My favorite part and appeal of the CWB series are the orders rules, I just find they completely enhance my experience as a solo gamer. I played the three-day battle of Gettysburg by myself, two days of Shiloh, and many others. I think I have a dozen titles. There’s so many things I like about CWB, I’ll just stop here.
Thanks guys for the suggestions. There are a few of the titles that I was unaware of. This hobby is BIG and it is hard to keep ahead of everything. Heck! I remember with fond affection the two Civil War Quadrigames 'Blue and Gray' 1 and 2. Played the heck out of those and wore out the counters. Yes, I know, they were not in any way simulations of Civil War combat but they were able to give historical outcomes and variable at the 'grand battle level'. The quality of each title varied greatly. From the truly horrible "Cemetery Hill" game to the truly epic "Chickamauga" title. I regret getting rid of those even though they were generic, standard, wargaming 101 titles.
Gilbert, I'm very fond of Balkowski's series: Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. Have you ever tried those? New titles covering Gettysburg and Atlanta are currently being developed for that series. Agree that the hobby could use something along the lines of Miklos' BoAR -- enjoy those very much as well. GMT just announced Vol. 9 in the series: The Battle of Rhode Island.
thx Gilbert. I have 5 games in this series and enjoy them very much, but as you said, very complex set up and game play...that said, I just picked up Glory III and was wondering what you thought of it, that is, if you havent already reviewed it and I missed it...thx for your hard work Bill
Then you haven't played many ACW games. I've seen the South in big in this series and in the offshoots. I fought the Cornfield scenario as Jackson and won and lost almost evenly. I won and lost as the South at Perryville and Champion Hill. On the other hand, I won fairly handily after having my head handed to me earlier in the same game. I lost as McClellan (in group play) in the Seven Days trilogy and as Rosecrans in Chickamauga. So much for your theory.
Interesting video; i agree with your assessment of the "state" of ACW games in the hobby. I'm partial to GMTs GBACW series which seems to me to fill that niche (like their revolutionary war series) and they seem committed to growing it: "Death Valley" is the latest title to make it on the P500.
All true what you said, but where are you going to find games on such battles as Perryville, Champion's Hill, Franklin and Seven Pines when there's dozens of them on Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, etc. etc. (Btw, CWBS has those as well.)
Well, in "Empire...", and in any WWII Pacific *campaign-level* game, playing Japan is even more hopeless than you portray the South in the Civil War, isn't it?
Gilbert. Check out GMT's Clash of Giants III. It brings two battles: Second Bull Run and Gettysburg. Chit pull system. I haven't played it yet, but I read the rules. Seems to be a very playable, brigade level system.
Compass Games has a Gettysburg game coming out this year designed by Eric Lee Smith I believe.I thought you like the Command magazine game on Gettysburg and Antietam?
Obviously, since your original post, Compass has released the Battle Hymn series and of course, most appealing to you, I would guess, is Mark Herman's C3i series games which can be played in 45 minutes. These should be right up your alley. Enjoy them and take a load off from deep game simulations.
It seems you have totally misunderstood my view point on the larger complex games. I have owned them, still own them and have pre-ordered ones yet to come. Yet, as age and time now have become factors that were not as much in the equation anymore, I do like some of the simpler games that can be played in 2 hours or less.
Gilbert, have you tried the RSS series from MMP? and lately the Line of Battle series also? Appreciate your feedback. Always looking forward to your reviews
How would you compare this to Line of Battle series? I have been offered both but would like to know good/bad/dislikes etc about these 2 systems. I can get either Last chance or 3 games from brigade series.
I only have "Gettysburg" in the Line of Battle series and since that is a 'monster' game it is very difficult to compare the two. For my part, I don't think I will be keeping many of the "brigade series". I find the system much to cumbersome for a brigade level game. To 'procedural' and multiple table to look up to achieve combat results. I think in the 70's it was the reigning 'king' of brigade level Civil War games but I think it is showing its age. This new "Battle Hymn" game from Eric Lee Smith has promise but I have yet to receive my copy.
Have to check on that Hymn. Someone else that i have asked this about too said that Brigade lvl is little more tables and rules but overal counter density is lower so it balances out. LOB looks little cleaner system tough and also art is alot better.
I thought this review might be controversial and as I said in the video, there are many fans of this system. There is much about it that I do like, for example the orders system is brilliant and no other game has this. But, I still think that the fire procedure is very cumbersome and I dislike intensely the extended lines. I tried to emphasize the fact that these games are for the real Civil War afficionados and are not for the entry level wargamer. As I did mention, I'm going to keep the three battles of Manassas title.
gilbert, I generally appreciate your reviews. I especially enjoyed your review of Adobe Walls a couple years ago; it convinced me to buy and play the game. I did however find a few flaws/disagreements/nitpicks with regards to your review of the CWB series. First, the series began in 1988, with the publishing of the first editions of In Their Quiet Fields. I played the series for the first time in the summer of 1992. I first became aware of the series from an old (issue #60) review in Fire and Movement Magazine of the first edition of Thunder at the Crossroads. My foray into the system came a year or so later in the summer of 1992. Ironically enough, the day before I attended a Civil War reenactment for the first time. A good friend brought his copy of In Their Quiet Fields I to our FLGS and I immediately fell for the system. I took the part of Stonewall Jackson in Miller's Cornfield. Previous ACW games I had played (notably Burnished Rows of Steel) had brigades melt away like an early spring snowfall on an already warmed ground. So the first thing I noticed was that despite being rather weak numbers-wise I could hold a little while before pulling units out of line. I also noticed that the roster system kept my actual strength away from my opponent's eyes. It was a small scenario and the first edition of the Antietam game did not include an orders system so I didn't have to consider anything beyond command radius. I decided at that point that I preferred simulation value slightly over game. That said, the first few games I bought of the series showed that there were plenty of scenarios in most of the games. That added replayability. But you didn't mention that in your review. In fact, the second edition of Thunder at the Crossroads includes some 11 scenarios and variants including a "Jackson Lives" scenario and other scenarios which allow the player to explore the folly of Sickles move into Sherfy's Peach Orchard and some of the fighting on Culp's Hill on July 2. It even includes variable reinforcement entry to keep you and your opponent guessing, So that is where I disagree about whether there's a game there. Regarding the dice throwing and chart look-up, have you considered the suggested practice of rolling multiple dice to resolve combat, stragglers and morale outcomes simultaneously? It certainly sped things up for me. Regarding length of play, with another experienced player, I finished off a full game of Perryville in two hours, and a full game of Champion Hill in three plus hours. Finally, you and I are poles apart in comparing GMT's AmRev series to the CWB, the GBACW or the new Line of Battle series. I get the feeling of trying to keep a line of infantry intact with numerous elements of friction working against me in the three ACW series. I do not get that feeling at all with the AM Rev series. An opponent described the feeling of moving his redcoats around the map as 18th century Panzerblitz. I got that feeling too. There was nothing to enforce holding a line. BTW, since the supposed demise of the CWB, I've taken quite a liking to Hermann Luttmann's Blind Swords system. and soon I'll be getting into the Line of Battle series. The former has a great fog of war system and plays faster than the CWB.
@@war_gamer YES, it eliminates about 90% of the fidgety fire rules. I was just going to ask Gilbert if, #1 he's still doing reviews, and #2 if he's played the Line of Battle system.
Except to play battles that only this series deals with, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't prefer the Glory system by GMT. Cleaner rules, better components all around (I really detest the horsey graphics in this CWBS) and it's at an even smaller level ("demi-brigades"; a typical brigade will have two units in it. I would only describe this system with one word: clunky.
My biggest quibble with this system is that, at a brigade level, it's well outdone by any regimental-level treatment of the same battle. For the complexity and the time commitment involved, I just can't see this elbowing the corresponding tactical level game off the table. The other reasons I am mostly negative on this system are largely cosmetic. I find the thin, over-glossy maps horrendous, especially with the full-hex color fill gradations. Lacking ridges or contour levels, or even "slope" graphic elements, the maps have a artificial, blocky feel to them... and the feel for the terrain's "lay of the land" is mostly lost on me. The components are ..... ugh. Blocky. Horsey. Devoid of any good, sensible design ethos.
@@craigclemens986 Perhaps in a game sense? But certainly not in a tactical sense. In the Civil War era, a brigade was a group of regiments, usually 4, but could be both larger or smaller. In a regimental game, facing >has to< matter, but you can dispense with it in a brigade level game, provided the hex size is big enough to make facing a non-factor. But facing, and line/column tactics are what separate this level of ACW or Napoleonic combat from the operational level. Tactical is infinitely more interesting and complex than operational, I find, although you can find excellent examples of BOTH for the Civil War and Napoleonic eras .
