ACWGC Forums

new game which would it be? I currently have the Battleground series plus hps corinth. I don't see to many people seeking opponents in anything but the HPS games and occasionally the old BG games. Do people like the Ageod and the other matrix games? Open ended I know, but just looking for input on my next game. Thanks.

Brig General Tom Gremmels
2/1/IX Corp, AoO

Well, the standard answer is the area of the war that interests you the most. All titles are very good, but have varied terrain and forces. For instance, Peninsula and Chickamauga are, mostly, difficult terrain. Gettysburg has easier terrain, less woods, rivers, etc.

Probably Gettysburg is a good game to move on to, at first.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio

ACWGC Cabinet Member
ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Gettysburg would be my first recommendation given the huge maps and the best campaign of the bunch. There is also an incredible amount of scenarios that can be played. Really though, any of the HPS games are pretty damn good and if there is one battle that interests you more then the others then you can't go wrong with that one. If you are leaning toward the strategic type game then the AGEOD game is probably the best but has a pretty steep learning curve. The War Between the States game is good but not as detailed. Haven't played their Forge of Freedom game.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

I agree with these gentlemen... HPS Gettysburg first because almost everyone has it so it's easier to find opponents and lots of the Tourneys and multiplayer games will use Gettysburg. I also like HPS Antietam as it also has some great maps, etc.

General Roger Hulinsky
Cmdg, AotM
Confederate States of America

Thank you all. Here is another question, between Gettys and Chancellorsville is there any difference in terms of options and replayability? Since Chancellorsville is newer does it have better options? I thought I read somewhere that (with Chancellorsville) there is a random scenario generator that gives equal (or attempts to) strenght to either side. Is this true?

Brig General Tom Gremmels
2/1/IX Corp, AoO

Chickamauga has four major battles; Perryville, Murfreesboro, chickamauga and Chattanooga. Atlanta has every battle in the 1864 Atlanta campaign. Shiloh includes all the battles between Belmont and Shiloh, including Mill Springs. Antietam also includes both Bull Runs, South Mountain and Cedar Mountain. Chancellorsville includes Fredricksburg. Ozark has every battle in Missouri and Arkansas through Prairie Grove, including Wilson's Creek, Lexington and Pea Ridge. I would recommend any of these.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tom Gremmels</i>
<br />Thank you all. Here is another question, between Gettys and Chancellorsville is there any difference in terms of options and replayability? Since Chancellorsville is newer does it have better options? I thought I read somewhere that (with Chancellorsville) there is a random scenario generator that gives equal (or attempts to) strenght to either side. Is this true?

Brig General Tom Gremmels
2/1/IX Corp, AoO

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

Gen Gremmels,

With the 1.04 update Gettysburg now has all the same options and fixes as Chancellorsville and with HPS commitment to update the older titles all the games are eventually updated to the latest optional rules and engine changes.

C'ville does have a few scenarios that are designed as relatively equal fights as does Antietam.

There is no random scenario generator as such however some scenarios are now designed with multiple entry points and times for reinforcements so that you never know for sure where and when units will come on even if you look over the scenario beforehand as it will depend on the roll of the die.

Also there is a download available for Gettysburg that provides additional campaign scenarios. What this does is provide several versions of the same campaign scenario with slight variations in them, perhaps the forces are different or reinforcements arrive at different times or places so that even if you choose the same options for both sides in a campaign and end up playing the same scenario they may not be identical battles.

Gen. Ken Miller
3/VIII
AoS


Edited for additional content.

I would have to agree with General Miller, Gettysburg would be the best option if you are only buying one. Although I have all the HPS titles (except Chancellorsville, which Santa is bringing) I use Gettysburg the most.

Brig Gen Cam McOmish
Commander Western Theater
Confederate States of America

Antietam would have to be a close second. It has some good maps with meeting engagments.

MG Drex Ringbloom,
Cdr, 2nd Div "Corcoran's Legion", VIII Corps
Army of the Shenandoah

Quick nod of the head. AGEOD does have a very steep curve, and I work as a sub-contractor in the simulation field

Capt. Elkin
1/3/VIII/AoS

It's just like shooting squirrels, only these squirrels have guns

Gettysburg is my favorite battle, but not my favorite HPS game. First, you might want to ask yourself if you prefer to play stand-alone battles or campaigns.

Gettysburg was designed by Doug Strickler, the only game he designed, I think, for HPS. I believe it was a labor of love. He created thousands of scenarios for it, mostly designed to enhance the fog of war in campaigns, a very laudable objective. If you get this one, find out where to download all the extra scenarios. (I need to do that too. When Gettysburg came out, I had dialup and didn't want to tie up my computer forever.)

By the very nature of the Gettysburg campaign, very few of the engagements are historical battles. Of the ones that are, Winchester at least is onesided, as it was historically. There are also some very small scenarios involving portions of the Battle of Gettysburg, such as Culp's Hill and the Wheatfield. I have found them fun to play, but predictable.

My knock on the historical battle is that the Confederates are hampered by ammo shortages as well as numbers. As a Yank, this shouldn't bother you though.

My knock on the game is that it is usually the last to be upgraded. I don't know how many more upgrades we can expect, though, or even if they will constitute an improvement. Fortunately, most of the upgrades have historically been in the form of optional rules, so if you don't like them, you don't have to play them. As an aside, probably the biggest decision you have to make is to use phased play like the old Talonsoft games, or single turn, which was pioneered in Corinth. The knock on single turn, IMHO, is that it skews combat too much in favor of the attacker, which is ahistorical.

One small note of contention is that formation change costs for artillery were not changed by Doug in the upgrade. This reduces the flexibility of the artillery. Haven't decided which cost is more accurate though.

Anyway, these are some other things to consider.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA