American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I wanted to get some overall views about Campaign Gettysburg.

Some brief background. I have been playing the BG series for many, many years and do love them a lot.

I only own Campaign Franklin which I haven't really played a lot as to be honest the graphics did throw me off.

I love the Gettysburg campaign and battle so have been thinking about picking up Campaign Gettysburg.

My concern is if it is really worth it.

I have seen a lot of comments about problems with the game and wonder if they are bad enough to take away enjoyment of the game.

One of my main concerns if it is true that artillery is worth so many points and does so little damage that you can't keep it anywhere near the frontline. How true is this?

Also regarding the phases I believe I have seen posts about there being some issue but that it can be worked out so the phases play more like the BG series.

What is everyone's general thought.

Is Campaign Gettysburg worth the money and the time?

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=6363

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=6566

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=6609

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=6873

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/campaign_gettysburg/

http://www.wargame.ch/board/acw/topic.a ... IC_ID=6546

Hope you love to read. [;)]

Personally, weak and overprized artillery and overprized cavalry aside, Gettysburg is an awesome game just for the size of the maps, the depth of the campaigns, the variety of the scenarios, and the thoroughness of the work. There is simply no comparison with BGG, this is an entirely different world. Played in phases, you get all the good things of BG and some more great fun in addition.

Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College

I have all the Talonsoft games, and all the HPS games. Of the former, my favourite by far is BGG.

As regards the latter, apart from occasional Cadet training I hardly ever play the Campaign games as I just don't like the way they work.

At least that was true, until recently.

In constant anticipation of something good turning up, I had a copy of Campaign Gettysburg the day it was issued, and I'm currently playing two campaigns. This game is tremendous!!! The maps are fabulous and the numbers of units are awesome.

Certainly the graphics are poor compared with Talonsoft (even after Pete's better graphics have been added), but then I don't use 3D with HPS, I work with the 2D map (As opposed to Talonsoft where I work totally from the 3D map)

So far I've got nowhere near Gettysburg itself, but I'm enjoying the games immensely.

The truth is they are very different games, although they look the same. TS games are more "blitzkriegy" in that you can charge up and smash enemy units with melees and destroy them completely with ZOC victories. HPS however is I believe far more realistic and historic in the way it plays, and the way it forces you to play. There's far more maneouvring and thinking involved, and you need to think about reserves more. Meleeing is far less successful or beneficial so you have to maneouvre, outnumber, and then slug it out, and have plenty of reserves because guys run, and also run out of ammo, more often.

Cavalry usage is also different and more realisrtic. There are issues re artillery, and these could be improved, but if you don't put guns in the front line then it's less of a problem. You point enough guns at a unit and hit it, then it will run!

There are also questions about automated defensive fire (and these may well need sorting), and not everybody likes this. I'm currently playing against Rich Hamilton with it on, and Dierk Walter with it off (this puts you back into "TS" type Phased play). The same battles with each, and different style of play, but I'm enjoying both immensely.

And I do love the campaign element and the effect this has on fighting a battle is huge. You have to think about the strategic situation and the next battle, and not just stand and slug it out until one or both armies are destroyed. Far more realistic!

To summarise: I have all the games; I prefer TS over HPS in total; but if I had to get rid of all the games and could only keep one it would be Campaign Gettysburg. And if I was asked for a recommendation as to which to buy it would be the HPS Gettysburg game every time (followed by the TS Gettysburg game).

Hope this helps.


Lt. Gen. Mike Tomlin
XIX,
AoS

If it's the graphics that are putting you off have a look at this graphics mod which you can download: http://acwsite2.mysite.wanadoo-members. ... _scale.htm . I think it actually looks better than the Battlegound games with these graphics. There are plenty of other mods to choose from to. Have a look here: http://www.brettschulte.net/hps_acw.htm

Graphics aside it is a superb game with some real depth to it and enormous replay value with all the variant campaign scenarios. I would heartily recommend it.

Lt. Gen. Antony Barlow
CO, XIV Corps,
XO, Army of the Cumberland

I, too, would add my total support for the HPS Gettysburg game over anything. The TS games are great, but the emmensity of HPS' Gettysburg far outweighs the TS series all together. Remember, this game also contains the maps for Bull Run ("Gaps to Manassas", Antietam ("Falling Rivers"), Pipe Creek,and the Rapahannoc. Although you can't alter the OOBs there is still plenty you can do on those maps. 300+ scenarios plus another 2000 add-on campaign scenarios give you a lifetime of play. I, also would give up everything else and keep this one if I had to choose.

By the way, the high cost of artillery is easily fixed by a simple modification to the .scn file. Just make sure you and your opponent are using the same altered .scn file.


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