GCACW

sgtono

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2003
Messages
911
Reaction score
2
Location
Portland, OR
Country
llUnited States
Was wondering if any of you played the GCACW games such as Grant Takes Command, or the Stonewall series?

Keith
 

Anonymous

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
897
Reaction score
6
Country
llUnited States
I have the entire set (all 7). I have played several scenarios, but never a complete campaign.

I do not enjoy the system very much. Why?

1) I think it is extremely pro-Confederacy. Basically, the CSA has better leaders and wins all initiative ties. Doesn't matter - offense, defense, early war, late war.

2) I've found the scenarios end up in a 'Last Man Standing' situation. Everybody moves each day until they are exhausted. Then they recover (some) overnight and do it again, but less effectively. By the end, the battle is decided by whoever is disorganized less. (I tried once keeping some reserves. It didn't work.) That makes you feel like you surviving a game, not winning it. Realistic, perhaps, but enjoyable?

3) The system, while historically 'accurate', is easily broken. Many of the scenarios and campaigns are so unbalanced, they cannot be fixed (even by the real fanatics). When a new game comes out, the word is "These are the best scenarios ever." Pretty soon, those scenarios are played enough and found to be unbalanced, too.

4) You have to get the latest set of rules. The rules evolved thru the first six releases. Some minor things, some major things. Eventually, they settled down, but you have to play with the latest set or things can get goofy (e.g. in the early version, if you have more artillery, you took more casualties). PS - The latest set is online.

5) As can be the problem with many games having fixed setups, the play can get a little pre-meditated. "The first move, you have to force march Jackson to point X, then extend march Early to point Y. The person who gets to point Z first will win."

That said, they are good looking, high quality physical products with a fairly active online community (www.gcacw.com). You could do worse.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :)
 

Pitman

Forum Guru
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
14,071
Reaction score
2,216
Location
Columbus, OH
Country
llUnited States
I reviewed the first game in the system, Stonewall Jackson's Way, for Fire & Movement Magazine. You can probably find that old issue on ebay somewhere, or from a friend. Basically, I thought the system was good, although some of the games have problematic victory conditions (SJW was not balanced, for example).
 

Patton1138

Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
47
Reaction score
3
Location
NYC
The only game in the system I have is SJW. I never really got around to playing much of it. Frankly, that particular game is way too sparse density-wise for my tastes. You've got essentially one corps (5-10 units) per side marching up and down 3 full-size maps. Not my cup of tea. The actual system, though, I have no problem with. I'd like to give one of the major campaigns a good try someday.
 

Doughboy

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
5
Location
Tonto from Toronto
Country
llCanada
GCACW scale applicable to Napoleonics?

does anyone think that the GCACW system is a good scale to be used with Napoleonics? I think the operational aspects are well done at this scale, and it would be refreshing to see a treatment at this level. There is currently a phethora of games that are essentially regimental and are mostly small scale with focus on a particular battle. Perhaps there are current systems that have already dealt with Napoleonics at this same scale?

John
:)
 

WesN

Vicious Coon
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
152
Reaction score
1
Location
Tampa
Country
llUnited States
Off-Topic

Routepack I see your pic and sig, have you seen the new GMT game that is coming out called Downtown?

Box cover art can be found here:

http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@83.fNOeaVeYtln.282425@.ee6d8ef/50769[/img]
 

WesN

Vicious Coon
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
152
Reaction score
1
Location
Tampa
Country
llUnited States
Donwtown

I do not, but Lee has shilled it so well on Consim I am probably going to pre-order it before the price goes up. There is a VASSAL module in the works that looked pretty good and a Cyberboard module as well. It might be my first air game played.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,020
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Re: Donwtown

Janked said:
I do not, but Lee has shilled it so well on Consim I am probably going to pre-order it before the price goes up. There is a VASSAL module in the works that looked pretty good and a Cyberboard module as well. It might be my first air game played.
If I am not mistaken J.D. Webster, the guy who designed the Fighting Wings series (and Air Superiority as well IIRC) is moving to the Tampa area. FW is the ASL of WW2 air combat. I tried to play it, but I do not think well in three dimensions. I work much better on an ASL board.
 

Doughboy

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
5
Location
Tonto from Toronto
Country
llCanada
good old JD, I was one of the early crowd that got into his material when it first came out over 10 years back.

We were fanatically playing the old SPI AirWar system with 3D minatures and stands. Couldnt get enough of it, though some of the aerodynamics were wrong. Admiditly, AirWar was extremly complex, more so than any wargame (including ASL) ever produced.

