However, his organization model was utilized by all Union armies by 1863, and it worked in the hands of Grant, Sherman, and Thomas.


I am not saying that the model doesn't work. I am just saying the Union had a more rigid structure. Grant certainly utilized that to his advantage. Personality of course plays a part with the model and the final results often reflect that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Pariseau
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for doing a review of this one.

This really is a fine game, and my head and shoulders favorite from the series. Having the artillery represented by separate units adds a lot of tactical interest that I find lacking in the later games. I can hardly believe it's still in print and available from the publisher. I can't think of any relatively simple operational Napoleonic games that beat it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Stop the admins removing history from the Wargaming forum.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lawrence Hung wrote:
Quote:
I don’t think there was much of an overall difference. While I would not advocate the DAYS system for the ACW, by the same token the totally random movement is too much luck and not in the right way either. There is no difference between corps commanders and their movements within the game are at times laughably erratic. Lee vs. Grant does not have this problem.


I don't think "laughably erratic" is an appropriate word. The fact that the system allows you to conduct a fast movment doesn't mean that historically the generals couldn't do so. The GCACW system is very well-received among the wargamers and if it is so erratic, I don't think the less-than-critical would spare it even though it has pretty and realistic maps. I have tried to compare the system on movement to designer's notes and some other sources and I do find that it is quite realistic.
I'm not going to get into the historic arguments, as I would be out of my depth, but I'd largely agree with lawrence here, game wise, it is easy to overstate the impact of the random movement, don't get me wrong, conceptually I'm not a massive fan, but in terms of actual impact it is not as big as I think can be made out. Also the randomness, actually makes decision making harder, not knowing the outcome of an action makes you calculate the possible outcomes and risk manage those, while there is a definite point where randomness increases the arbitrary nature of a game, it can also significantly increase depth.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I don't think "laughably erratic" is an appropriate word. The fact that the system allows you to conduct a fast movment doesn't mean that historically the generals couldn't do so. The GCACW system is very well-received among the wargamers and if it is so erratic, I don't think the less-than-critical would spare it even though it has pretty and realistic maps. I have tried to compare the system on movement to designer's notes and some other sources and I do find that it is quite realistic.


Beyond the maps and accessible rules, I honestly can't see why this series is popular. In addition to random movement it also sports a horrid CRT that cannot simulate brief but bloody battles. I'm going to stick with laughably erratic, because while I like the dice movement in theory, the fact that there is no leadership modifier for movement annoys me. oh, and I forgot, leaders can't die in this series unless you happen to be playing a campaign where one of them kicked the bucket. Very shoddy way to simulate that.

Quote:
I'm not going to get into the historic arguments, as I would be out of my depth, but I'd largely agree with lawrence here, game wise, it is easy to overstate the impact of the random movement, don't get me wrong, conceptually I'm not a massive fan, but in terms of actual impact it is not as big as I think can be made out. Also the randomness, actually makes decision making harder, not knowing the outcome of an action makes you calculate the possible outcomes and risk manage those, while there is a definite point where randomness increases the arbitrary nature of a game, it can also significantly increase depth.


I agree with your line of argument, but my problem is that totally random movement is just silly. A unit generally doesn't move due to weather, command fickleness, or fatigue. In GCACW weather and fatigue are accounted for in negative modifiers, so it isn't like the luck is being used to take those things into consideration. If GCACW had a movement modifier that considered the skills of commanders, like its progenitor Lee vs. Grant, then I'd be much kinder to the game. Movement should be random, but not to such a silly degree.

I admit some of my bitterness is due to the series being pumped up by other gamers, only for my experiences with the system to be flat. In that sense it reminds me of CWB, but I prefer GCACW. A few of the titles do shine, such as Burnside Takes Command, but I think the system needs a major overhaul.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Wasn't the war fought under a general spirit freeing the people, not limited to the slaves, from the institutionalized system? There is even a game on the war called "Price of Freedom". Operationally, that means the generals wouldn't be as inertia as that of the Napoleonic counterparts when there were no commands from the higher level. Initiative was encouraged, rather than discouraged.


I don't see how emancipation or Southern independence makes commanders less inert.

Quote:
There were numerour runs and force march, weren't there? Lee himself conducted many. Sherman's Atlanta campaign, Jackson's Valley campaign...I am no ACW expert I must say though. But my limited reading does suggest that many campaigns were conducted with a much faster speed than the Napoleonic.


Yes, but when I read about the Napoleonic war I see more use of these techniques. Napoleon had his men going 20-25 miles a day. Civil War armies usually topped out at 20 miles and many generals were notoriously slow: McClellan, Halleck, and Joseph Johnston to name just a few.

Quote:
Hancock could, couldn't he? He wasn't imposed a superstructure of a command system like that of Davout.


Believe me, Davout in these games will consistently out march Hancock in GCACW, because the DAYS system takes Davout's superb generalship into consideration. Hancock is just another corps commander in GCACW.

Quote:
I am not saying that the model doesn't work. I am just saying the Union had a more rigid structure. Grant certainly utilized that to his advantage. Personality of course plays a part with the model and the final results often reflect that.


