Very thoughtful overview! As a lifelong student of this war, it's clear this game does an excellent job of capturing the critical difference Union naval capabilities made in the war....and the extra strain and stress it put on Confederate strategists and resources. I encourage you, though, to embrace the Draft Riot card for play in 1861. Yes, it's true there was no draft that early, but there was serious anti-war sentiment from the outset, especially in New York City. In fact, the mayor floated the idea of the city seceding from the Union! The city had tremendous commercial and financial interests with the southern cotton economy and many viewed the loss of those as disastrous.
Well, this will mark my very first comment post on CZcams! I encouraged Gilbert to do a video of this game during our last PBEM game of FtP. Whether it was my influence or not that caused the upload, is inconsequential. Gilbert's videos are always enjoyable (and relaxing) to watch. I haven't watched this one in full but shall do so later. Regarding the Confederacy living off the land - sure, they "could" do that. They more or less were in the Trans-Mississippi arena once Vicksburg fell. But I see what Gilbert is saying in his post. The CSA strategy by and large was to be "left alone." The 3 major campaigns to "invade" the North were Antietam, Gettysburg, and Bragg & Smith's foray into Kentucky in 1862. Gettysburg was a last-ditch effort to gain foreign recognition and try and take the pressure off of Vicksburg (among other things). Antietam and Kentucky (which ended in the Battle of Perryville) were mostly for recognition and liberation (in Bragg's mind) of Kentucky. Other than that the CSA's strategy was, by and large, and by necessity, defensive. The game is very open-ended and gives the player a nice "what-if" approach, and as a result from a gameplay perspective it is pretty darned balanced.
Just a comment on the tweezers....I dip mine in a product used to repair the coating on dishwasher tines. It makes them a bit sticky and the extra thickness makes it easier to grab the bottom counter when trying to move a stack.
great video......I play your video allot. FtP is a tough study. The rules jump all over the place. As I get older, I find it harder to learn complicated games.
This would be an interesting discussion in Consim. I mean historians have been talking about this for years and no doubt will continue to do so. Some of the more interesting reading that I have done on the war concerns Davis Memoirs. Of course a lot of the 'eyewitness stuff' about the Civil War is self serving but they are valuable insights into the minds of the participants. When you read Davis you really see how 'helpless' the Confederacy was in terms of trying to defend their borders. Davis time and time again mentions how it was almost impossible for them to counter Union naval invasions that could come anywhere at any time. Also, the immense task of even trying to keep a government together whose very nature opposed central government was almost impossible. Davis' dealing with some of the Confederate governors make very interesting reading. In game terms, we can move confederate forces far more fluidly than Davis ever could. The confederate Rail capacity is generous and the ability to move confederate units hundreds and hundreds of miles is also very liberal. The movement of Longstreet's corps from Virginia to Tennessee for the Chickamauga campaign was brilliant but it strained Confederate resources to the limit. On good book I can recommend is Rowena Reeds's "Combined Operations in the Civil War".
Thanks Alberto. I think I am fair in the analysis. I don't think the designer would approve as he and I have some very different views on what the Confederacy was capable of doing in the war and what they can do in the GAME. Which is a lot more.
Question: why can't the Confederates do what Sherman did? Were the Confederates less capable of living off the land than the Union? Great video, food for thought.
Excellent presentation, Gilbert:) This is one I'll have to get and play with my dad. A little side question if you don't mind... What is that white substance on the tips of your tweezers? Is it something you put on there? Does it help?
Good points Mark. Theoretically, I suppose they could. But my understanding of the Confederacy, and the way it worked was that it was in opposition to their whole philosophy of the war. The Maryland Campaign was controversial for them although they justified that invasion with "well they should have been confederate". For the Gettysburg Campaign it was quite different. The justification there seemed to be that they had to take the war out of Virginia to give the state time to re-cuperate. For the GAME I fully understand why you have it in there. It keeps the Union alert and prevents him from being sloppy. That is, he can't leave Washington wide open which he might have done had you not written severe penalties for losing Union territory. As you can probably tell from the video I love this game and hope it does go to a fourth printing.