When JD's product came out, we thought it was a godsend as the flight mechanics were simplified alot. I loved it so much that I put in for a 3 yr subscription for JD's Airpower magazine. Unfortunately, I kind of lost touch since.

Still love streaking over Nam with the Navy F4s, at least before those those Atolls smoke my A##!

AIM HIGH! :twisted:

John
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,020
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
RoutePack6 said:
We were fanatically playing the old SPI AirWar system with 3D minatures and stands. Couldnt get enough of it, though some of the aerodynamics were wrong. Admiditly, AirWar was extremly complex, more so than any wargame (including ASL) ever produced.
I am amazed. I thought no one actually played that Air War. I bought a copy while in high school and tried to solitaire it once. I don't think I made it through enough turns to turn an a/c more than 30degs before packing it it.
 

Doughboy

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
5
Location
Tonto from Toronto
Country
llCanada
Actually, our were aviation nuts to the extreme, we were groupies for airshows seeing about half a dozen a season, also makes visualizing some the maneuvers better. 8)

I think, JD was into Air War for some time before he decided to put in some effort to make fighter combat more accessible. The advantage is, he is a combat pilot by profession and who else would be more qualified to model aerodynamics than the driver. 8)

Granted I still blow the dust of the old Air War game and oggy over the aircraft stats, but thats in the past.

:roll:
 

Nico

Recruit
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
Warsaw
Country
llPoland
Old posts but I have to answer :)

1) System is pro-CSA - I think that soldiers of Army of Potomac would say the same thing about the war between 1861-63, war was pro-CSA !!! (I am talking about eastern theater). In GTC Union corps cmdr are at same level as CSA opponents and overall leadership level of Union army is also improved. Just like it was in reality.

2) 'Last man standing' - never had this problem so I cant say anything, I am playing four campaigns now and each of them are exciting.
In one game Butler has taken Petersburg in may 1864 and I have big problems :confused: ... maybe sent whole Longstreet corps to help Beauregard..

3) I have never seen 'balanced' scenario. Scenarios have always one problem - You dont have to worry about day after last turn, cause game is ending and that is problem with every game.
Campaign is very diffrent, You must plan carefully and think few turns ahead, those game are best in campaigns....all games are for campaigns :laugh:

5) Get to point Z and win. - It should be add, and inflict as much as possible casaulties to the enemy :). In all games You have to take some point/inflict casaulties. But it also should be add 'and hold it'. So it is easy to force march and get to that point, but then Your tired troops will be easily routed by enemy.

For me GCACW games are great. Grant Takes Command and On To Richmond campaign are one of the best. The only thing I am missing is Fog of War...
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Nico said:
Old posts but I have to answer :)

1) System is pro-CSA - I think that soldiers of Army of Potomac would say the same thing about the war between 1861-63, war was pro-CSA !!! (I am talking about eastern theater). In GTC Union corps cmdr are at same level as CSA opponents and overall leadership level of Union army is also improved. Just like it was in reality.

2) 'Last man standing' - never had this problem so I cant say anything, I am playing four campaigns now and each of them are exciting.
In one game Butler has taken Petersburg in may 1864 and I have big problems :confused: ... maybe sent whole Longstreet corps to help Beauregard..

3) I have never seen 'balanced' scenario. Scenarios have always one problem - You dont have to worry about day after last turn, cause game is ending and that is problem with every game.
Campaign is very diffrent, You must plan carefully and think few turns ahead, those game are best in campaigns....all games are for campaigns :laugh:

5) Get to point Z and win. - It should be add, and inflict as much as possible casaulties to the enemy :). In all games You have to take some point/inflict casaulties. But it also should be add 'and hold it'. So it is easy to force march and get to that point, but then Your tired troops will be easily routed by enemy.

For me GCACW games are great. Grant Takes Command and On To Richmond campaign are one of the best. The only thing I am missing is Fog of War...
Regarding Confederate leadership ratings, I can comment that I have heard the same about the series that the original poster has - that the Confederate ratings are a touch too high. Maybe they deserve it for the 2nd Manassas, Stonewall in the Valley and Stonewall's Last Campaign games. Consider, however, the ratings of individual Union Corps commanders during the Peninsula Campaign. Most of them won the individual battles in that campaign. The Union lost because of MacClellan. Likewise in the On To Maryland game. Had anybody but Little Mac been in charge at Antietam, there is a decent chance that the war might have ended after that campaign. The Roads To Gettysburg is even more pronounced as Meade and his Corps commanders should have higher ratings than everyone, except Longstreet.
 
Top