Very true Lawrence, but I don't think the Union was rigid. In fact I'd say they were better organized while the Confederates tended to be more free wheeling and this hurt them in the west. Bragg, Hood, and Joe Johnston were all victims of poor staff work and each failed to correct this problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Stop the admins removing history from the Wargaming forum.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gittes wrote:
my problem is that totally random movement is just silly. A unit generally doesn't move due to weather, command fickleness, or fatigue. IN GCACW weather and fatigue are accounted for in negative modifiers, so it isn't like the luck is being used to take those things into consideration. If GCACW had a movement modifier that considered the skills of commanders, like its progenitor Lee vs. Grant, then I'd be much kinder to the game. Movement should be random, but not to such a silly degree.
I can see your point here, as I said, I would not claim to be an expert or even particularly knowledgeable on the subject. I'd suggest this, one of the reasons for having random movement is to try and simulate higher level command information. That is a commander might have uncertainty over how a quick a commander will respond. It is somewhat clumsy to roll randomly, but I see this as part of the friction of war, this large unpredictable element could be seen to enhance the feel of the game. For me, I'd rather reduce the randomness a little, but I can kind of see its point. You can increase the know variables (command rating, weather etc...), but this may increase control to a point the designer feels is bad. I guess we have to make a judgement, for the record though I'd personally like to see it be less random and more based on leader rating too, but I tend come at these things from a game oriented view and I accept that there are other legitimate points of view on this.

Quote:


I admit some of my bitterness is due to the series being pumped up by other gamers, only for my experiences with the system to be flat.

I can certainly appreciate this, it happens to all of us I guess.
Quote:

In that sense it reminds me of CWB,

I noticed you didn't like this (its one of my personal favourites), it surprised me at the time, but I guess the complexity got to you eh? we all have our limits
Quote:

but I prefer GCACW. A few of the titles go shine, such as Burnside Takes Command, but I think the system needs a major overhaul.
Fair enough, I'd love to see some luck mitigation added, but then again this might remove all the soul from the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I can certainly appreciate this, it happens to all of us I guess.


What game series let you down?

Quote:
I noticed you didn't like this (its one of my personal favourites), it surprised me at the time, but I guess the complexity got to you eh? we all have our limits


Complexity and horrid components made it unpleasant, but I do see what others see in it. That doesn't save the series, at least for me.

Quote:
Fair enough, I'd love to see some luck mitigation added, but then again this might remove all the soul from the game.


It might, but I think the fans should just come out and be honest that the history is highly questionable. I'd like to add that I really gave this series a chance and I played most of the entries offered in GCACW.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Hung
Hong Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
It might, but I think the fans should just come out and be honest that the history is highly questionable.


So which series or game(s) you think you can be honest with the history, while at the same time doesn't affect the fun factor too much? GCACW offers decent history to ACW nature of manouvering warfare without too much burden. In this regard, the series is second to none.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar Gallego
Spain
Sarriguren
Navarra
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Sean,

which rules do you use to play with 6 Days? The original ones or those from 7 days of 1809?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
which rules do you use to play with 6 Days? The original ones or those from 7 days of 1809?


I think I mentioned this in the review, but not in clear enough language: Seven Days of 1809. Same is true for the underrated 1806.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
So which series or game(s) you think you can be honest with the history, while at the same time doesn't affect the fun factor too much?


DAYS system, CDG such as Hannibal and Wilderness War, Four Lost Battles, Simmons Napoleonic games, and the Glory series to name just a few.

Quote:
GCACW offers decent history to ACW nature of manouvering warfare without too much burden. In this regard, the series is second to none.


How can the history be decent when one corps commander is as good on the march as another? How can it be decent when most battles consistently develop into Spotsylvania?

I actually think Clash of Arms's operational system is superior; it alleviates most of my problems with GCACW.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawrence Hung
Hong Kong
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
How can the history be decent when one corps commander is as good on the march as another? How can it be decent when most battles consistently develop into Spotsylvania?


Why couldn't one corp commander have been as good as another on march? GCACW offers the chance to all the historical commanders on a flat playing field where he could do better than his actual performance sometimes and not so good at other times. I really don't know why you have such a strong opinion to the movement system. As to your second question, what do you refer to the battle of Spotsylvania specifically that it should be a battle so much different from the others?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Why couldn't one corp commander have been as good as another on march? GCACW offers the chance to all the historical commanders on a flat playing field where he could do better than his actual performance sometimes and not so good at other times. I really don't know why you have such a strong opinion to the movement system. As to your second question, what do you refer to the battle of Spotsylvania specifically that it should be a battle so much different from the others?


I think I've made my case strongly and clearly Lawrence, and both of us have been ardent but respectful. However, I have explained my problem with the movement system in the previous posts. However, I'll add that it is too random, and my experience says it is bad history masquerading as good history. That irks me. It seems that you like it because it is popular and it makes for exciting gaming. Am I wrong in assuming that?

As for Spotsylvania, it was a battle that lasted over a week. Most large battles did not last that long. Will you ever have a day quite like Antietam in GCACW? No, you won't.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Berger
United States
Littleton
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice review, thank you. I recently acquired this as part of a trade, and thanks to this review I knew to read the updated rules, which I'm just going through now.

BTW, I totally agree with you about GCACW. I played a couple scenarios and the start of the campaign of Battle Above the Clouds and hated it. I have no idea why it's so highly rated. The mechanics are silly, and at least one fan has had to admit that the supply rules completely collapse if too many turns end early.

I have Army of the Heartland that seems to have a more reasonable system, though I must admit I haven't yet actually played a game of it, so we'll see.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.