Sorry to butt in when I said I wouldn't for now...but thanks to "Gen. Patton" bringing up the subject of those tweezers, I had to say I did notice you using them, however I couldn't bring myself to mentioning them. I used a pair of tweezers in my gaming, since I tend to be all thumbs otherwise. Perhaps game manufacturers should include a pair in their products? Happy tweezing!
Really enjoyed the review. Dividing pack into 3 sounds like a good idea - works for Thirty Years War GMT game with similar point to point map design. Plus this has lots of cards for each period, (unlike TYW which I still think is great). Do you enjoy playing this more or less than US Civil War? Sorry for the ticklish question - im not asking strictly about quality, rather enjoyabilty!
I've had a lot of comments about those tweezers! I bought them from Canada Post some years ago, and I don't know if they are still available. They have a bit of a 'coating' on the ends which helps in picking up stamps (and game counters). As you can see they are wearing off a bit. I'm wondering if some gloss hobby paint wouldn't do the same thing. I have done it with other tweezers that I own.
I'll have to give that a try :) My sausage-like fingers have a rough time with smaller counters, and while the tweezers help, it can still be tough to pick them up.
Many thanks for the comments Gilbert. (This will be my last comment for now, since I don't want to hog the show.) I agree with your assessment; the Confederacy had little chance of winning, although not impossible. Again "what ifs" come to the fore: if they had won at Gettysburg, or managed to occupy Washington DC, or Lincoln had been assassinated a year or more earlier. Well who knows. On the diplomatic front if England had been persuaded to support the Confederacy and invade the Union from Canada (now that is and interesting "what if"), again who knows. The Union won, and no "what ifs" can change that immutable fact. One final observation. The state flag of Mississippi displays the Confederate Battle Flag in its design. The echo of those civil war years reverberates down the years, and will continue to do so.
I love Military History but never played a table top game. Any chance of a basic starter guide for someone who has never played before. I like the look of US Civil War and also this one, which one do you prefer.
Hello Welsh. There are fans of both games but I think the "The US Civil War" is a better simulation than "For the People". I did videos on both of them but found that in "For the People" some of the 'shark play' that goes on is pretty rough. Also, some historical events can be completely out of whack. Such as "Draft Riots" in 1861? Impossible since there was no draft etc.....
The game is "for the people" and, it seems, the people are for the game, as I understand it is a popular civil war game. When it comes to this period of American history I prefer to play some of the individual battles rather than the grand strategy side. An historical simulation? Well maybe not 100%, but what game is? Obviously the rivers and forts are vital, the rivers acting like arteries into the Confederacy. As for anomalies like the draft card riot/s, well a simple legend "not to be played until the 1863 period" should suffice, or the 3-deck cards, which I kinda like. Plenty to think about in this game for both sides. Dare say a few trial games would be required in order to get a handle on game play. Interesting video, and food for thought, as always. .
I think the Confederacy could have won the war. But only by 'war weariness' in the North. The Summer of 1864 was key and the Fall elections for President. If Lincoln had not won the election I think the peace party of the north might have let the south go. Militarily, I don't think anyone advocates that the South could have won the war.
This is actually true, and Lee realized it. He had to demoralize the Union. However, how Lee lost the war was by trying to demoralize the Union by destroying the AoP. He never realized he could not destroy the Union army, and the continued effort to do so wound up destroying his own army. What Lee should have done is resort to trench warfare while he still had the strength to avoid Union nuetralization of any or much of his fortifications, and asymmetric warfare. If Lee had done as Ho Chi Min in Viet Nam. Do not fight major battles. Hit, inflict casualties to demoralize the home front and then disappear. In other cause the Union to become frustrated by lack of progress.
