[Consim-l] Re: "Three Days of Gettysburg" vs. "This Hallowed Ground"

[Pat Collins]

>Now, I own GMT's "Three Days of Gettysburg".  I'm `reasonably' familiar
>with the rules, and have played >through the smaller scenarios a few times.

I have also  - I liked a number of things about it.

>I've also heard good things about "This Hallowed Ground", from the Gamers.
>I've enjoyed some of their >other offerings (a couple of SCS titles,
>including _Drive on Paris_ and _The Mighty Endeavor_), and am >curious
>about their treatment of Gettysburg.

I am a big fan of CWBS.  Mighty Endeavor is just a  very good game. With
very limited time these days I still made time for 2 plays of it, and a
couple of alternate invasions. A real winner.

>* how do they compare?

Very hard to say. My comments are really "GBACW vs CWBS".

The "fatigue" rules in TDoG let you see how units get used up more quickly 
or not depending on what you do with them. The chit pull makes the action 
somewhat random. CWBS's order system is less  random, but still 
undependable. A good leader may well sit on an order, and a looser jump in 
right away.

But that's the exception, not the rule.  In TDoG, things will happen, just 
in a very uncoordinated manner. in CWBS, things may not happen at all, for a 
while. Then it could all cut loose at once.

>* what other brigade or regimental level games do people recommend, for
>Gettysburg in particular, but also >for other battles of the era?

I like the "Seven days" series for CWBS. Each game has a good battle, but 
the three combined are a lot of good gaming.

Regards, Pat
Last Played: Ardennes, ASL SK