I got the game in 1976 and mostly played the opening moves solo. The maps were set up in my tiny apartment for months on end. I quickly recognized the morale flaw and created my own morale chart which worked well. Years later I’d still occasionally set up one map and game a scenario where a couple Confederate divisions and some cavalry fought with a Union corps. Moves were very slow but fun. In a shorter scenarios the paperwork hassle of BCE wasn’t really needed.
Yep I was a student back in the 70's too, but you can't play the game and keep the game safe with out Plexiglas to protect them. I have gone through several generations of plexiglass as we played TSS, HTR, FIE, WIE, WIW, CNA, NW, to name but a few. Since then my group has broken up and moved away. Miss playing these great games. Good video, thanks
I played this game thru from both sides and enjoyed it.......Once that was done a couple of friends and I would meet up and randomly select a number units from either side and meet in the middle of the map some where.....great fun
Well, there were about 130,000 men fighting the battle in real time, and even with teams, you've got maybe six to eight playing the game(s). At any level of detail and granularity, what do you expect? And they're NOT "too complicated". Complex, yes. But not "too complicated". They do a fairly good job of helping a student of history understand the 19th century battlefield. When you stack them up against the beer & pretzel "Blue & Gray", the simpler games are really unsatisfying. About the only lesson B&G drives home well is that the ACW was better suited for defense than offense (as borne out by the number of EX(change) results on the CRT.
Remember some players who played this game, or perhaps I should say, tried to play, soon called it "Terrible Swift Bore". Watching this video reminds me how far along the evolutionary road we have traveled since the pioneering days of the hobby. Didn't buy this game at the time, maybe one of my better decisions. However I did buy Avalon Hill's "1914" and that was a 'mare to play. Of course there are much better games on the market since TSS hit the stores. Certainly we can be nostalgic about the game. After all every journey starts with the first step, and even if this game no longer sees the light of day, it did at least act as a milestone along the road the hobby was destined to journey.
TSS certainly wasn't "perfect out of the box" by any means, but one thing it never was, was "boring". Anybody who would try to level that charge at it probably just couldn't figure it out, or couldn't handle the sheer size of it.
Wonderful video on a classic game in our hobby - I agree, pretty surprising that there aren't any videos of it but then again, you and Enrico are among the few that cover these old gems.
I have this game in my collection, though I have not had it out of the box in over 20 years...my mates and i played the full campaign scenario to completion exactly once...playing every Sunday from 11am til 5pm and taking pretty much the entire summer to complete it....three months of Sundays...fun if flawed Another monster game that we played (and actually had some input into the development) was World In Flames from the Australian Design Group
Heh. Even I've never finished it. Played fairly solidly for a week a couple of times (opposed), and a couple solo cracks, but once I got in the habit of doing bigger games to completion, this largely has been unplayed. I still love it for the graphical presentation however.
Gonna be a LONG time before I do probably. Extended because I just picked up 3DoG. As to classic status, it gets its due in other coverage (including my spotlight on Berg). Playing the whole campaign again (don't think I ever finished) is a big commitment to just look at a game I believe has been superseded.
Nice video. Just wanted to add something. I have played 3 games of TSS to completion over the years. It doesn't take as long as you would think..maybe 25-30 hours. On the 3rd day both armies are greatly reduced in strength.turns fly by
Doing further research I may have misspoken on the video depending on the context. According to Board Game Geek, one of the first large 'monster games' was "Drang Nach Osten" from GDW. This was a large 'east front' WWII game. I perhaps should have said that "La Bataille de La Moskova" was the first "large tactical" monster game. Pretty sure though that "TSS" was one of the first. But, I do remember a very large tactical 2nd Manassas game and Sharpsburg game that came out around that time. I think the company was called "Command Perspectives" or something. Their Sharpsburg game was VERY tactical, down to fences and cornfields that made a difference in combat. Very comprehensive.
Memories! I bought DNO in the ziplock when it was new (I think the whole monstergame was $15 then!!!*) set it up and played in our basement (the only table big enough was our old train table!) Oh, the complexities, armor % was a big deal, lots of digging through these large, messy stacks to add up and divide the armor to get one combat result...! :0 Sigh.... Wish I could go back to that time now. * Prices now are insane - I may never buy another new wargame. My mind is back in the last century, when standard SPI games were $6, large ones were $12, and monsters were like $18 ! Prices now are like triple what they should be. So just realize a certain percent of games you buy and never play is a given, but now you've shelled out like $100 for each of those! Fuck NO!
I had this and sold it on eBay a few years ago; I regret that after watching your video. It wasn't my earliest monster game: I had Drang Nach Osten which was 1973.
PS: Anyone who wants the exact flavor of TSS can play John Tiller's Campaign PC Game Series on the Civil War by Matrix Games. It's very true to the TSS system. Very easy to play and user friendly and many different battles using the same system.
Nicely done, for the most part! I do think, however, that the ORIGINAL TSS did NOT have Brigade Combat Effectiveness rules (or charts). In fact one major problem with the very first release of it was that it was TOO bloody, since players had nothing to stop them from attacking or defending with units until they simply got wiped out by losing strength points. This was quickly brought to a head via MOVES magazine, and by the next printing, there were BCE charts to be had. If I recall correctly, it was Stonewall in S&T #62 which first had BCE.
@@tmcgill2219 Mmmmmmm.... I don't *think* so.... could be wrong... but I don't think so. The biggest problem with the original TSS was that it was too "bloody" and there was no disincentive for a player to just allow his units to be ground down to nothing without penalty.
Perhaps I'm confusing BCE with the concept of "morale/cohesion", which didn't appear until "Stonewall" (albeit in alphabetic form, initially). The first iterations of TSS did not have enough deterrents to just allowing your men to take disastrous casualties.
The morale issue was fixed pretty quickly by Rich Berg in Issue 31 of Moves. It laid out the letter rating codes for the game and the new system. He also added something for offensive artillery. That issue has an interesting article of GDWs Torgau and a really good one on Frederick the Great. Great overview. I still much prefer La Bat and Wellington to this game though.
One of the flaws in the original game was that infantry couldn't shoot the guys manning artillery batteries, which was an important reason WHY Civil War battles were not decisive due to the rifled musket (Napoleon could wheel up artillery to 200 meters or closer to blast holes in defending infantry; try that in the Civil War and you end up with dead gunners before they can get their pieces unlimbered). This force the offensive use of artillery to be sited much further back, limiting its effectiveness in offensive, while on the defense it was just as effective as before.
TSS was a small "monster" compared to "Campaign For North Africa" with its 3' by 10' Map and it needed 2 trays to hold the counters. 4-10 players and taking over 1000 hours to play the full game.
I owned 'Sharpsurg' myself at one time but ultimately didn't keep it. The TSS system I thought was more 'cleaned up' than the old Command perspectives titles. But, they were quite advanced for their time.
They do say size isn't everything. Well it does in war gaming. Large grand strategic games have their place--usually requiring plenty of time and multi-players. However small scale games also have their place. I quite like counters that depict nothing larger than a squad. In fact counters that show just show one soldier can generate some lively interest. It gives one a more personal feel for the fighting man, than dealing with mass anonymous armies. Moreover a counter that represents oneself gives the game a role-playing edge. Die rolls in combat takes on a whole new meaning, believe me. .
Yup played this twice...never got past day 1....the second time the hosts' wife pretty much threw us out of the house after the third weekend at his place...we didn't get far cause one of (the six) of us was a 'never read the rules' type and another was a super competitive fellow who challenged every negative outcome (for him).... triggering intensive rule discussions...I think he was wrong 100pct of the time..between those two guys the overall experience was...well, less than fun. Mind you the six of us did play for years together and really enjoyed this series, overall, once we got the hang of it. I remember the Corinth game was particularly interesting with variations on the Confederate entry times and points.