I agree with you except for one thing. Had George McClellean beaten Lincoln in the Election of 1964, he would not be sworn in as the President of the United States until January 1865. Considering the strategic situation, McClellen might have NOT settle for peace with the South immediately. Little Mac left the army as a loser. An opportunity to win the war for the Union might have been hard to resist
By no stretch of the imagination can I claim to be an expert on the American Civil War, my knowledge being confined to books, war games and, of course, Hollywood. However I have always been intrigued by the question of a) could the Confederacy have won the war, or at least forced the North to the negotiating table, and b) if the Confederacy had endured, how different would subsequent history have been? I'm inviting pure speculation of course, but comments, nonetheless, would be welcome.
The Confederacy could have won the war in possibly two different ways (probably more; I'm an armchair historian and these are my impressions.) 1. Enough military victories (Antietam, anyone?) to gain European recognition and intervention- but poor France and Britain in WWI. IMO any hope of European intervention was gone after the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. 2. Johnston/Hood holding onto Atlanta for just 2 more months and assuming that Lincoln would lose the 1864 election. On the other hand, McClelland didn't accept the Democratic platform so who knows what he would've done. I also think the Union would've upped the pressure to end the war before March '65' s inaugural (the "blind memo" Lincoln had his cabinet sign in August.) Nothing new in my thoughts, I know. As for part b I'm glad we didn't have to find out. I think the USA would've been balkanized with at least 4 or 5 different nations (the "old Northwest" had already discussed seceding and forming a new nation without New England and likely the West Coast would've formed a new nation in 1865 or so, probably including some of the mountain states. In 1864 Georgia was considering seceding from the Confederacy; God knows what might've happened down there.
Gilbert, I realize that you're a Canuck, but there are a couple of your pronunciations that the natives might object to. New Madrid -- the locals pronounce it MAD-rid (rhymes with "bad kid"). Cairo -- pronounced KAY-row (rhymes with "payroll") Enjoyed the video, as always.
At 27:40 when you complain about the possibility of 'Draft Riots' in 1861 as being historically inaccurate I think you are taking too narrow a view of the card. Rather than focus on the political situation in NY in July of 1863, you should focus on the word 'riots' and in 1861 you'd simply need to substitute 'Baltimore' for New York and you'd be right back into a historically relevant card.
You convey a lot of information in this video, as you do in The Birth of a Legend video. What you also convey is that you don't care for others opinions, while giving a lot of your own. It's the internet. If you give your opinions and tell folks you don't want to hear theirs, it comes across as whining and quite a bit entitled. This is a good information on game information, nothing more.
I'm quite surprised that in your opinion I come across as 'whining and privileged'. Nobody has ever accused me of that and I'm 70! Anybody who has had a dialogue with me on anything would state that 'I listen' and 'comment' but will not always agree. Most people here on the forum have stated many times that I come across as very reasonable and fair. I'm sorry if you don't like the videos. I suggest you refrain from watching them if they do so.
This game never made it to my pedestal. Eric Lee Smith already did the definitive game on the war many years before with Victory Games, The Civil War - sans the unhistorical absurdities. The Union can also pull a move on Richmond like the one you demonstrated in the East with no chance to respond. I see no reason to shelve a great game like The Civil War for this. If you just want a game not so dedicated to reality, then this might be for you. But then, why play a game like this at all?
For the People is a good game, but it is not one of my favorites. Mark Herman's designs are hit and miss for me and this one missed. How do people feel about the criticism that For the People can devolve into a game of capture the flag for Richmond and Washington? Personally, I much prefer The Civil War 1861-1865. For me, its initiative and command point system does a far better job of presenting the lack of control and uncertainty of war than cards dictating strategy and tactics with historical events thrown in willy-nilly.
Very thoughtful overview! As a lifelong student of this war, it's clear this game does an excellent job of capturing the critical difference Union naval capabilities made in the war....and the extra strain and stress it put on Confederate strategists and resources. I encourage you, though, to embrace the Draft Riot card for play in 1861. Yes, it's true there was no draft that early, but there was serious anti-war sentiment from the outset, especially in New York City. In fact, the mayor floated the idea of the city seceding from the Union! The city had tremendous commercial and financial interests with the southern cotton economy and many viewed the loss of those as disastrous.
Well, this will mark my very first comment post on CZcams!
I encouraged Gilbert to do a video of this game during our last PBEM game of FtP. Whether it was my influence or not that caused the upload, is inconsequential. Gilbert's videos are always enjoyable (and relaxing) to watch. I haven't watched this one in full but shall do so later.
Regarding the Confederacy living off the land - sure, they "could" do that. They more or less were in the Trans-Mississippi arena once Vicksburg fell. But I see what Gilbert is saying in his post. The CSA strategy by and large was to be "left alone." The 3 major campaigns to "invade" the North were Antietam, Gettysburg, and Bragg & Smith's foray into Kentucky in 1862. Gettysburg was a last-ditch effort to gain foreign recognition and try and take the pressure off of Vicksburg (among other things). Antietam and Kentucky (which ended in the Battle of Perryville) were mostly for recognition and liberation (in Bragg's mind) of Kentucky. Other than that the CSA's strategy was, by and large, and by necessity, defensive. The game is very open-ended and gives the player a nice "what-if" approach, and as a result from a gameplay perspective it is pretty darned balanced.
Just a comment on the tweezers....I dip mine in a product used to repair the coating on dishwasher tines. It makes them a bit sticky and the extra thickness makes it easier to grab the bottom counter when trying to move a stack.
great video......I play your video allot.
FtP is a tough study. The rules jump all over the place.
As I get older, I find it harder to learn complicated games.
This would be an interesting discussion in Consim. I mean historians have been talking about this for years and no doubt will continue to do so. Some of the more interesting reading that I have done on the war concerns Davis Memoirs. Of course a lot of the 'eyewitness stuff' about the Civil War is self serving but they are valuable insights into the minds of the participants.
When you read Davis you really see how 'helpless' the Confederacy was in terms of trying to defend their borders. Davis time and time again mentions how it was almost impossible for them to counter Union naval invasions that could come anywhere at any time.
Also, the immense task of even trying to keep a government together whose very nature opposed central government was almost impossible. Davis' dealing with some of the Confederate governors make very interesting reading. In game terms, we can move confederate forces far more fluidly than Davis ever could. The confederate Rail capacity is generous and the ability to move confederate units hundreds and hundreds of miles is also very liberal.
The movement of Longstreet's corps from Virginia to Tennessee for the Chickamauga campaign was brilliant but it strained Confederate resources to the limit.
On good book I can recommend is Rowena Reeds's "Combined Operations in the Civil War".
While I normally enjoy your overviews, the book recommendations were a wonderful surprise! Hope to play this some day.
Is there any chance for "How to play"?
A truly impressive review job. The detail and reasoning of the impressions the game gives you are very well thought out and accurate.. Gracias!
Thanks Alberto. I think I am fair in the analysis. I don't think the designer would approve as he and I have some very different views on what the Confederacy was capable of doing in the war and what they can do in the GAME. Which is a lot more.
Question: why can't the Confederates do what Sherman did? Were the Confederates less capable of living off the land than the Union? Great video, food for thought.
Another great review in depth showing deep insight into the game. thank you
Thanks E-4, I enjoy making them.
Nice video as always….👍🏻
Great video. Thanks.
Excellent presentation, Gilbert:) This is one I'll have to get and play with my dad.
A little side question if you don't mind... What is that white substance on the tips of your tweezers? Is it something you put on there? Does it help?
Good points Mark. Theoretically, I suppose they could. But my understanding of the Confederacy, and the way it worked was that it was in opposition to their whole philosophy of the war. The Maryland Campaign was controversial for them although they justified that invasion with "well they should have been confederate". For the Gettysburg Campaign it was quite different. The justification there seemed to be that they had to take the war out of Virginia to give the state time to re-cuperate.
For the GAME I fully understand why you have it in there. It keeps the Union alert and prevents him from being sloppy. That is, he can't leave Washington wide open which he might have done had you not written severe penalties for losing Union territory. As you can probably tell from the video I love this game and hope it does go to a fourth printing.
