The U.S. Civil War

The U.S. Civil War is a relatively new game from GMT about....well you know. Today I was able to get in a full turn via live Vassal play with our very own Flimflam. So be advised the below are just my very first impressions and do not constitute an actual informed review.

It is a hex and counter war game that they say draws influences from two earlier games on the same subject The Civil War put out by Victory Games and also For the People originally done by Avalon Hill though later by GMT. I can not comment on how strong these influences are because I have never played either of them.

The quality of the game is top notch. The board, in current GMT fashion is fully mounted and weighs several pounds as it is HUGE. The counters are nice and beefy and the player aid informative and useful.

For those familiar with Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage many of the basics will be very familiar. Troops are not really differentiated and the counters are just the number of troops you have in a particular spot, called SPs (strength points). The generals that command them though are very different from one another. Some good on defense, some good on offense, some good at not a lot, some timid, some bold. These differences give the battles a sense of uniqueness.

The initiative system is pretty cool. Both players roll a die, high number gets to go first and both players get a number of actions equal to the difference in the die rolls. So if the Federals role 4 and the Confederates roll 2, the Federals go first but both players get two actions. So not devastating to lose the roll but it does allow for a player to occasionally go twice in a row (act last one turn act first the next) which can cause grief to your opponent.

The combat system is designed for high casualties as it should be to reflect the nature of the combat of the period. Win or lose, some of your guys are getting wounded or killed. Not such a big deal for the North which gets lots of replacements but the South has got to pick and choose his battles. The fights themselves are resolved quickly though and that's good.

Supply, while it wasn't an issue so early in our game, could be of great importance later which means maneuver is probably as important as slugging it out in combat.

There are some "special action cards" but unlike a card driven game, they merely indicate a theater (Eastern, Western, or Trans Mississippi) where they can be played and their effects are one of three or four options. So helpful but not devastating in the way the appropriate card played at the right time in a game of Paths of Glory or Twilight Struggle can be.

If our first turn (which consists of four phases of moving and fighting) is any indication, the game is long as only war games can be but I really liked it so far and look forward to our next chance to continue playing.

I still haven't played with my local opponent due to time constraints. Thanks for the first impressions.

repoman wrote: Both players roll a die, high number gets to go first and both players get a number of actions equal to the difference in the die rolls. So if the Federals role 4 and the Confederates roll 2, the Federals go first but both players get two actions.
Supply, while it wasn't an issue so early in our game, could be of great importance later which means maneuver is probably as important as slugging it out in combat.

Phewee!! Glad you gave that example or I could never have followed it. (Wait! Let me see if I've got it...4 minus 2 = 2, yessss) Haha.

Oh no. Oh no. What if you BOTH roll a four? *Brain explodes*. Fuck those ambiguous rules, I'm sticking to ASL.

ThirstyMan wrote:

repoman wrote: Both players roll a die, high number gets to go first and both players get a number of actions equal to the difference in the die rolls. So if the Federals role 4 and the Confederates roll 2, the Federals go first but both players get two actions.
Supply, while it wasn't an issue so early in our game, could be of great importance later which means maneuver is probably as important as slugging it out in combat.

Phewee!! Glad you gave that example or I could never have followed it. (Wait! Let me see if I've got it...4 minus 2 = 2, yessss) Haha.

Oh no. Oh no. What if you BOTH roll a four? *Brain explodes*. Fuck those ambiguous rules, I'm sticking to ASL.

Considering your misanthropic attitude, that would probably be for the best.

What actually happens is if you roll doubles you each draw a special Action card and roll again. If the die roll difference is 1 then you each get one action in each of the three theaters and if the difference is 4 or 5 the Federal player is required to make an attack in Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania.

repoman wrote: What actually happens is if you roll doubles you each draw a special Action card and roll again. If the die roll difference is 1 then you each get one action in each of the three theaters and if the difference is 4 or 5 the Federal player is required to make an attack in Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania.

That's seems like a reasonable system. Open ended enough but it tries to keep some historical bases so you don't totally ignore a front. How many acrion die rolls per year 4?, 6?, 12?

There are 5 turns per year ( with winter turns covering more months on the calendar than summer months) . Each turn has 3 action phases where you roll for Initiative. If there's a tie, you each draw a Special Action card and roll again.

I am very hurt because I am not microscopic.

Stop discriminating against microscopic people, Fucking sizeists.

Did your first play see any amphibious assaults? That's what people seem to be talking about on BGG, it also looks like the most involved part of the rules.

(Look, sensible post). I'm a big fan of For The People, so I was wondering if anyone knows how this stacks up against that. FTP is, of course, a CDG but is pretty complex and more sandboxy than many CDGs. It also uses point to point movement.

I find FTP a complete brain burner but I enjoy that. Is this lighter than that?

It definitely seems lighter than FTP, IMHO. More maneuver than that game but I would say overall complexity is lower.

I would agree with this assessment. The big difference with FtP is that this game is a pure military one. The only political effects , relatively speaking, is that generals do have ranks which preclude a lower ranked one from commanding a higher ranked ones; some Union ones are Cautious, so they require two Actions to use, not one. And their movement is lower as well.

Amphib Assaults , using the basic rules, are pretty straightforward. There has been discussion about them in the sense some feel they are too easy. From what I see, its too early to say that. You still need a Special Action card, and the South can ( and should ) have some troops guarding the coasts as well as some leaders to act as fire brigades.

I'd say this is more straightforward than FtP in a lot of ways.

I, as the Union, did not attempt an amphib landing in the first turn. Reading the rules it didn't seem too complicated.

BGG people think it's too easy? Well, we'll see but generally I pay little attention. Some people need to feel smart by pointing out flaws in games no matter how real or imagined they are and no matter how good or bad the game is.

I saw 2 guys playing US Civil War at Maryland game days a week ago. It looked too awesome so I broke down and bought a copy. Vassal anyone, anyone, Bueller, anyone, anyone, Bueller, US Civil War, anyone, anyone?