American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I just came back after sometime off and it seems as though the whole club has moved to HPS games. Now I understand the whole appeal about campaigns. But are the game mechanics much more superior to the Battleground Games? If so, can someone explain to me in what ways that they are... because from the HPS website it’s not explained and the game looks like a cheap version of the BG Series and looks like it would be better played in 2D mode.

Any hindsight would be appreciated.


Regards,
Lieutenant Colonel Damian Bier
"Presidio Sharpshooters"
The Fighting First's Spearhead Division
Army of the Potomac

Col Bier,

The HPS games graphics are not as good as the BG ones since the maps are drawn using a tile system instead of being bit maps. Personally being an old boardgamer I almost always played in 2D mode anyway so that doesn't bother me much.

The game engine is a bit different offering a single phase system where you can move, fire and melee at any time during your turn although once a unit fires or melees it can no longer move. The system has an opportunity fire for the non phasing player's units to shoot during the other players turn. This is the weak link in the single phase system as units often do not fire as enemy units march forward. Used to be your units would not even fire before melee although this has been fixed with a recent patch that has full fire before melees and the opportunity fire does seem to have improved a bit with the recent patches. This has made the games a bit better in this mode although there are still times I get upset about my units not firing. The single phase ssytem does allow you to change formation at anytime during movement and cavalry can dismount and fire on the same turn. The other problem with the single phase turn is it is subject to gamey tactics. An opponent can use units in his second line to move forward, melee your units to blow a hole in your line then exploit the hole to strike your second line or surround your front line units. Blitzkrieg in the 1860's.

The game does have the option to play in phases just like the BG system although you lose the ability to change formation at any time and the opportunity fire. It does have some good points, Fixed units release if the enemy is visible within a certain range ( 5 hexes I believe) so you don't have to wait till your opponent fires at you to egt them released. The campaign system although not perfect does force you to think about more than the current battle since casualties are carried through to the next fight.

The one thing that keeps me playing them is the respose I've seen from John Tiller and company. I was at Tiller Con in Virginia last summer and sat in on the discussions on the ACW games. Several of the things brought up there have already been included in the latest patches as optional rules. Things such as the Final Fire before Melee mentioned above, a density fire modifier, limits to what can cross bridges and the ability to repair damaged bridges have been added to the games recently.

I have problems with some of the things in the HPS game engine and I still play BG games occasionally. I also have another real time game that I think is a better ACW simulation but unforunately it's only a solitare game and I prefer to play against another person. However until something else better comes along I will be playing the HPS games too. Hope this gives you an idea of some of the differences between the systems. I've probably left out a lot and I'm sure others will give you more to think about.

Gen. Ken Miller



Army of the Shenandoah

Campaigns, and big maps. No "anchoring" flanks on map edges.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

I too play in 2D mode, it just didn't endear me that the 3D looked worse then a game produced 7+ years ago.

Those sound like some good features/game mechanics.. it seems like what you’re saying is that they far are from perfected though.

Thank you very much for the info General Miller, Sir.




Regards,
Lieutenant Colonel Damian Bier
"Presidio Sharpshooters"
The Fighting First's Spearhead Division
Army of the Potomac

Another major change is the move to step losses of 1 man, as opposed to 25 men, and a much more flexible fatigue system. The latter especially is a major improvement, and prevents weak units from exhausting a strong unit (though that's worse in the Nap games)

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

General Gary,

ok, now your pulling me in (damnit!)[:)]... this is why I like the Norris-Frost mods for BG, they use loses of ten men and make fatigue easier to get, but you also recover faster and overall it gives it a more historic feel and I see there doing the same for the HPS games.

So not many people in the club play BG games? Because I'm having a hell of a time finding an opponent for a BG game with the NF mods and before I left I had to turn down people left and right when I posted for a game.

Ok, well, which HPS game do I buy first?

Regards,
Lieutenant Colonel Damian Bier
"Presidio Sharpshooters"
The Fighting First's Spearhead Division
Army of the Potomac

Great thing about HPS is that they keep all the games patched up with one another (though Gettys is lagging a bit) so the best rule is "Whichever campaign interests you the most"

I'm partial to Ozark, but that's just me.

