The NEW New Boardgames Thread

[Habbaku]

But NT sucked.

Fortunately, there is a support option on Kickstarter for you if you think that.

[Tamas]

What is the hook of this game as opposed to every other Gettysburg game out there?

Can somebody from Georgia have too many Civil War games? Who knows, in one of them, the CSA will finally win!

[CountDeMoney]

What is the hook of this game as opposed to every other Gettysburg game out there?

The hook for the system is due more of its non-traditional approach to units and map movement;  it appeal to the 19th century General Staffer.  And the basics are simple enough to learn on the fly.

Just wish the new title was on a more competitive battle than Gettysburg.  And yes:  ugh, another Gettysburg title.

[Berkut]

Why do people keep saying "...another Gettysburg title"?

I actually cannot think of any good, playable GB wargames.

[CountDeMoney]

Why do people keep saying "...another Gettysburg title"?

Because there are a lot of Gettysburg titles out there as it is, with more on the way?

[Berkut]

Why do people keep saying "...another Gettysburg title"?

Because there are a lot of Gettysburg titles out there as it is, with more on the way?

Name one thought that is well done and playable.

Considering it is probably the most famous battle in American history, I am kind of amazed there is not a single game out there on the subject that is any good without being a monster in size.

[CountDeMoney]

Name one thought that is well done and playable.

First you said "good, playable", now you're saying "well done" and "playable".  The old Avalon Hill 1958 version is good and certainly playable. 

Considering it is probably the most famous battle in American history, I am kind of amazed there is not a single game out there on the subject that is any good without being a monster in size.

My problem with the battle the way games have portrayed it is that unless there are staggered victory conditions, Johnny Reb doesn't really stand a chance.  Hell, there are more games out there where the Germans have a better chance at Stalingrad.

[Berkut]

I think the mistake that is made in regards to GB is that the designers assign nominal VPs to historical locations.

Which is stupid. Nobody fought over the Peach Orchard because it mattered, they fought over it because that is where they ran into each other. Little Round Top is not important EXCEPT for its tactical relelvance. You should want to fight over it because it unhinges (maybe) a Union position along Seminary Ridge - hence it doesn't need to have VPs assigned to it in and of itself.

We need a GB game at the brigade level where the VPs are based on fixing and destroying the enemy army, not on grabbing some piece of ground that is of only historical relevance. Then perhaps the CSA can have a chance, rather than letting the US player grab the ridge first, then force the CSA player to attack him.

But my point is that there really isn't a good GB game out there. You have to reach back over a half century to find an example, which pretty nicely proves my point. If we can have another good GB game 50+ years after the last one, I think we can safely say that there is no market saturation on the topic.

[CountDeMoney]

I think the mistake that is made in regards to GB is that the designers assign nominal VPs to historical locations.

Which is stupid. Nobody fought over the Peach Orchard because it mattered, they fought over it because that is where they ran into each other. Little Round Top is not important EXCEPT for its tactical relelvance. You should want to fight over it because it unhinges (maybe) a Union position along Seminary Ridge - hence it doesn't need to have VPs assigned to it in and of itself.

We need a GB game at the brigade level where the VPs are based on fixing and destroying the enemy army, not on grabbing some piece of ground that is of only historical relevance. Then perhaps the CSA can have a chance, rather than letting the US player grab the ridge first, then force the CSA player to attack him.

That's why I think Gettysburg fits better into an wider campaign model, than a focus on the battle itself like Antietam, Shiloh or Chickamauga, one that doesn't focus on achieving goals that weren't goals at the time, like you say;  may explain why GCACW's Roads To Gettysburg proved to be the most popular title of the series:  it works better on an operational macro level, as a meeting engagement that turns into a monumental battle that can be avoided at that time and place rather than on the battle itself, which I feel is simply too lop-sided historically once the first day placements are established.

But my point is that there really isn't a good GB game out there. You have to reach back over a half century to find an example, which pretty nicely proves my point. If we can have another good GB game 50+ years after the last one, I think we can safely say that there is no market saturation on the topic.

Well, there's a substantial drop off between Gettysburg '58 and Terrible Swift Sword.    But sometimes those old AH titles were so much fun because they worked in their simplicity.  But over-engineered wargames is for another thread.

Granted, there's no real market saturation on GB, since there are ACW fanbois out there that will suck up every Gettysburg title out there because there's still a substantial romanticism attached to wargaming the Lost Cause, ZOMG ITS MAH HERITAGE, etc, but still, gack, there's a shitload of GB titles out there.  I don't really see how the NT treatment with Guns of Gettysburg should do anything for the battle itself, other than its approach to rules, but I haven't really been following its development.

I am looking forward to seeing how MMP's redo of Gettysburg with the None But Heroes Lines of Battle rules set works out, though.  If you haven't checked it out, it's a substantial revamp of the RSS This Hallowed Ground rules, particularly with the command-control orders issuance features.  Should still be a Super-Size Me scope, though.

I just noticed I haven't had a GB title in my collection for years.  So yeah, point taken. 

[PDH]

Damn, I have been trying to remember the name of the boardgame of the Gettysburg Campaign.  I covers the whole Lee Moves North scenario - it was written as some sort of doctoral research by a lady, then it was cleaned up and became a game.  It had leaders and detachable divisions and the ability of the Union to take the troops around Washington and make a 2nd army...and fantasy rules if Jackson hadn't died and Hooker grew a pair, etc.

Help a brother out here?

-edit- I know, not a lot to go on here...

[CountDeMoney]

Doesn't ring any bells, Professor.  Going to have to read around for that.

[Ed Anger]

West End printed those games. I think Decision has the rights and have it in print.

[Ed Anger]

I think.

[CountDeMoney]

West End printed those games. I think Decision has the rights and have it in print.

That would explain why it doesn't ring any bells. 

[Ed Anger]

I just noticed the avatar. I laffed.