It took 6 years but...4th Printing now in P500 ;)
Sorry to butt in when I said I wouldn't for now...but thanks to "Gen. Patton" bringing up the subject of those tweezers, I had to say I did notice you using them, however I couldn't bring myself to mentioning them. I used a pair of tweezers in my gaming, since I tend to be all thumbs otherwise. Perhaps game manufacturers should include a pair in their products? Happy tweezing!
Thanks Gilbert
Really enjoyed the review. Dividing pack into 3 sounds like a good idea - works for Thirty Years War GMT game with similar point to point map design. Plus this has lots of cards for each period, (unlike TYW which I still think is great). Do you enjoy playing this more or less than US Civil War? Sorry for the ticklish question - im not asking strictly about quality, rather enjoyabilty!
I've had a lot of comments about those tweezers! I bought them from Canada Post some years ago, and I don't know if they are still available. They have a bit of a 'coating' on the ends which helps in picking up stamps (and game counters). As you can see they are wearing off a bit. I'm wondering if some gloss hobby paint wouldn't do the same thing. I have done it with other tweezers that I own.
I'll have to give that a try :) My sausage-like fingers have a rough time with smaller counters, and while the tweezers help, it can still be tough to pick them up.
i dont know why but vids with tweezers in use really make me shudder..uugh..
Perhaps they look a bit like dental instruments. That would certainly make one shudder!
wow that would be great on PC
Really interested in picking this up, unfortunately, it is hard to get here in the UK, typical!
Many thanks for the comments Gilbert. (This will be my last comment for now, since I don't want to hog the show.) I agree with your assessment; the Confederacy had little chance of winning, although not impossible. Again "what ifs" come to the fore: if they had won at Gettysburg, or managed to occupy Washington DC, or Lincoln had been assassinated a year or more earlier. Well who knows. On the diplomatic front if England had been persuaded to support the Confederacy and invade the Union from Canada (now that is and interesting "what if"), again who knows. The Union won, and no "what ifs" can change that immutable fact. One final observation. The state flag of Mississippi displays the Confederate Battle Flag in its design. The echo of those civil war years reverberates down the years, and will continue to do so.
I love Military History but never played a table top game. Any chance of a basic starter guide for someone who has never played before. I like the look of US Civil War and also this one, which one do you prefer.
Hello Welsh. There are fans of both games but I think the "The US Civil War" is a better simulation than "For the People". I did videos on both of them but found that in "For the People" some of the 'shark play' that goes on is pretty rough. Also, some historical events can be completely out of whack. Such as "Draft Riots" in 1861? Impossible since there was no draft etc.....
This game is very close to A House Divided by Games Designers' Workshop
The game is "for the people" and, it seems, the people are for the game, as I understand it is a popular civil war game. When it comes to this period of American history I prefer to play some of the individual battles rather than the grand strategy side. An historical simulation? Well maybe not 100%, but what game is? Obviously the rivers and forts are vital, the rivers acting like arteries into the Confederacy. As for anomalies like the draft card riot/s, well a simple legend "not to be played until the 1863 period" should suffice, or the 3-deck cards, which I kinda like. Plenty to think about in this game for both sides. Dare say a few trial games would be required in order to get a handle on game play. Interesting video, and food for thought, as always. .
28:50 Victory Europe used that system-- breaking down the deck by years. Period would be fine too.
I think the Confederacy could have won the war. But only by 'war weariness' in the North. The Summer of 1864 was key and the Fall elections for President. If Lincoln had not won the election I think the peace party of the north might have let the south go. Militarily, I don't think anyone advocates that the South could have won the war.
This is actually true, and Lee realized it. He had to demoralize the Union. However, how Lee lost the war was by trying to demoralize the Union by destroying the AoP. He never realized he could not destroy the Union army, and the continued effort to do so wound up destroying his own army. What Lee should have done is resort to trench warfare while he still had the strength to avoid Union nuetralization of any or much of his fortifications, and asymmetric warfare. If Lee had done as Ho Chi Min in Viet Nam. Do not fight major battles. Hit, inflict casualties to demoralize the home front and then disappear. In other cause the Union to become frustrated by lack of progress.
