Just FYI, it is correct and verified by the game designer that artillery at range 2-5 against infantry or dismounted cavalry is correct at x1/2 SP. It's x1 against opposing artillery at 2-5 range but x2 against everything at 1 range. Remember the hexes are 250 yards across. This is to show that artillery against either a shallow line of men or a column of moving men (or dismounted cavalry) using shot or shell is not very effective. It will do some damage but not a lot. However, counter battery fire, at range, gets the normal x1 at range as it should be. Under 300 meters is where artillery is the killer because of it's use of canister and thus x2 against everything. All of this is modeled correctly!
As I understand it at a range of 2-5 hexes artillery fires at mounted cavalry and artillery with X1 SP as in the table. At a range of 2-5 hexes artillery fires at infantry and dismounted cavalry at X1/2 SP as mentioned under the table.
This is a very good game, especially so as an accessable game for someone who maybe has not played a game like this before. I really liked the troop quality rules, green troops were very likely to break and run. If I remember right, the player aid chart regarding the artillery is that the artillery fires at 1/2 strength at infantry and dismounted cav at more than 1 hex. If it's firing at artillery (counter battery fire) at more than 1 hex, it would be at normal strength.
Great video about an interesting new Worthington series, seemingly focused on capturing the attritional nature of ACW engagements. I am also curious to see the possible new titles in the series.
Units whose counters are turned onto their backs are then "shattered" and cannot enter an enemy ZOC on their movement phase, I believe. I enjoyed this review and due to the game play example, I realized that I had been doing a couple things wrong due to misunderstanding a rule or two. I personally like to face the top of the counters in the direction of the enemy. That way it's a little easier to tell who is who. Shiloh was just released as the second game in this series and I am excited about that one too.
Thanks for the video! Not really big on Civil War games, but I do like Worthington games. They are definitely more accessible to players who aren't familiar with wargames. Btw, Grant's beard makes him look a little Ulysses S. Grant-like.
Is there mounted cavalry in the game? That rule on the chart regarding artillery seems to me that it's just saying it does normal (x1) when firing at mounted cavalry (and other arty if that could ever really happen?) and 1/2 when firing at infantry or dismounted cavalry.
This game looks really good! Production quality looks impressive! I have a TON of ACW games, but this one looks fascinating. I'd like to see how many games are in this series. Good work... great review!
Alexander, if you're interested in learning more about the Civil War, there's an excellent lecture series on the war on The Great Courses Plus. And, of course, there's the Ken Burns documentary. There's also the Shelby Foote trilogy but that's a thousand pages per volume. :)
Question for those of you who've played a few different ACW battle games. Which series is your favorite? I have a single GBACW title, but haven't yet fired it up. Haven't really played a 19th c battle game on the tabletop that I recall, but began looking into them more recently. Looking for recommendations. Weight of the rules being no issue if it's good.
I realise this video is a little old now, but I just came across it, but it seems to me that there is no melee? Only units firing at each other either offensively or defensively? Did I miss something?
Trying to keep track of which units have fired once already and which have already been fired upon could get muddled, especially with a lot of units concentrated on the board. Wondering how does the game keep track of this? Edit: I see you put a “fired” marker on a unit. Is there a “fired upon” marker you didn’t put down?
The game doesn't. you could always use cubes or tiddly winks. It's also not that big of a deal as the firing all happens in one phase, so you just go down the line firing, or pick your key battles then go down the line with everyone else. I didn't feel like it was an issue.
American Civil War battle names: The battles were named by the US Army ("The Federals" aka "The Union") after the nearest, significant watercourse (i.e. river or stream). The confederates named the battles after the nearest town or settlement of significant size (Why...I have no f'ing idea!). ...and as we all know "History is written by the winners" this is known as the battle of Antietam. The only people that will call it otherwise (i.e. "The Battle of Sharpsburg") are Confederate sympathizers (even if they are not aware that is what they are doing). Another example would be what many Germans (today) call what the rest of the world calls "World War Two"; many just call that one "Hitler's War" (the subtle difference, in this case, has deep connotations).
Confederate Sympathizers? The battles today are generally referred to by the naming convention of the side that one. For example, the CSA won both battles of Bull Run. The National Park is today referred to as Manassas. The Union won the Battle of Stones River, so the National Park is not referred to as Murfreesboro
@@patrickc.8676 No, the Union named the battles after the nearest watercourse thus "Bull Run", It was the Confeds that named them after the nearest town (which is much more common btw). Who actually carried the day in the particular battle is not relevant (and often debatable) whereas who won the war and wrote the history books is relevant.
@@GrumblingGrognard You're obviously having difficulty understanding what I wrote. The National Parks name the National Battlefields based on the naming convention of the winner of the battle. This is why the National Battlefield operated by the National Park Service where the Battles of 1st & 2nd Bull Run occurred is named "Manassas National Battlefield."
@@patrickc.8676 That would be the case because you never clarified you were referring ONLY to the names provided by the National Parks Service, which is the first time they have been mentioned at all (who died and granted them the power to name battles?) I was referring to what a (vast) majority of people call the battles not what they are "officially named" by the park service. ...and you do realize the "official winner" of a "battle" (both phrases open to wide interpretations!) is determined SOLELY by who controls the field after the engagement is over... NOT what most would consider the most important factor (in reality) as to who actually "won" an engagement.
![PURPEECH - นี่ฉันเองคนที่... (It's me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuhHd0hOOg8/mqdefault.jpg)
Just FYI, it is correct and verified by the game designer that artillery at range 2-5 against infantry or dismounted cavalry is correct at x1/2 SP. It's x1 against opposing artillery at 2-5 range but x2 against everything at 1 range. Remember the hexes are 250 yards across. This is to show that artillery against either a shallow line of men or a column of moving men (or dismounted cavalry) using shot or shell is not very effective. It will do some damage but not a lot. However, counter battery fire, at range, gets the normal x1 at range as it should be. Under 300 meters is where artillery is the killer because of it's use of canister and thus x2 against everything. All of this is modeled correctly!
As I understand it at a range of 2-5 hexes artillery fires at mounted cavalry and artillery with X1 SP as in the table. At a range of 2-5 hexes artillery fires at infantry and dismounted cavalry at X1/2 SP as mentioned under the table.
And you understand it correctly. 🙂
Thanks gents, excellent as always! In the demo, I believe 'Out of Command' units can move, just not into an enemy ZOC.
This is a very good game, especially so as an accessable game for someone who maybe has not played a game like this before.
I really liked the troop quality rules, green troops were very likely to break and run.
If I remember right, the player aid chart regarding the artillery is that the artillery fires at 1/2 strength at infantry and dismounted cav at more than 1 hex. If it's firing at artillery (counter battery fire) at more than 1 hex, it would be at normal strength.
Also, it’s clear you both really do a review justice. You catch a number of things only diving in and really playing a game illuminates. Great job...
yea they have some of my favs cant wait to see what all else they come out with thanks cheers all the best
Great video about an interesting new Worthington series, seemingly focused on capturing the attritional nature of ACW engagements. I am also curious to see the possible new titles in the series.
Units whose counters are turned onto their backs are then "shattered" and cannot enter an enemy ZOC on their movement phase, I believe. I enjoyed this review and due to the game play example, I realized that I had been doing a couple things wrong due to misunderstanding a rule or two. I personally like to face the top of the counters in the direction of the enemy. That way it's a little easier to tell who is who. Shiloh was just released as the second game in this series and I am excited about that one too.
Printed with rounded counters beautiful game parts.
Thanks for the video! Not really big on Civil War games, but I do like Worthington games. They are definitely more accessible to players who aren't familiar with wargames. Btw, Grant's beard makes him look a little Ulysses S. Grant-like.
Is there mounted cavalry in the game? That rule on the chart regarding artillery seems to me that it's just saying it does normal (x1) when firing at mounted cavalry (and other arty if that could ever really happen?) and 1/2 when firing at infantry or dismounted cavalry.
This game looks really good! Production quality looks impressive! I have a TON of ACW games, but this one looks fascinating. I'd like to see how many games are in this series. Good work... great review!
Just this one so far but there's more in the pipe line already.
