American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

A few people have had a chance to download the game and play it now. I thought about it, nearly purchased a copy, but then decided to hold off a while and think about it.

1864. The great majority of us club members have a fair idea about developments in the Civil War.

Opinions here please. I must admit, I was hoping for a Valley Campaigns and would probably have jumped right in and bought THAT.
But Overland? Is this a title that has been covered to add to the series for reasons of "completeness"? ...or is it any good in itself?
Grand Tactical simulation, 20 minute turns against very large numbers and very much improved defensive positions?
I'm thinking this may have grown a little bit outside of what is "playable"?

I can't afford to part with my money just for the sake-of-it. So I'd be interested to hear.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

James buy it and be quick about it.

_________________
General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
2nd Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps.
Army of the Tennessee.

My initial opinion is the same. I own most of the CW titles, but I still have not bought Vicksburg, Franklin, Corinth and Ozark.
So....I cannot see buying it just for the sake of buying it. I have enough of those games already. It sounds somewhat like the Peninsular game. lots of units and a huge defensive battle.
If it was the Valley Campaign.........I'm in.

_________________
Lt. Gen. C. N. Matthews
Pickett's Infantry Division, I Corps,
Army of Northern Virginia, CSA

All the possible campaigns at this point have problems usually of balance. They like the recent Chancellorsville require so many restrictions to make the game playable that it hurts the game. I got the Overland Campaign because it covers some battles I am interested in. I hope they are playable but only time will tell. Heavy woods and entrenchments can really hurt the "playablity" of a game. But even the Valley Campaign of 62 would have problems due to force embalance. Jackson didn't out fight the Union he out maneuvered them which is hard to simulate in a game. But I would still like to see the Valley Campaign and the Petersburg Campaign just for completeness of the Eastern Theatre.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

I got the game and looked it over just a bit.

In addition to the Overland campaign with Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor, you also have the Mine Run Campaign, plus some smaller battles, including New Market, Cloyd's Mountain and Piedmont, which all might have been better placed in a Shenandoah game but which are here nevertheless.

Looked at the "Monster Scenario". I think there are some new concepts in there, but I need more time to look at it.

There is a new optional rule concerning a penalty for units from different formations doing something, but I need more time to look at it.

I look at a game not just for the content but for the potential of creating new scenarios using the editor. That is why I like the huge map.

After I have examined it awhile, I may be able to provide more information.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

Weather is part of the game.

Select Mixed Organization Penalty to have a -1 morale modifier applied to units in the same hex with units from different brigades.

Anybody like to try the big one just for fun to see how it goes and we can report it here. Play a few turns 30 or so to see what is involved.

_________________
Best Regards,

General Pierre D.

5th Bde, IV Cavalry Corps
Army of Northern Virginia
ACWGC President 1997 - 2006, 2012
ACWGC Forum Administrator

I understand that making a historically unbalanced situation playable means that the designers have to make adjustments to counter the effect that players have when playing out the events with the aid (or disadvantage) of hindsight.

Model the situation accurately and the Union must always win 'cos a modern human player will always make use of the numerical advantage.
Model the situation to make it playable and what are you left with?
I see the outnumbered Rebs have got a huge preponderance of "A" quality Infantry Regiments to give them a chance in play against a numerically (greatly) superior Union?
I believe this "Gold Plating" may be necessary for reasons of playability but it seems very regrettable to me. I simply don't think the Reb Regiments were ever that good ...in fact I don't think any Army has ever fielded such a supposed elite quality in it's ranks?
It must make the Reb Infantry pretty much immune to bad play or the effects of fire & melee.

So "playable"? Yes. But "realistic"? ...I don't know.

I finally went and paid to download a copy (after some deliberation) and whilst I salute the effort that has gone into design & production ...I honstly think my money would have been better spent elsewhere.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

FYI: The Monster Scenario needs to be viewed in the context that there is a .txt file that are supposed to be required House Rules. (If it matters it prints out to 5 pages) - if players don't use these rules some units ( particularly artillery) will end up being represented twice in many situations. The file name is: Notes_Overland_Scenario.txt

I saw where John (Ferry) said he would add that to the scenario notes for the next update.