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA

The campaigns allow you to have battles more like the Litton scenarios. You know longer have the absolute knowledge of entry roads, times, positions, etc. You also have to take into consideration carryover of losses so that there is an incentive to not fight to the last man. The down side is you need good turnaround on game turns to ever finish one in a reasonable time. You can still play regular scenarios battles, historic or variant. And, if you get Corinth its engine can be used to play player created scenarios which cover most of the war now.

The HPS engine is far superior to the Battleground one. Some of the major changes are one man step loses, fatigue based on casualties rather than steps, infantry ammo based on number of men for resupply rather than steps, casualty calculation changed to formula based (proportional to number of men firing/meleeing) rather than table based, and weak zones (optional rule).

The Battleground games are still good games its just the capacity of computers has moved on since then and the HPS games take advantage of at least some of this.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Hi, Colonel,

There is a tavern topic on which HPS game to buy not far down from this one. The pros and cons of the various ACW HPS games are discussed there.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

Does anyone remember the original BGG? Each step loss was 100 men. Strengths were measured 1-8. Too funny!!!! We've come a long way. But just one comment about graphics. Yes, I too only play in 2D, but the HPS 3D does have one advanage over the BG games, it includes, 3D normal. BG games have only 3D zoom out, no close-ups.

Rich


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Another major change is the move to step losses of 1 man, as opposed to 25 men, and a much more flexible fatigue system. The latter especially is a major improvement, and prevents weak units from exhausting a strong unit (though that's worse in the Nap games)

Major General Gary McClellan
1st Division, XXIII Corps
AoO,USA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Col Bier,

Don't let the graphics put you off these fine games. If they are a problem for you then check out some of the mods. I use Rolf Hall's regimental scale graphics and various terrain mods. I use Atle Jenssen's ground tiles and some trees, roads, water etc. that appear in various mod packs (much originating in Talonsoft's campaign series games). Most of these are available here: http://www.brettschulte.net/ACWCGDC/acwgraphics.htm

In my opinion the games actually look better than the Battleground games with some mods installed (especially Rolf's unit icons), but it is a matter of personal taste and preference.

[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acw/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/aoc/XXAoC.htm"]Army of the Cumberland[/url]

There is also mods available to make some of the HPS ACW games look like the old BG games, if you prefer.

http://www.befreiungskrieg.de/civil_war ... rigade.htm

<center><i><b><font face="Georgia">Colonel 2nd Infantry Brigade </font id="Georgia"></b></i>
<i><b><font face="Verdana">"English Guard"</font id="Verdana"></b></i>
<font face="Georgia"><b>2nd Division, II Corps
AoA</b></font id="Georgia"></center>

Relative to the BG games I think the biggest change is that with the weak zoc rule you can no longer pin a unit with two units. So while the so-called "blitzkrieg issue" requires you to use defense in depth more frequently -- I don't see it as big an issue as the zoc kill tactics of the BG games.

I also think the algorithm for fire and melee is an improvement. Not exactly sure how to summarize it, but it's a more continuous result and you can never guarantee success although you can get the odds in your favor. The optional fire and melee rules make the results a bit more predicable, the basic rules have more variabilty.

The campaign option introduces the element of an "overall strategy" into the games and the need to not only play for today. For me some of the campaigns are just too long, even though there is an early termination bid process that allows you to move on before the last turn of the sceanario, but there are some multi game camapigns in Ozark and Corinth that can be concluded within 100 to 150 turns, which are more to my rate of play.

While they are clearly not perfect, given a choice the HPS titles are my preference.

Lt Gen Bob Breen
Commanding XIX Corps, AoS
"Defenders of the Right"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
BG games have only 3D zoom out, no close-ups.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Funny, what makes you think so? They have.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS

ACW BG games only have one 3D mode. HPS games have two 3D modes.

Rich



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Walker</i>
BG games have only 3D zoom out, no close-ups.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Funny, what makes you think so? They have.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS



<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">