@@plrc4593 1. Yes, pretty much 2. I'd wager most brigade level games don't have facing or even formation rules. Once you get past "demi-brigade" level (where 2 counters might be used to represent a brigade of anywhere from 3 to 6 regiments), facing might be eschewed or abstracted.
Dave, This is Tom DeFranco from the Northern Illinois Civil War Round Table. Maybe I just grew used to them, but I never found the charts in the Civil War Brigade Series to be cumbersome at all. Like another poster stated, they’re all on the same two sided sheet (4 pages all together). Also, after a while of using the system, you’ll stop using charts like the Morale Status and command points. The charts are quite intuitive. BTW, our fellow NICWRT member designed several of those games.
Thank you for the video and the review. However, I do not agree with a lot that you say. I do think that the games are long. I have played 10 of these and have written extensive AAR's in my CSW blog. I find the CWBS anything but boring though. Especially when played against an opponent because you do not know what orders he has given to his forces. You just see where they move (when they move) While there are a lot of charts, they are organized into a folder and are easy to use. Some of the things that you counted as charts are really just reminders of modifiers and values so that you do not have to look them up in the rule book each time. Dean Essig is one of the best rulebook writers out there. I believe that Essig's new Line of Battle series (Which is a revision of the Regimental Sub-series is taking over for the CWBS. These are large games however, but they all have shorter smaller map scenarios. I also like Berg's GBACW series and I have played many of those titles. Thanks again for your review and commentary. I alway enjoy your videos. ER Bickford
Mr. Collins, you're right in that CWB is not a "beginner's" series if you include the detailed Orders rules. Did you mention that Essig notes in the first paragraph of that rules section players may optionally disregard the Orders rules? No, you did not. Again, you seem to be adverse to detailed game systems. Given the accessibility of the CWB series and its popularity, I would be curious for you to compare the CWB against another Civil War game series you find acceptable for speed of play which seems to be your measurement of what makes for a good game? Would SPI's 1970's Blue & Gray series or Avalon Hill's titles like Chancellorsville be what you're thinking? Demanding a Civil War game be playable to completion in four hours would seem to validate my assumptions. It seems you eschew historicity such as that of the CWB series (extension markers being an example of proper deployment and frontages of brigades for example) as distasteful and prefer abstractedness instead. That's fine. That's your opinion and I respect it. Btw... you get three battles in "Three Battles of Manassas" as the title would suggest and not two. As to your bemoaning the number of Gettysburg games that have and continue to keep coming out, I would point out to you that Gettysburg is the most written-about battle in history with more than 10,000 books having been penned. Do you also have a problem with new views, evolving perspectives and fresh opinions continuing to be released by authors? I think the term "nit-picking" is very appropriate here.
There are a lot of things that I don't mention in my short videos. That is because they are short. I could shoot a video of me just reading the rules. How interesting would that be? I don't think you are giving me enough credit for the POSITIVE things I DO say. I mention that it is a very popular series, that it has had a successful run for years and years AND that it is one of the best simulations of Civil War Brigade combat. What more praise can I give? As for detailed systems. No, I am not averse to them. I am an avid fan of the Ancient Great Battles of History series which is very detailed indeed.
Labeling the series "not for beginners" without explaining what aspects of the game rules make it such, is not doing justice to the criticism leveled. If one avoids the optional Command Rules, this series is quite appropriate for beginners. As I have no interest in the GBoH series I wouldn't have any idea what your measurement for "very detailed" is.
in my 40 year study of military history and wargaming I could never understand the appeal of the Civil War. The South was outnumbered 10 to 1 in industry, Rail road, and manpower. The South had no Fleet, hence the Anaconda Plan. Seems to me the only reason The War lasted 4 years was because of the outstanding Generalship on the south and the high moral and fighting skill of the Southern troops. In a purely wargaming atmosphere it would seem hopeless to play the South. Dont get me wrong I'm from the South, when you risk war bad things happen if you lose, like carpetbaggers. Thats why I could never get into the Civil War. Cheers.
I think you might like to check the South's win/loss record west of the Appalacians. You might be interested to learn the from the beginning of 1862 onward the North won most of the big battles in that theater. The only "big" Battle the Federals lost was Chickamauga.
