American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Sirs,

I have the opportunity to procure another HPS game and slip it thru the Yankee blockade. Any suggestions on whether to buy Franklin or Ozark (I own the other three). What are the pros and cons of these two games? Does one of them have better game play, maps, campaign element then the other? Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Lt. Boyd "Bama" Denner
"Alabama Brigade"
1/3/III
ANV

I probably haven't played enough Franklin to really judge (two campaigns), but here is my take.

Ozark is a great game with two very nice campaigns (the third one is a bit one-sided) and really very interesting maps. In many ways, the kind of combat you have in Ozark is unique in the series--very low quality troops and leaders (especially for the Rebs), with a chain-of-command full of gaps; a troops-to-space ratio even worse than in Corinth (i.e. big maps, small armies); a unique mix of arms (often half of your army will be cavalry); impeded movement, supply and ammo problems, rough, broken, wooded ground; frontier warfare with very few regular troops. I love it.

Franklin is of course somewhat the opposite: rather large forces clashing on, comparatively, rather small maps; mostly flat, open ground, regular ACW armies with lots of infantry and artillery and a complete chain-of-command; fortified lines, position warfare.

As an aside, I prefer the music in Ozark. [8)]

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

I've played both and in the middle of one game in Franklin and two in Ozark - Pea Ridge. I like Franklin a little better, more open terrain in Franklin and easier to move around. As in Ozark your more or less have to use the roads, trails if you want to move quick and like General Walter said about the low quality of troops E's and F's for the Rebs. But then it makes it more of a challenage and fun to beat the Yanks.

Captain Gery Bastiani
Fightin' Carolinians
4/2/II AotM CSA

Ozark beat Franklin in my book. Better scenarios and more interesting maps.

<hr noshade size="1">[url="mtdavies@msn.com"]Major Mike Davies[/url]
4/1/XXV
<i><b>"Keystone Brigade"</b></i>
Army of the James

I find Ozark interesting for how different it is from the other campaign titles. The terrain forces you to think in new ways (esp. the two 1862 campaigns), and you often find yourself in a fighting retreat, or pursuing one, and sometimes doing both at the same time on different parts of the map!

IMO, Franklin doesn't offer a complex enough decision tree, (nor does Ozark, although this makes sense, since logistics confined the armies to fairly narrow corridors). I also don't like Franklin's smaller maps and short scenario lengths. Corinth and Gettysburg offer a more complex decision tree, larger maps, and thus a wider range of potential fights.

Lt. Gen. Matt Perrenod
<i>The Blue Ghost</i>
VIII Corps, Army of the Shenandoah

To this point, Ozark is my favorite game in the series (jury is still out on CP, haven't dug around in it enough).

Especially when you look at Pea Ridge, if you play it within the campaign setting. The various options available to both sides make the battle a really neat scramble. where are they? What are they up to?

A very large map, with the CSA able to enter from 2 points, or split between them, and the USA in one of two points, or split between *them*.

It really fits the historical battle too, where Curtis was caught by surprise and then went into scramble mode to get himself out of the mess.

Brig. General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA