American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gentlemen,

With the release of Campaign Shiloh, it is a good moment to make a little survey. I ask you these two questions:

A. Which three Campaigns would you like to be released next ?

B. Which three battles not available presently would you like to play ? (Try to use subliminal messages to influence our wonderful custom designers).

Here's my answers:

A. #1 Grant's Campaign May-June 1864 (Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna and Cold Harbor) WOW !

#2 Campaign Vicksburg

#3 Campaign Shenandoah (many small campaigns like Ozark)


B. #1 Third Chattanooga

#2 North Anna

#3 Cold Harbor



Fld. Lt. Harold Lajoie 3/2/I/AoM, CSA.

Sir,

Here are my preferences concerning campaigns and battles:

A:
1) Overland (Virginia) Campaign 1864
2) Atlanta Campaign 1864
3) Vicksburg Campaign 1862/63

B:
1) Battle of Antietam
2) Battle of the Wilderness
3) Battle of Chickamauga

Looking forward to whatever campaigns HPS will release, though [:D]

Regards

MajGen Atle Jenssen
CO 2nd Division
XXth Corps
Army of the Cumberland
USA

A:
1) Lee's '62 Northern invasion
2) Atlanta '64
3) Overland
4) Jackson's Valley Campaign

B:
1) Ball's Bluff (Leesburg, Va)
2) Harpers Ferry (A recreation of John Brown's raid will do as well)
3) Dranesville (Fairfax, Va)

You don't think I'm from Northern Virginia, do you??? [:D]

Fld. Lt. Brad Slepetz
4th "Hell's Rifles" Brigade
1st Division
III Corps
AoG

Mine would be..

A.
1) The Overland Campaign 1864 or just the Wilderness to Spotsylvania court house campaign with North Anna to Cold Harbor for the 2nd part of the campaign. (Like Bill Peters' Austrian 1809 campaign games) [:)]
2) Vicksburg campaign
3) Atlanta Campaign 1864
4) Jackson's Valley Campaign (though I would prefer to see it at company level.)

B.
1) Battle of the Wilderness
2) Cold Harbour
3) Battle of Antietam



Col.2nd Brig
"English Guard"
2nd Div,II,Corps,
AoA.

Now I would like to see SecondBull Run campaign where it could lead into Lee's first invasion., The maybe a double Valley Campaign, where you could play either Jackson's campaign or Early/Sheridan's campaign. Then I think a campaign Chickamauga woudl be nice, alot of what if's in that one, like what would have happened if Vragg had attacked after the battle? Here is one no one has mentioned, Bragg's Kentucky campaign.

LT. GEN. Tony Malone
Commander Army of Mississippi
"Do your duty in all things, You can never do more, You should never wish to do less".

Aaah, yes... The Kentucky Campaign! Would really love to see that one. The battle of Perryville has always been one of my favourite ACW battles. And lots of interesting campaign possibilites, not the least all the small and large cavalry actions. Would be a super game this one [:D]

But I'll stick to my choices mentioned below [;)]

Yep!

MajGen Atle Jenssen
CO 2nd Division
XXth Corps
Army of the Cumberland
USA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Atle Jenssen</i>
1) Overland (Virginia) Campaign 1864
2) Atlanta Campaign 1864
3) Vicksburg Campaign 1862/63
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The same.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

Three campaigns . . .

1862/'64 Shenandoah

1864 Atlanta

1864 Overland

Three specific battles . . .

Perryville

Champion Hill

Monocacy

Sincerely,

Nathan Easterwood
West Point Cadet

As has been pointed out previously, Jackson's Valley Campaign offers little in the way of good wargaming because the forces - in all but one or two actions - were so disproportionate. The Yanks had vastly superior numbers of men and supplies and only stupidity on the part of Northern commanders and lots of luck for Jackson allowed any success for the Confederates. You can’t recreate that in a finite game engine. You have nearly the same problem with an 1862 Campaign Sharpsburg, because Lee was so vastly outnumbered by McClellan by September 17th due mainly to straggling on the part of the Confederates who had already fought the Seven Day’s battles then moved into N. VA. to fight Second Manassas "and now he wants us to invade Maryland? I don’t think so. I’m too tired and I’m sitting down and/or going home." We can’t recreate McClellan’s timidness in a game engine – which is why so many full Antietam battles on the BG engine end in Yank major victories. You want the campaigns to offer something to both sides…

So, I agree that the Kentucky campaign offers a good choice. As does the 1864 Overland Campaign (Rebs outnumbered, but not nearly as badly as at Sharpsburg and the terrain and advanced fieldworks help to even the odds). The Atlanta Campaign would be difficult to recreate and probably doesn’t offer as many interesting battles as some people might think due to the terrain limitations. A Middle Tennessee campaign would be better – Rosecrans vs. Bragg covering the time from Murfeesboro through the Tullahoma Campaign, which could have easily resulted in a major battle if not for Bragg’s bungling and Rosecrans’ good planning and Federal execution. Also, in that one you could throw in some of Forrest’s raids/battles for individual side scenarios or campaign scenarios, especially if you could stretch it into GA for Chickamauga and Chattanooga.

So a list…

1) 1864 Overland Campaign
2) 1862 Kentucky Campaign
3) Vicksburg Campaign
4) Middle Tennessee Campaign
5) Atlanta Campaign
6) 1862/1864 Valley Campaigns


Regards,
Lt. Col. Alan Lynn
3rd Battery "Jacksonville Greys"
4th Div, II Corps, AoA
God bless <><

Personally, I'd rather see something a bit different covered in the near future - the various European conflicts from the same era as the ACW. I'm not saying I don't enjoy the various ACW titles and wouldn't welcome more of them, but I would very much like to see a new series of HPS titles that'll cover the Crimean war up to 1870. Another series for 19th century colonial wars would also be a splendid idea.


Col. Rich White
3 Brig. Phantom Cav Div
III Corps ANV

Gentlemen,

At Tiller Con this was the second question posed by John Tiller at the ACWGC session. The very Campaigns you are talking about here were the ones brought up. The pros and cons were not brought up so much as the possibility of games revolving around these various campaigns. I am sure the unevenness of the forces and all will be a determining factor in game design, but can Yankee ineptness and blundering be built into the game design or was that just a special trait all Yankees inherited?[:D] (With a few notable exceptions)

Rich, I can't speak to the other games you are referring to as I did not attend any of the other forums except the Panzerblitz.


Lt. Gen. Don Adams
5th Texas "Lone Star" Cavalry Brigade
I/III ANV
http://www.rootsandsaddles.com/index.htm

Gentlemen,

Don't you think that unbalanced campaigns or battles in terms of manpower can be interesting if the victory conditions compensate for this ? The superior side may have to capture tough objectives or destroy a good part of the enemy forces to claim victory. Fighting a desperate battle, being outnumbered 3:1 and trying to win the day could be a great challenge.




Fld. Lt. Harold Lajoie 3/2/I/AoM, CSA.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Harold Lajoie</i>
Don't you think that unbalanced campaigns or battles in terms of manpower can be interesting if the victory conditions compensate for this ? The superior side may have to capture tough objectives or destroy a good part of the enemy forces to claim victory. Fighting a desperate battle, being outnumbered 3:1 and trying to win the day could be a great challenge.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To a certain degree. It ends where the weaker side is merely a speed bump for the stronger one and where "winning" for the weaker side therefore means being a more efficient speed bump. Such scenarios are nice for play from the stronger side against the AI but they are really not much fun for a human player on the weaker side when all he can do is try to make the difference between speedy total annihilation and slow total annihilation. That's why most scenarios in Middle East '67 are just no fun at all for the Arab side, even though it's technically possible for them to "win" the game. Let's face it, being eaten alive is for masochists. I want my forces to be able to do *some* harm to the other side in a competetive PBEM.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College