BLUE vs. GRAY Game Rating Commentary

"A brilliantly simple and elegant design which enables the entire American Civil War to be played in limited space and time (30 minutes to two and a half hours depending on the Union's success in avoiding an early Confederate diplomatic victory). Game play is very finely balanced and tense."

"The cards themselves are worth the asking price, and deserve the rating. The amount of information is simply incredible!"

"Simply put, the most enjoyable ACW game I've ever played. I can't recommend this game enough to people, and Evan Jones' support here on the site has been nothing short of excellent."

"This game is a lot of fun with a tremendous amount of replay value. It is extremely fast playing and has quite a bit of historical flavor. Also the cards are extremely attractive and worth the price of the game just for the historical information on them. This game has provided me with the most bang for the buck of any game I have bought."

"Impressive! One of a rare few original game play ideas in the last few years."

"Despite playing this game and teaching others how to play, I find the game lacks a real sense of purpose for the player. I know that I'm in a minority, maybe even a minority of one, in this matter. — First, there is no sense of movement, either strategically or tactically. The rules are poorly written, particularly those with the game, although the website does improve on the rules. The combat system is essentially random. When there are no die modifiers: each combat has an equal chance of the following: attacker rout, attacker defeated, soldier's battle, general's battle, defender defeated, and defender routed. Even if you win a battle and force the defender to retreat, if your army commander dies, you still lose, which is a strange aspect to have occur after the battle takes place. With the Union's manpower advantage and the South's superior generals, the combats are about 1/2 of winning or losing. Actually, the attacker has a slightly greater chance of losing due to leader casualties. The attacker may only occupy the defender's space if the army commander survives the battle. — The cards are detailed but have some very strange comments about many leaders, such as one bibliography stating that one general was a something to the effect of a "minor administrative functionary" with the government after the war. Humorous, but non-information, and very judgmental without supplying any real facts. — The perspective is being more of a quatermaster general, marshaling, husbanding, and coordinating troops and supplies but the fighting is done by someone else as you have very little influence over the battles and maybe that's how Lincoln and Davis felt. As someone said, the viewpoint if from about 50,000 miles and that about sums it. — For me, this game just didn't do it, with games such as For the People, VG's Civil War and even "A House Divided" have more of the tactical and strategic feel of the game."

"The concept is novel, but its basically a mediocre and unrealistic game. Why bother playing it when there are much better games on the same subject. For the People plays almost as fast and is much more fun, and accurate. Blue vs Gray is the most over rated game I've seen in a while."

"Simple, yet hard to cliché ..er.. master. Stylish cards with detailed histories - almost as entertaining to read through the cards as to actually play the game. Follows nicely in the tradition of VG's Civil War and AH's For The People. A must buy for any strategic ACW gamer, or any gamer in general!"

"Best Civil War game available. Good balance and re-play value. Inadequate rules but well supported through the QED Home Page."

"I've tried several times now to get into this game, based upon the terrific reviews and buzz on consimworld. Sadly, each time I try, I am daunted and finally undone by the TERRIBLE rules. There appears to be some nifty new concepts in here, but Evan needs to find a better, clearer way to explain them. The web site has been no help, despite his best efforts."

"Blue versus Gray breaks new ground being a card game that uses an assemblage of cards to make up a small board game map. — Armies are collections of units under the command of selected leaders. You can have several forces in the eastern and western theaters. Things become a little abstract after this, as you must imagine the presence of the force in the theater. As one force gets used, another can do something right afterwards. Their presence is never specific until you tell a force to do something, like take Richmond. — The game's biggest strength is removing predictability from battle. Every fight is a crap shoot, no pun intended. The CRT is quite simple, with one die indicating intensity of battle while the other indicates win or loss. Die roll modifiers will kick in once you achieve 2-1, but that does not happen very often. In fact, you can attack at the brink of 1-2 and still get results. — This makes the game very unpredictable. It also rewards perseverance, because no matter how badly things may be going, you never know until the very end how things will turn out. — Couple this with the game's fast play--you can finish in less than three hours. The card deck that gives you the units and leaders also adds to the unpredictability of the game, as well as maximizing replay value. No two games will ever play alike, even though the strategic challenges facing north and south are constant and unchanging. — In short, Blue versus Gray does a good job balancing luck and skill. You really have to be sharp about spotting opportunities when they occur. Despite the reliance on luck to drive a good portion of the game, it still captures the feel of the strategic problems one has to grapple with as the north or the south when refighting the Civil War. — The short playing time, and the reasonably concise rule set, makes this a very good starter game for those new to the hobby. At the same time, its simplicity does not insult the intelligence of the experienced gamer. Blue versus Gray is fast, fun and challenging."

"A well thought out war game with a lot of flavor and that is playable in an evening is for this 40 year old, damn near heaven."

"My expectations were built up, and when I played the game it felt like just another different system. It wasn't bad, but I didn't like it, and I wouldn't play it again."

"Excellent strategic acw game that is playable in under 3 hours."

"I guess it's not my cup of tea. I didn't like the fact that units seemed to teleport all over the place to fight. There was something that was just unsatisfying about the game. Didn't feel like I was gaming the Civil War."

"Not a card game but a wargame. A clever design that integrates history and gaming in a unique manner. The rules could be better but the game support is topnotch."

"It's just an amazing approach to the overall ACW. The play is tense and there's surprising historicity to it. The cards are beautiful and the games are always different which is one of the great strengths of card games. Worth every penny."

"I would rate this game as awesome except for one fundamental flaw. This game will either take 15 or 20 minutes or 4 hours (and nowhere inbetween). Why? Well, either the south is able to make some quick headway, sever the Union railnet and win, or the Union slogs its way to victory objectives that are few and far between. This is a fixable flaw, but not knowing whether a game will finnish immediately or consume a full evening is a little skewed. Nevertheless, there's a lot in this game to recommend it. Lots of interesting mechanism, and probably the best effort at integrating the "politics" of command into an overall strategic level wargame. I am very much looking forward to their Napoleonic offering."

"This takes card games to step farther and almost incorporates board play. I played this many times at GenCon and had a blast. What I like most is it's difference from Eagles and Dixie (from Columbia) which are always nice compact games to take when traveling. This replaces them!"

Copyright © 1999-2002. ConsimWorld.COM. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited. Web Masters are encouraged to link directly to this page, this URL is not subject to change. For general site information: kranz@consimworld.com

Copyright © 1999-2002. ConsimWorld.COM. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited. Web Masters are encouraged to link directly to this page, this URL is not subject to change. For general site information: kranz@consimworld.com

Copyright © 1999, 2000 ConsimWorld.COM. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited. Web Masters are encouraged to link directly to this page, this URL is not subject to change. For general site information: kranz@consimworld.com