Alexander, if you're interested in learning more about the Civil War, there's an excellent lecture series on the war on The Great Courses Plus. And, of course, there's the Ken Burns documentary. There's also the Shelby Foote trilogy but that's a thousand pages per volume. :)
I'm working on Ken burns right now. I will watch anything he makes at this point.
John Sy: You may find this interesting. If you like this kind of thing it is well worth the 30 Minutes th-cam.com/video/lrXxz4iniRs/w-d-xo.html
@@ThePlayersAid Ok, then, his Vietnam War one is nice too.
Oddly enough, bearded Grant resembles Lee.
only when he scowls. ;)
There are definite echoes of the miniatures game Fire & Fury in this design.
Both gents sporting their TPA shirts
Great game!
Question for those of you who've played a few different ACW battle games.
Which series is your favorite?
I have a single GBACW title, but haven't yet fired it up. Haven't really played a 19th c battle game on the tabletop that I recall, but began looking into them more recently. Looking for recommendations. Weight of the rules being no issue if it's good.
I realise this video is a little old now, but I just came across it, but it seems to me that there is no melee? Only units firing at each other either offensively or defensively? Did I miss something?
Excellent review, gents. I'm wondering how you would rate this one for solo play?
Nothing is hidden, so as long as you do Best Possible Move there's nothing stopping you playing both sides.
Glory III has a very good treatment of Antietam. Uses a chit pull mechanic.
Link to the rules for this series from Worthington Games. Thanks for the post guys. drive.google.com/file/d/1jIj0hJ7aOYyigFyyC4dUdBlkLvuX0W5U/view
Trying to keep track of which units have fired once already and which have already been fired upon could get muddled, especially with a lot of units concentrated on the board. Wondering how does the game keep track of this? Edit: I see you put a “fired” marker on a unit. Is there a “fired upon” marker you didn’t put down?
The game doesn't. you could always use cubes or tiddly winks. It's also not that big of a deal as the firing all happens in one phase, so you just go down the line firing, or pick your key battles then go down the line with everyone else. I didn't feel like it was an issue.
@@ThePlayersAid o
American Civil War battle names: The battles were named by the US Army ("The Federals" aka "The Union") after the nearest, significant watercourse (i.e. river or stream). The confederates named the battles after the nearest town or settlement of significant size (Why...I have no f'ing idea!). ...and as we all know "History is written by the winners" this is known as the battle of Antietam. The only people that will call it otherwise (i.e. "The Battle of Sharpsburg") are Confederate sympathizers (even if they are not aware that is what they are doing). Another example would be what many Germans (today) call what the rest of the world calls "World War Two"; many just call that one "Hitler's War" (the subtle difference, in this case, has deep connotations).
Confederate Sympathizers? The battles today are generally referred to by the naming convention of the side that one. For example, the CSA won both battles of Bull Run. The National Park is today referred to as Manassas. The Union won the Battle of Stones River, so the National Park is not referred to as Murfreesboro
@@patrickc.8676 No, the Union named the battles after the nearest watercourse thus "Bull Run", It was the Confeds that named them after the nearest town (which is much more common btw). Who actually carried the day in the particular battle is not relevant (and often debatable) whereas who won the war and wrote the history books is relevant.
@@GrumblingGrognard You're obviously having difficulty understanding what I wrote. The National Parks name the National Battlefields based on the naming convention of the winner of the battle. This is why the National Battlefield operated by the National Park Service where the Battles of 1st & 2nd Bull Run occurred is named "Manassas National Battlefield."
@@patrickc.8676 That would be the case because you never clarified you were referring ONLY to the names provided by the National Parks Service, which is the first time they have been mentioned at all (who died and granted them the power to name battles?) I was referring to what a (vast) majority of people call the battles not what they are "officially named" by the park service. ...and you do realize the "official winner" of a "battle" (both phrases open to wide interpretations!) is determined SOLELY by who controls the field after the engagement is over... NOT what most would consider the most important factor (in reality) as to who actually "won" an engagement.
Really tired of WP rehashing the same old same old, and I mean really old game, concept, and everything. Done with them as a publisher...