Yes, I remember those days well. In a 'group' setting you got all kinds of personalities involved and depending on who they were your 'gaming adventure' could be quite enjoyable or a nightmare. I have never finished a game of 'Terrible Swift Sword' and at my age now, never will.
my copy of TSS looks like it went through a blender. I'm sure there are pieces missing. It was very lazy of Berg to not include Brigade commanders for the Union.
6:53 Holly crap, the Union didn't have brigades? :O So how are brigade-level games about ACW made? Or is this only the game's trait? EDIT: ok, I see it was only a trait of the early version of the game.
I have a copy of this game, with not even the counters not punched out, but my copy doesn't have the rules booklet. Is there any place I can download it?
Had this game and Bloody April. Set them up, attempted to play solo, put the games away, then sold them. These monster tactical games are virtually impossible to play. Facing, range, morale, type of weapon, etc... it took for ever just to finish one turn. Much rather play a simpler "Blue & Grey" game than this monstrosity. I don't know of anyone who played the whole game. It was playable but tedious, unlike "Campaign for North Africa", another monstrosity I owned. I actually made a profit when I sold CNA. The only monster games I played to conclusion were GDW's "Fire in the East" and "Scorched Earth". The TSS smaller games were much better and playable (Pea Ridge, Drive on Washington, Corinth, Wilson's Creek, etc.). At least those can be finished in a reasonable time. You didn't have to deal with 100s (closer to 1000) counters.
I just have to say: because it overwhelms YOU doesn't mean it overwhelms EVERYBODY. This system is eminently playable (actually, more so than the more modern GMT system which it evolved into; which, while a decidedly better system overall, does require a large investment of time to play). If you would rather play the hideously abstracted Blue and Gray game, "Cemetery Hill", than Terrible Swift Sword, that tells on YOU rather than on TSS. "Cemetery Hill" was seen as the "dog" in the Blue and Gray I Quad, for good reason, and you'd figure, if they could get ONE battle right in the four, it should've been Gettysburg.
@@Stiglr You mis-read my comment. The game system was reasonable on a smaller scale, such as those I mentioned (Pea Ridge, Drive on Washington, etc.) but on a larger battle - no. Some games are unplayable because they become too complicated (for realism) and these are often tactical games for large battles. TSS and Bloody April fall into this category. Of course, this is just my opinion, but if you read the other posts - no one ever finished this game. Ever wonder what playing the entire "Battle of the Bulge" would be like if you using Advance Squad Leader or the old "Sniper" rules and counters? Unplayable. Just my two cents on games and simulations: Blue and Gray are games while TSS is a simulation. The games are playable while TSS is not. I'm a gamer. A simulation often just sits on the shelf, while a game gets played. The best is when you can have both, but this was and still is very difficult for designers. You should note though - Decision Games re-issued Blue and Gray (and added games) to this "hideous abstraction". So, it appears it is still a relevant "game". Some purists though will declare that all wargames, regardless of complexity, are abstractions by some degree. (I agree, "Cemetery Hill" was the weakest game in the Blue & Gray quads. All of SPI quads had at least one poor game (e.g. "Remagen Bridge", West Wall Quad).) Curious, though, did you ever complete a TSS game? I don't know of anyone who did. If you did, who won? How long did it take? Did it follow historical events? Did you follow Meade's strategy? Did Lee have any other options? Was it exciting or predictable? Was playing it worthwhile, considering the time and space involved? How many times (approximately) have you played TSS to completion?
@@neilmanhard1341 I played TSS to completion, once, but it ended after Day 1 with a CSA victory (and over the top of my troops, to boot!!!). Taking Cemetery Hill turned out to be, "practicable" as the saying went. I still contend my opponent's insanely hot dice had a LOT to do with it! :) Even though a game such as TSS (or Three Days of Gettysburg, which is much better and is the ultimate iteration of TSS) requires a HUGE time commitment, in my view that doesn't make them "unplayable". just *long*. And also, I wouldn't call TSS or 3DoG a "simulation" in the strictest sense. Even at the regimental level of detail, there is a lot of abstraction to go along with the need to keep track of facing, formation, morale and cohesion, and fatigue. I do feel it gives you a lot of insight into the period, and I find these games really make well-written histories come to life.