I agree with you except for one thing. Had George McClellean beaten Lincoln in the Election of 1964, he would not be sworn in as the President of the United States until January 1865. Considering the strategic situation, McClellen might have NOT settle for peace with the South immediately. Little Mac left the army as a loser. An opportunity to win the war for the Union might have been hard to resist
The only way the South could of won the war imo is if they got European backing which they flirted with but never bore fruit
By no stretch of the imagination can I claim to be an expert on the American Civil War, my knowledge being confined to books, war games and, of course, Hollywood. However I have always been intrigued by the question of a) could the Confederacy have won the war, or at least forced the North to the negotiating table, and b) if the Confederacy had endured, how different would subsequent history have been? I'm inviting pure speculation of course, but comments, nonetheless, would be welcome.
The Confederacy could have won the war in possibly two different ways (probably more; I'm an armchair historian and these are my impressions.)
1. Enough military victories (Antietam, anyone?) to gain European recognition and intervention- but poor France and Britain in WWI. IMO any hope of European intervention was gone after the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
2. Johnston/Hood holding onto Atlanta for just 2 more months and assuming that Lincoln would lose the 1864 election. On the other hand, McClelland didn't accept the Democratic platform so who knows what he would've done. I also think the Union would've upped the pressure to end the war before March '65' s inaugural (the "blind memo" Lincoln had his cabinet sign in August.) Nothing new in my thoughts, I know.
As for part b I'm glad we didn't have to find out. I think the USA would've been balkanized with at least 4 or 5 different nations (the "old Northwest" had already discussed seceding and forming a new nation without New England and likely the West Coast would've formed a new nation in 1865 or so, probably including some of the mountain states. In 1864 Georgia was considering seceding from the Confederacy; God knows what might've happened down there.
Gilbert, I realize that you're a Canuck, but there are a couple of your pronunciations that the natives might object to.
New Madrid -- the locals pronounce it MAD-rid (rhymes with "bad kid").
Cairo -- pronounced KAY-row (rhymes with "payroll")
Enjoyed the video, as always.
At 27:40 when you complain about the possibility of 'Draft Riots' in 1861 as being historically inaccurate I think you are taking too narrow a view of the card. Rather than focus on the political situation in NY in July of 1863, you should focus on the word 'riots' and in 1861 you'd simply need to substitute 'Baltimore' for New York and you'd be right back into a historically relevant card.
You convey a lot of information in this video, as you do in The Birth of a Legend video. What you also convey is that you don't care for others opinions, while giving a lot of your own. It's the internet. If you give your opinions and tell folks you don't want to hear theirs, it comes across as whining and quite a bit entitled. This is a good information on game information, nothing more.
I'm quite surprised that in your opinion I come across as 'whining and privileged'. Nobody has ever accused me of that and I'm 70! Anybody who has had a dialogue with me on anything would state that 'I listen' and 'comment' but will not always agree. Most people here on the forum have stated many times that I come across as very reasonable and fair. I'm sorry if you don't like the videos. I suggest you refrain from watching them if they do so.
This game never made it to my pedestal. Eric Lee Smith already did the definitive game on the war many years before with Victory Games, The Civil War - sans the unhistorical absurdities. The Union can also pull a move on Richmond like the one you demonstrated in the East with no chance to respond. I see no reason to shelve a great game like The Civil War for this. If you just want a game not so dedicated to reality, then this might be for you. But then, why play a game like this at all?
For the People is a good game, but it is not one of my favorites. Mark Herman's designs are hit and miss for me and this one missed.
How do people feel about the criticism that For the People can devolve into a game of capture the flag for Richmond and Washington?
Personally, I much prefer The Civil War 1861-1865. For me, its initiative and command point system does a far better job of presenting the lack of control and uncertainty of war than cards dictating strategy and tactics with historical events thrown in willy-nilly.
Need a house rule that the South can't advance more than 3 squares beyond it's own borders, and reduce Jackson's political value to 1.