Vortyx, part of my point was that in several of those battles the South outnumbered the North. Case on point, Pea Ridge. Through a portion of the Vicksburg Campaign, the Northreners weren't any better equipped than the Southerners.
Another thing, in the Western Theater, most of the Federal generalship and soldiering was superior to the Southerners. You seem to be coming at this from a Lost Cause POV. Things are not so cut and dried as you state.
Where does one begin in addressing these comments except to say that Civil War wargaming remains one of the most popular gaming periods in the industry?
How many people really want to "battle" the rules in order to play the game? I suggest they are in the minority. I want to get into the game, not wade through a rule book as if I was cramming for some exam. If that means realism is sacrificed for play ability, then so be it. Most of these "monster" games will just decorate people's shelves, sine die.
Believe me, having been around since 1988, the CWB series has done more than decorate game shelves. It's covered some of the biggest and some middling sized battles of the ACW. Three of the games were reprinted. That alone should indicate it's popularity among gamers.
My favorite part and appeal of the CWB series are the orders rules, I just find they completely enhance my experience as a solo gamer. I played the three-day battle of Gettysburg by myself, two days of Shiloh, and many others. I think I have a dozen titles. There’s so many things I like about CWB, I’ll just stop here.
Thanks guys for the suggestions. There are a few of the titles that I was unaware of. This hobby is BIG and it is hard to keep ahead of everything. Heck! I remember with fond affection the two Civil War Quadrigames 'Blue and Gray' 1 and 2. Played the heck out of those and wore out the counters. Yes, I know, they were not in any way simulations of Civil War combat but they were able to give historical outcomes and variable at the 'grand battle level'. The quality of each title varied greatly. From the truly horrible "Cemetery Hill" game to the truly epic "Chickamauga" title. I regret getting rid of those even though they were generic, standard, wargaming 101 titles.
Check out "Stonewall's Sword" (Cedar Mountain) and "Thunder in the Ozarks" (Pea Ridge) from Revolution Games.
Yep, great games and decent simulations at the regimental level.
This was the first Civil War game I played. It was one of the toughest games I've ever played.
You might like Avalon Hill's "Bull Run". Lots of great memories with that one.
Yes, I have that one and I believe I did a video already on it.
Gilbert, I'm very fond of Balkowski's series: Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. Have you ever tried those? New titles covering Gettysburg and Atlanta are currently being developed for that series. Agree that the hobby could use something along the lines of Miklos' BoAR -- enjoy those very much as well. GMT just announced Vol. 9 in the series: The Battle of Rhode Island.
Have you considered the Great CAMPAIGNS of the American Civil War (GCACW)?
thx Gilbert. I have 5 games in this series and enjoy them very much, but as you said, very complex set up and game play...that said, I just picked up Glory III and was wondering what you thought of it, that is, if you havent already reviewed it and I missed it...thx for your hard work
Bill
My only knock on the Glory system is the bloodlessness of the combat.
Tom DeFranco your last two post have done nothing but reinforced my view that the South didn't have a chance thank you
Then you haven't played many ACW games. I've seen the South in big in this series and in the offshoots. I fought the Cornfield scenario as Jackson and won and lost almost evenly.
I won and lost as the South at Perryville and Champion Hill. On the other hand, I won fairly handily after having my head handed to me earlier in the same game. I lost as McClellan (in group play) in the Seven Days trilogy and as Rosecrans in Chickamauga.
So much for your theory.
These games represent "battles" of The Civil War. So then, given your comment, please tell us, how many "battles" did the South win? Oops.
I have Antietam 1 and map had a lot of yellow in it
😃
Interesting video; i agree with your assessment of the "state" of ACW games in the hobby. I'm partial to GMTs GBACW series which seems to me to fill that niche (like their revolutionary war series) and they seem committed to growing it: "Death Valley" is the latest title to make it on the P500.
Essig hates Divisional Stripes!
All true what you said, but where are you going to find games on such battles as Perryville, Champion's Hill, Franklin and Seven Pines when there's dozens of them on Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, etc. etc. (Btw, CWBS has those as well.)
Normandy '44 is an operational level game, and you did enjoy Empire of the Sun which is strategic
Well, in "Empire...", and in any WWII Pacific *campaign-level* game, playing Japan is even more hopeless than you portray the South in the Civil War, isn't it?
I prefer the Antietam map (to the Antietam II). Antietam II is like looking at a fluorescent leopard.
Gilbert, just wondering, do you use the "force" rule in the design of orders? Why or why not? Thanks!
Gilbert. Check out GMT's Clash of Giants III. It brings two battles: Second Bull Run and Gettysburg. Chit pull system. I haven't played it yet, but I read the rules. Seems to be a very playable, brigade level system.
Compass Games has a Gettysburg game coming out this year designed by Eric Lee Smith I believe.I thought you like the Command magazine game on Gettysburg and Antietam?
I wish I had watched this before buying some of these games.
Obviously, since your original post, Compass has released the Battle Hymn series and of course, most appealing to you, I would guess, is Mark Herman's C3i series games which can be played in 45 minutes. These should be right up your alley. Enjoy them and take a load off from deep game simulations.
It seems you have totally misunderstood my view point on the larger complex games. I have owned them, still own them and have pre-ordered ones yet to come. Yet, as age and time now have become factors that were not as much in the equation anymore, I do like some of the simpler games that can be played in 2 hours or less.
Gilbert, have you tried the RSS series from MMP? and lately the Line of Battle series also? Appreciate your feedback. Always looking forward to your reviews
Another top notch review Gilbert. May I ask a slightly off-topic question?
What thickness is your plexiglass?
My plexiglass is about 3 mm thick.
Thanks. I was going with 2mm, but I thought that looked a little thicker.It looks good so I may go with 3mm.
How would you compare this to Line of Battle series? I have been offered both but would like to know good/bad/dislikes etc about these 2 systems. I can get either Last chance or 3 games from brigade series.
I only have "Gettysburg" in the Line of Battle series and since that is a 'monster' game it is very difficult to compare the two. For my part, I don't think I will be keeping many of the "brigade series". I find the system much to cumbersome for a brigade level game. To 'procedural' and multiple table to look up to achieve combat results. I think in the 70's it was the reigning 'king' of brigade level Civil War games but I think it is showing its age. This new "Battle Hymn" game from Eric Lee Smith has promise but I have yet to receive my copy.
Have to check on that Hymn. Someone else that i have asked this about too said that Brigade lvl is little more tables and rules but overal counter density is lower so it balances out. LOB looks little cleaner system tough and also art is alot better.
Overkill complexity wise with diminishing returns.
Thank you for this. I actually own a copy of Three Battles of Manassas.
I thought this review might be controversial and as I said in the video, there are many fans of this system. There is much about it that I do like, for example the orders system is brilliant and no other game has this. But, I still think that the fire procedure is very cumbersome and I dislike intensely the extended lines. I tried to emphasize the fact that these games are for the real Civil War afficionados and are not for the entry level wargamer. As I did mention, I'm going to keep the three battles of Manassas title.
gilbert,
I generally appreciate your reviews. I especially enjoyed your review of Adobe Walls a couple years ago; it convinced me to buy and play the game.
I did however find a few flaws/disagreements/nitpicks with regards to your review of the CWB series.
First, the series began in 1988, with the publishing of the first editions of In Their Quiet Fields. I played the series for the first time in the summer of 1992. I first became aware of the series from an old (issue #60) review in Fire and Movement Magazine of the first edition of Thunder at the Crossroads. My foray into the system came a year or so later in the summer of 1992. Ironically enough, the day before I attended a Civil War reenactment for the first time. A good friend brought his copy of In Their Quiet Fields I to our FLGS and I immediately fell for the system. I took the part of Stonewall Jackson in Miller's Cornfield. Previous ACW games I had played (notably Burnished Rows of Steel) had brigades melt away like an early spring snowfall on an already warmed ground. So the first thing I noticed was that despite being rather weak numbers-wise I could hold a little while before pulling units out of line. I also noticed that the roster system kept my actual strength away from my opponent's eyes. It was a small scenario and the first edition of the Antietam game did not include an orders system so I didn't have to consider anything beyond command radius. I decided at that point that I preferred simulation value slightly over game. That said, the first few games I bought of the series showed that there were plenty of scenarios in most of the games. That added replayability. But you didn't mention that in your review. In fact, the second edition of Thunder at the Crossroads includes some 11 scenarios and variants including a "Jackson Lives" scenario and other scenarios which allow the player to explore the folly of Sickles move into Sherfy's Peach Orchard and some of the fighting on Culp's Hill on July 2. It even includes variable reinforcement entry to keep you and your opponent guessing, So that is where I disagree about whether there's a game there.
Regarding the dice throwing and chart look-up, have you considered the suggested practice of rolling multiple dice to resolve combat, stragglers and morale outcomes simultaneously? It certainly sped things up for me.
Regarding length of play, with another experienced player, I finished off a full game of Perryville in two hours, and a full game of Champion Hill in three plus hours.
Finally, you and I are poles apart in comparing GMT's AmRev series to the CWB, the GBACW or the new Line of Battle series. I get the feeling of trying to keep a line of infantry intact with numerous elements of friction working against me in the three ACW series. I do not get that feeling at all with the AM Rev series. An opponent described the feeling of moving his redcoats around the map as 18th century Panzerblitz. I got that feeling too. There was nothing to enforce holding a line.
BTW, since the supposed demise of the CWB, I've taken quite a liking to Hermann Luttmann's Blind Swords system. and soon I'll be getting into the Line of Battle series. The former has a great fog of war system and plays faster than the CWB.
IS Last Chance for Victory fire better?
@@war_gamer YES, it eliminates about 90% of the fidgety fire rules. I was just going to ask Gilbert if, #1 he's still doing reviews, and #2 if he's played the Line of Battle system.
Except to play battles that only this series deals with, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't prefer the Glory system by GMT. Cleaner rules, better components all around (I really detest the horsey graphics in this CWBS) and it's at an even smaller level ("demi-brigades"; a typical brigade will have two units in it. I would only describe this system with one word: clunky.
Demi-brigades? I.e. regiments?
@@plrc4593 Larger than regiments, but smaller than brigades. Say, two counters to describe a brigade of 3 - 5 regiments in size.
I see I've stirred up a hornets nest, my work is done here :,)
So that was your sole intention, to stir up anger? And to what end; did you get your jollies off from that?
My biggest quibble with this system is that, at a brigade level, it's well outdone by any regimental-level treatment of the same battle. For the complexity and the time commitment involved, I just can't see this elbowing the corresponding tactical level game off the table.
The other reasons I am mostly negative on this system are largely cosmetic. I find the thin, over-glossy maps horrendous, especially with the full-hex color fill gradations. Lacking ridges or contour levels, or even "slope" graphic elements, the maps have a artificial, blocky feel to them... and the feel for the terrain's "lay of the land" is mostly lost on me. The components are ..... ugh. Blocky. Horsey. Devoid of any good, sensible design ethos.
Brigades are generally the same as regiments
@@craigclemens986 Perhaps in a game sense? But certainly not in a tactical sense. In the Civil War era, a brigade was a group of regiments, usually 4, but could be both larger or smaller. In a regimental game, facing >has to< matter, but you can dispense with it in a brigade level game, provided the hex size is big enough to make facing a non-factor. But facing, and line/column tactics are what separate this level of ACW or Napoleonic combat from the operational level. Tactical is infinitely more interesting and complex than operational, I find, although you can find excellent examples of BOTH for the Civil War and Napoleonic eras
.
@@Stiglr 1. Do you clasify brigade level as operational level?
2. Are there brigade-level games of the era without facing?
@@plrc4593 1. Yes, pretty much
2. I'd wager most brigade level games don't have facing or even formation rules. Once you get past "demi-brigade" level (where 2 counters might be used to represent a brigade of anywhere from 3 to 6 regiments), facing might be eschewed or abstracted.
You could set a RUclips world record for time spent if you decided to playthrough... LOL Thanks. However, I'd watch and be grateful.
Very attractive, but 22 charts ??? How long could these games be plus what a negative fun factor.
Dave,
This is Tom DeFranco from the Northern Illinois Civil War Round Table.
Maybe I just grew used to them, but I never found the charts in the Civil War Brigade Series to be cumbersome at all. Like another poster stated, they’re all on the same two sided sheet (4 pages all together). Also, after a while of using the system, you’ll stop using charts like the Morale Status and command points. The charts are quite intuitive.
BTW, our fellow NICWRT member designed several of those games.
Thank you for the video and the review. However, I do not agree with a lot that you say. I do think that the games are long. I have played 10 of these and have written extensive AAR's in my CSW blog. I find the CWBS anything but boring though. Especially when played against an opponent because you do not know what orders he has given to his forces. You just see where they move (when they move)
While there are a lot of charts, they are organized into a folder and are easy to use. Some of the things that you counted as charts are really just reminders of modifiers and values so that you do not have to look them up in the rule book each time. Dean Essig is one of the best rulebook writers out there.
