That was a real marathon. Thanks for all your reviews Enrico. I'm looking forward to this one.
@calandale
Ай бұрын
These are getting bloated. :(
@bernwardreid6156
Ай бұрын
Man, I love your channel. Just wanted to thank you, not particularly for this game review but for all the other game reviews and also for the thoughts unrelated to games. They are a treasure. Danke Enrico!
@stonewall435
28 күн бұрын
"What If" scenaries for Gettysburg get tricky because Lee's overall objective was... The Army of the Potomac - just like Grant's objective the next summer was The Army of Northern Virginia. So the "What-ifs" cover things like Stuart's availability and buying Lee some reaction time to concentrate somewhere between Gettysburg and Cashtown, which I think Rick was trying to broach with the operational game. It is a bit of a geographic fact that all the roads in South Central Pennsylvania converge on Gettysburg so it is simply a question of who gets there the fastest with the mostest. The only way to change the course of the battle operationally is to give the Army of the Potomac a clearer indication of Lee's turning (so they weren't as spread out to cover Washington) OR give Lee a better sense of the AoP's northern movement sooner. By the timeframe of Summer Storm, those things were largely no longer in doubt. It seems Rick's bigger what-if is concentrated around Lee NOT having good information on June 29 and the AoP making contact further north (where Gettysburg would become the Pipe Creek equivalent).
@marchhare22-lm9on
Ай бұрын
Oh boy, Map art discussion. I love Barber's drawing style. It's the best aspect of his maps if you ask me. They can actually be quite busy if the color weight is done properly. An extreme example of my preference is The King's War map. I can understand how someone would dislike it, but I love it. Another example would be the AWI maps for BAR very busy, but still work for me.
@bernwardreid6156
Ай бұрын
It took me a while to get used to the Barber maps but now I like them quite well. For me it's mostly the hand drawn aspect that I like about them. An electronically drawn map trying to replicate the hand drawn style as in the Chickamauga game doesn't convince me as being the same. For me the unrepetitevness of the human touch here is the key aspect. It might seem a bit esoterical but I think the eye really can tell. However, I think the 'uneveness' could be replicated with the help of a Computer as well.
@marchhare22-lm9on
Ай бұрын
@@bernwardreid6156 Yep. It’s why a good hand woven carpet costs way more than a good machine made one. The imperfections are the aesthetic.
@kenx8176
Ай бұрын
58:30 I don’t think it would be necessary to assign victory points to fixed locations on the map to get the two sides to fight each other. All you need is two automatic victory conditions: the Confederates win automatically if they exit (say) two Confederate infantry divisions off the southeast quadrant of the board without getting (say) four Confederate brigades wrecked, and they lose automatically if they neither exit two Confederate infantry divisions off the southeast quadrant of the board nor wreck at least four Union brigades. If neither automatic victory condition is met, then you just use the normal victory conditions, which would be based primarily on destroying the enemy army through casualties and demoralization. This forces the Confederate army to try to move southeast towards Washington and forces the Union army to try to block them, but once the two armies start fighting, the automatic victory conditions are quickly off the table and the game is decided by winning the resulting battle. You can do the same thing with the Waterloo campaign but with Napoleon exiting off the north map edge towards Brussels instead.
@kenx8176
Ай бұрын
That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have victory point locations at all, though, only that they should not be fixed ahead of time. I have been playing around with ideas similar to Rick’s for having victory points assigned to hexes as a result of where the armies choose to fight. For example, each time a Confederate unit is eliminated, you place a Union VP counter on the board in that hex, and if the Union player controls that hex at the end of the day, then he gets those victory points, as a bonus on top of the victory points for eliminating the unit. On the other hand, if the Confederate player controls that hex at the end of the day, then he gets any Confederate VP counters were placed there as a result of Union losses, and the Union VP counters expire worthless. If you don’t think it makes sense to generate victory points this way, you can use the same process to generate demoralization points, which in turn can factor into the victory conditions. I think this would have all kinds of cool effects as a game mechanic.
@calandale
Ай бұрын
So, broader victory terrain goals serve the same positive effects as terrain VP, IMO. I think you've hit on a good compromise though - forcing the sides to actually make it onto the tactical map and have some sort of broad goals - the problem is that those goals should be dependent on how the battle is going: if Lee is beating the AoP, he may not worry about the move south any more. I need to think about this more - because all I want is something that forces the battle on the tactical map. What Rick does with army morale vs VP for moveable VP locations I think will work here. Charging for giving up good terrain should be about the same, and nicely general.
Пікірлер: 10