@@Stiglr Thanks for the quick reply. You are the first, and so far, the only person I know that played TSS to completion. Interesting that your game ended with an "alternative" outcome. Personally, I believe Lee could've won on the first day if he only "pressed" his attacks more aggressively. I'm probably in the minority on that though. To clarify: I actually like the TSS system for smaller battles/games. It's just with Gettysburg (and Antietam), with all those counters, rules, etc.... it's just tedious. (And, thus, not enjoyable to play.) With all those counters, I always feel that I didn't move someone, or "faced" them the wrong way, or used the wrong regiment (for weapon efficiency) in a particular spot, etc... Way too much room for error. As you know, a series of errors (just from fatigue), forgetting a certain rule - and zap, you lose the game. I've owned a number of "monster" games but only played to completion "Fire in the East/Scorched Earth". Others just took too long, overly complicated (in my opinion) and more a study of rules rather than playing a game. The games I recall were: Highway to the Reich, Campaign for North Africa, TSS, Bloody April and....well that's all I recall. I only compared TSS as "simulation" as compared to Blue & Grey as an "abstraction" due to the simplicity of one to the other. I believe, all games are an "abstraction" in one degree or another. If not, then every scenario would end the very same way, and that wouldn't be any fun. Good Hunting.
@@neilmanhard1341 I've heard more than one account that had the Rebels winning on Day One. It's only when the battle stretches on into the second, and especially the third day, that the Union leverages its positional and manpower (reinforcements) advantages.
I got the game in 1976 and mostly played the opening moves solo. The maps were set up in my tiny apartment for months on end. I quickly recognized the morale flaw and created my own morale chart which worked well. Years later I’d still occasionally set up one map and game a scenario where a couple Confederate divisions and some cavalry fought with a Union corps. Moves were very slow but fun. In a shorter scenarios the paperwork hassle of BCE wasn’t really needed.
Yep I was a student back in the 70's too, but you can't play the game and keep the game safe with out Plexiglas to protect them. I have gone through several generations of plexiglass as we played TSS, HTR, FIE, WIE, WIW, CNA, NW, to name but a few. Since then my group has broken up and moved away. Miss playing these great games. Good video, thanks
I played this game thru from both sides and enjoyed it.......Once that was done a couple of friends and I would meet up and randomly select a number units from either side and meet in the middle of the map some where.....great
fun
still have my copy! many good memories of this
Only game that takes LONGER to play Gettysburg than it actually took to FIGHT ;-)
All these damn games take longer to play than the battle lasted. Way too complicated.
Well, there were about 130,000 men fighting the battle in real time, and even with teams, you've got maybe six to eight playing the game(s). At any level of detail and granularity, what do you expect?
And they're NOT "too complicated". Complex, yes. But not "too complicated". They do a fairly good job of helping a student of history understand the 19th century battlefield. When you stack them up against the beer & pretzel "Blue & Gray", the simpler games are really unsatisfying. About the only lesson B&G drives home well is that the ACW was better suited for defense than offense (as borne out by the number of EX(change) results on the CRT.
Remember some players who played this game, or perhaps I should say, tried to play, soon called it "Terrible Swift Bore". Watching this video reminds me how far along the evolutionary road we have traveled since the pioneering days of the hobby. Didn't buy this game at the time, maybe one of my better decisions. However I did buy Avalon Hill's "1914" and that was a 'mare to play. Of course there are much better games on the market since TSS hit the stores. Certainly we can be nostalgic about the game. After all every journey starts with the first step, and even if this game no longer sees the light of day, it did at least act as a milestone along the road the hobby was destined to journey.
TSS certainly wasn't "perfect out of the box" by any means, but one thing it never was, was "boring". Anybody who would try to level that charge at it probably just couldn't figure it out, or couldn't handle the sheer size of it.
Wonderful video on a classic game in our hobby - I agree, pretty surprising that there aren't any videos of it but then again, you and Enrico are among the few that cover these old gems.
I have this game in my collection, though I have not had it out of the box in over 20 years...my mates and i played the full campaign scenario to completion exactly once...playing every Sunday from 11am til 5pm and taking pretty much the entire summer to complete it....three months of Sundays...fun if flawed
Another monster game that we played (and actually had some input into the development) was World In Flames from the Australian Design Group
thank you again Gilbert
Heh. Even I've never finished it. Played fairly solidly for a week a couple of times (opposed), and a couple solo cracks, but once I got in the habit of doing bigger games to completion, this largely has been unplayed.
I still love it for the graphical presentation however.
***** Yeah I am constantly waiting for you to cover this. How can you NOT cover it, given its classic status in the hobby :-)
Gonna be a LONG time before I do probably. Extended because I just picked up 3DoG.
As to classic status, it gets its due in other coverage (including my spotlight on Berg).
Playing the whole campaign again (don't think I ever finished) is a big commitment to just look at a game I believe has been superseded.
such a great and in-depth show thanks😃
I enjoyed this. Thanks for posting!
Played it solo but never all the way through. I loved a gleam of bayonets.
Nice video. Just wanted to add something. I have played 3 games of TSS to completion over the years. It doesn't take as long as you would think..maybe 25-30 hours. On the 3rd day both armies are greatly reduced in strength.turns fly by
Doing further research I may have misspoken on the video depending on the context. According to Board Game Geek, one of the first large 'monster games' was "Drang Nach Osten" from GDW. This was a large 'east front' WWII game. I perhaps should have said that "La Bataille de La Moskova" was the first "large tactical" monster game. Pretty sure though that "TSS" was one of the first. But, I do remember a very large tactical 2nd Manassas game and Sharpsburg game that came out around that time. I think the company was called "Command Perspectives" or something. Their Sharpsburg game was VERY tactical, down to fences and cornfields that made a difference in combat. Very comprehensive.
Memories! I bought DNO in the ziplock when it was new (I think the whole monstergame was $15 then!!!*) set it up and played in our basement (the only table big enough was our old train table!) Oh, the complexities, armor % was a big deal, lots of digging through these large, messy stacks to add up and divide the armor to get one combat result...! :0 Sigh.... Wish I could go back to that time now.
* Prices now are insane - I may never buy another new wargame. My mind is back in the last century, when standard SPI games were $6, large ones were $12, and monsters were like $18 ! Prices now are like triple what they should be. So just realize a certain percent of games you buy and never play is a given, but now you've shelled out like $100 for each of those! Fuck NO!
I had this and sold it on eBay a few years ago; I regret that after watching your video. It wasn't my earliest monster game: I had Drang Nach Osten which was 1973.
PS: Anyone who wants the exact flavor of TSS can play John Tiller's Campaign PC Game Series on the Civil War by Matrix Games. It's very true to the TSS system. Very easy to play and user friendly and many different battles using the same system.
Nicely done, for the most part! I do think, however, that the ORIGINAL TSS did NOT have Brigade Combat Effectiveness rules (or charts). In fact one major problem with the very first release of it was that it was TOO bloody, since players had nothing to stop them from attacking or defending with units until they simply got wiped out by losing strength points. This was quickly brought to a head via MOVES magazine, and by the next printing, there were BCE charts to be had. If I recall correctly, it was Stonewall in S&T #62 which first had BCE.
I got the original TSS in 1976 and it included BCE.
@@tmcgill2219 Mmmmmmm.... I don't *think* so.... could be wrong... but I don't think so. The biggest problem with the original TSS was that it was too "bloody" and there was no disincentive for a player to just allow his units to be ground down to nothing without penalty.
Perhaps I'm confusing BCE with the concept of "morale/cohesion", which didn't appear until "Stonewall" (albeit in alphabetic form, initially). The first iterations of TSS did not have enough deterrents to just allowing your men to take disastrous casualties.
Great game played it several times but another one was Wellingtons victory
The morale issue was fixed pretty quickly by Rich Berg in Issue 31 of Moves. It laid out the letter rating codes for the game and the new system. He also added something for offensive artillery. That issue has an interesting article of GDWs Torgau and a really good one on Frederick the Great.
Great overview. I still much prefer La Bat and Wellington to this game though.
One of the flaws in the original game was that infantry couldn't shoot the guys manning artillery batteries, which was an important reason WHY Civil War battles were not decisive due to the rifled musket (Napoleon could wheel up artillery to 200 meters or closer to blast holes in defending infantry; try that in the Civil War and you end up with dead gunners before they can get their pieces unlimbered). This force the offensive use of artillery to be sited much further back, limiting its effectiveness in offensive, while on the defense it was just as effective as before.
TSS was a small "monster" compared to "Campaign For North Africa" with its 3' by 10' Map and it needed 2 trays to hold the counters. 4-10 players and taking over 1000 hours to play the full game.
I owned 'Sharpsurg' myself at one time but ultimately didn't keep it. The TSS system I thought was more 'cleaned up' than the old Command perspectives titles. But, they were quite advanced for their time.
I have the Second Manassas from CP. Been trying to find a copy of Sharpsburg from CP for over 40 yrs without luck.
I have a copy of a game called War between the states it looks like this game
They do say size isn't everything. Well it does in war gaming. Large grand strategic games have their place--usually requiring plenty of time and multi-players. However small scale games also have their place. I quite like counters that depict nothing larger than a squad. In fact counters that show just show one soldier can generate some lively interest. It gives one a more personal feel for the fighting man, than dealing with mass anonymous armies. Moreover a counter that represents oneself gives the game a role-playing edge. Die rolls in combat takes on a whole new meaning, believe me. .
Yup played this twice...never got past day 1....the second time the hosts' wife pretty much threw us out of the house after the third weekend at his place...we didn't get far cause one of (the six) of us was a 'never read the rules' type and another was a super competitive fellow who challenged every negative outcome (for him).... triggering intensive rule discussions...I think he was wrong 100pct of the time..between those two guys the overall experience was...well, less than fun. Mind you the six of us did play for years together and really enjoyed this series, overall, once we got the hang of it. I remember the Corinth game was particularly interesting with variations on the Confederate entry times and points.
Yes, I remember those days well. In a 'group' setting you got all kinds of personalities involved and depending on who they were your 'gaming adventure' could be quite enjoyable or a nightmare. I have never finished a game of 'Terrible Swift Sword' and at my age now, never will.
Remember, this is the hardest game in the world.”
Brother, you obviously have never tried to play the original version of Highway to the Reich.
Wilson's Creek is da bomb.
my copy of TSS looks like it went through a blender. I'm sure there are pieces missing. It was very lazy of Berg to not include Brigade commanders for the Union.
6:53 Holly crap, the Union didn't have brigades? :O So how are brigade-level games about ACW made? Or is this only the game's trait? EDIT: ok, I see it was only a trait of the early version of the game.
I have a copy of this game, with not even the counters not punched out, but my copy doesn't have the rules booklet. Is there any place I can download it?
I know the rulebook is out there. I think I found it at some SPI site. SPI downloads or something like that.
How about a replay of Gettysburg the advanced game?
We used glass from junk yards …
Had this game and Bloody April. Set them up, attempted to play solo, put the games away, then sold them. These monster tactical games are virtually impossible to play. Facing, range, morale, type of weapon, etc... it took for ever just to finish one turn. Much rather play a simpler "Blue & Grey" game than this monstrosity. I don't know of anyone who played the whole game. It was playable but tedious, unlike "Campaign for North Africa", another monstrosity I owned. I actually made a profit when I sold CNA. The only monster games I played to conclusion were GDW's "Fire in the East" and "Scorched Earth". The TSS smaller games were much better and playable (Pea Ridge, Drive on Washington, Corinth, Wilson's Creek, etc.). At least those can be finished in a reasonable time. You didn't have to deal with 100s (closer to 1000) counters.
I just have to say: because it overwhelms YOU doesn't mean it overwhelms EVERYBODY. This system is eminently playable (actually, more so than the more modern GMT system which it evolved into; which, while a decidedly better system overall, does require a large investment of time to play). If you would rather play the hideously abstracted Blue and Gray game, "Cemetery Hill", than Terrible Swift Sword, that tells on YOU rather than on TSS. "Cemetery Hill" was seen as the "dog" in the Blue and Gray I Quad, for good reason, and you'd figure, if they could get ONE battle right in the four, it should've been Gettysburg.
@@Stiglr You mis-read my comment. The game system was reasonable on a smaller scale, such as those I mentioned (Pea Ridge, Drive on Washington, etc.) but on a larger battle - no. Some games are unplayable because they become too complicated (for realism) and these are often tactical games for large battles. TSS and Bloody April fall into this category. Of course, this is just my opinion, but if you read the other posts - no one ever finished this game. Ever wonder what playing the entire "Battle of the Bulge" would be like if you using Advance Squad Leader or the old "Sniper" rules and counters? Unplayable.
Just my two cents on games and simulations: Blue and Gray are games while TSS is a simulation. The games are playable while TSS is not. I'm a gamer. A simulation often just sits on the shelf, while a game gets played. The best is when you can have both, but this was and still is very difficult for designers. You should note though - Decision Games re-issued Blue and Gray (and added games) to this "hideous abstraction". So, it appears it is still a relevant "game". Some purists though will declare that all wargames, regardless of complexity, are abstractions by some degree. (I agree, "Cemetery Hill" was the weakest game in the Blue & Gray quads. All of SPI quads had at least one poor game (e.g. "Remagen Bridge", West Wall Quad).)
Curious, though, did you ever complete a TSS game? I don't know of anyone who did. If you did, who won? How long did it take? Did it follow historical events? Did you follow Meade's strategy? Did Lee have any other options? Was it exciting or predictable? Was playing it worthwhile, considering the time and space involved? How many times (approximately) have you played TSS to completion?
@@neilmanhard1341 I played TSS to completion, once, but it ended after Day 1 with a CSA victory (and over the top of my troops, to boot!!!). Taking Cemetery Hill turned out to be, "practicable" as the saying went. I still contend my opponent's insanely hot dice had a LOT to do with it! :)
Even though a game such as TSS (or Three Days of Gettysburg, which is much better and is the ultimate iteration of TSS) requires a HUGE time commitment, in my view that doesn't make them "unplayable". just *long*. And also, I wouldn't call TSS or 3DoG a "simulation" in the strictest sense. Even at the regimental level of detail, there is a lot of abstraction to go along with the need to keep track of facing, formation, morale and cohesion, and fatigue. I do feel it gives you a lot of insight into the period, and I find these games really make well-written histories come to life.
@@Stiglr Thanks for the quick reply. You are the first, and so far, the only person I know that played TSS to completion. Interesting that your game ended with an "alternative" outcome. Personally, I believe Lee could've won on the first day if he only "pressed" his attacks more aggressively. I'm probably in the minority on that though.
To clarify: I actually like the TSS system for smaller battles/games. It's just with Gettysburg (and Antietam), with all those counters, rules, etc.... it's just tedious. (And, thus, not enjoyable to play.) With all those counters, I always feel that I didn't move someone, or "faced" them the wrong way, or used the wrong regiment (for weapon efficiency) in a particular spot, etc... Way too much room for error. As you know, a series of errors (just from fatigue), forgetting a certain rule - and zap, you lose the game. I've owned a number of "monster" games but only played to completion "Fire in the East/Scorched Earth". Others just took too long, overly complicated (in my opinion) and more a study of rules rather than playing a game. The games I recall were: Highway to the Reich, Campaign for North Africa, TSS, Bloody April and....well that's all I recall.
I only compared TSS as "simulation" as compared to Blue & Grey as an "abstraction" due to the simplicity of one to the other. I believe, all games are an "abstraction" in one degree or another. If not, then every scenario would end the very same way, and that wouldn't be any fun. Good Hunting.
@@neilmanhard1341 I've heard more than one account that had the Rebels winning on Day One. It's only when the battle stretches on into the second, and especially the third day, that the Union leverages its positional and manpower (reinforcements) advantages.