I believe that Essig's new Line of Battle series (Which is a revision of the Regimental Sub-series is taking over for the CWBS. These are large games however, but they all have shorter smaller map scenarios.
I also like Berg's GBACW series and I have played many of those titles.
Thanks again for your review and commentary. I alway enjoy your videos. ER Bickford
Mr. Collins, you're right in that CWB is not a "beginner's" series if you include the detailed Orders rules. Did you mention that Essig notes in the first paragraph of that rules section players may optionally disregard the Orders rules? No, you did not.
Again, you seem to be adverse to detailed game systems. Given the accessibility of the CWB series and its popularity, I would be curious for you to compare the CWB against another Civil War game series you find acceptable for speed of play which seems to be your measurement of what makes for a good game? Would SPI's 1970's Blue & Gray series or Avalon Hill's titles like Chancellorsville be what you're thinking? Demanding a Civil War game be playable to completion in four hours would seem to validate my assumptions. It seems you eschew historicity such as that of the CWB series (extension markers being an example of proper deployment and frontages of brigades for example) as distasteful and prefer abstractedness instead. That's fine. That's your opinion and I respect it.
Btw... you get three battles in "Three Battles of Manassas" as the title would suggest and not two.
As to your bemoaning the number of Gettysburg games that have and continue to keep coming out, I would point out to you that Gettysburg is the most written-about battle in history with more than 10,000 books having been penned. Do you also have a problem with new views, evolving perspectives and fresh opinions continuing to be released by authors? I think the term "nit-picking" is very appropriate here.
There are a lot of things that I don't mention in my short videos. That is because they are short. I could shoot a video of me just reading the rules. How interesting would that be? I don't think you are giving me enough credit for the POSITIVE things I DO say. I mention that it is a very popular series, that it has had a successful run for years and years AND that it is one of the best simulations of Civil War Brigade combat. What more praise can I give? As for detailed systems. No, I am not averse to them. I am an avid fan of the Ancient Great Battles of History series which is very detailed indeed.
Labeling the series "not for beginners" without explaining what aspects of the game rules make it such, is not doing justice to the criticism leveled. If one avoids the optional Command Rules, this series is quite appropriate for beginners. As I have no interest in the GBoH series I wouldn't have any idea what your measurement for "very detailed" is.
in my 40 year study of military history and wargaming I could never understand the appeal of the Civil War. The South was outnumbered 10 to 1 in industry, Rail road, and manpower. The South had no Fleet, hence the Anaconda Plan. Seems to me the only reason The War lasted 4 years was because of the outstanding Generalship on the south and the high moral and fighting skill of the Southern troops. In a purely wargaming atmosphere it would seem hopeless to play the South. Dont get me wrong I'm from the South, when you risk war bad things happen if you lose, like carpetbaggers. Thats why I could never get into the Civil War. Cheers.
I think you might like to check the South's win/loss record west of the Appalacians. You might be interested to learn the from the beginning of 1862 onward the North won most of the big battles in that theater. The only "big" Battle the Federals lost was Chickamauga.
thank you for proving my point...it's hopeless to play the south
Vortyx, part of my point was that in several of those battles the South outnumbered the North. Case on point, Pea Ridge. Through a portion of the Vicksburg Campaign, the Northreners weren't any better equipped than the Southerners.
Another thing, in the Western Theater, most of the Federal generalship and soldiering was superior to the Southerners. You seem to be coming at this from a Lost Cause POV. Things are not so cut and dried as you state.
Where does one begin in addressing these comments except to say that Civil War wargaming remains one of the most popular gaming periods in the industry?
Gilbert you should review the best war game ever made the rise and fall of the Third Reich 4th edition by Avalon Hill
Actually, I have never played that game. WWII strategic land games I generally not my interest. Although I did buy Normandy 44.
How many people really want to "battle" the rules in order to play the game? I suggest they are in the minority. I want to get into the game, not wade through a rule book as if I was cramming for some exam. If that means realism is sacrificed for play ability, then so be it. Most of these "monster" games will just decorate people's shelves, sine die.
Believe me, having been around since 1988, the CWB series has done more than decorate game shelves. It's covered some of the biggest and some middling sized battles of the ACW. Three of the games were reprinted. That alone should indicate it's popularity among gamers.