Since this scenario should represent a great deal of time passage than Peninsula does, I don't know that it is entirely fair to compare them ( different scenario designers too); I wrote that I would post the text of the page to the site (along with a planning map for this 1300+ turn scenario (basically the planning map is the master map for almost all of the scenarios in the game -but since I imagine most people would be mostly interested in the the battles -I will be including submaps in the planning maps library (although with submaps it can be a little misleading as to which maps are more significant than others -as they mostly start reading as being 1 kb in size so I may have missed a few important ones in my screen shot passes.).

I'm interested in seeing how the linked campaigns play out. I won't have a chance to to get to that on my own for quite awhile (other PBEM commitments...) - but will be very interested in reading others' experiences.

_________________
~Retired~

I think we are missing the point here, it is a game when we used to play miniatures or board games they used to be over in a night or a few days. That monster scenario will take 4 years to complete at a turn a day. It may be a great scenario but who the hell knows what is going to happen in the next few hours let alone in the next four years. I have bought this title because I love these games, not to play them but to mod them. I will have fun with his one. I will also play a few scenarios.
Thaks JTS.

_________________
General
Frank (Old Banshee) Mullins,
2nd Brigade, 1st Division, XVI Corps.
Army of the Tennessee.

I looked some more.

I see a lot of variation in the scenarios as regards PDTs.

The new option regarding stacking of units from different formations is -1 to morale.

Max ranges for rifles range from 3 to 5, and weapons in general appear to be less deadly.

Also, entrenchments in the scenarios I looked at were 50% combat and 50% to complete. I think the values in previous PDTs were 30% and 18% respectively.

Weather does not appear to be optional.

I think some scenarios have 30-minute turns vice 20-minute turns, which may account for some of the variations in weapons effectiveness.

In a Mine Run scenario, Napoleon range 1 effectiveness was 8.5 while 3" rifle effectiveness was 8. I think this is a mistake.

I think some of the changes have merit historically, but the practical effect of building a breastwork on a wooded hill will be to make a unit impervious to fire (unless it exceeds the density value).

I will do more looking, but encourage comments by others.

My opinion is that there is an awful lot of value in this game, but I suspect it might have been hurried a bit toward the end and that patches will soon be forthcoming. Don't quote me on that.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

Fwiw - it was in development since at least 2008.

_________________
~Retired~

I have intense dislike for the preponderance of "A" quality Reb Infantry Regiments.

"A" quality units can pretty much be relied upon to automatically rally from rout and undisrupt on following turns.
They will do so even when detached and without the aid of a leader.

I understand playability has to be a balance of quality versus quantity. But it is almost impossible to lead good troops badly? "A" quality Regiments are almost entirely independant little units ...and the Reb Army is composed almost entirely of them for reasons of playability?
It's getting like a Harry Turtledove novel.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

Jimmy Wilkes, you are a true Yankee after my own heart, and I am glad to have you as an ACWGC Union Army officer!

Now, if you're quite ready, sir, let's go see if we can figure out how to give those "A" quality, cocky Rebels some well-deserved punishment!

_________________
General Jos. C. Meyer, ACWGC
Union Army Chief of Staff
Commander, Army of the Shenandoah
Commander, Army of the Tennessee
(2011-2014 UA CoA/GinC)

I to have checked out the Overland Campaign and I think that the Reb units are well under rated - they in fact should be at least A+++. Dang we are so good.

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Brigade Commander
Alabama State Volunteers
Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corps
(1/1/1)
Army of Tennessee
Confederate States of America

Cam - good means foolhardy in the morale rating sense ... in fact I might consider taking up Mr Meyer's offer even though it was to another gentleman. But, well, we'll see how things work (not much time for PBEM... the web keeps me too busy.).

Aside from that, I do have a planning map finished for the big - no make that the BIG map.... I resized it to an easier download size - at 25% smaller than 2d zoom out. I also will have a 2d zoom out mode map available ( the respective sizes are 320 something mb for the larger scale map -and about 22 mb for the smaller version.).



I haven't done any of the battles yet, as they should be a breeze compared to the mother of all monster maps ( I would have done it much earlier- but was advised that there had been some changes on it since I had last seen it.).

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =3&theater

Edit:

Since Facebook resizes its images (or so I think) - but here it is:

http://hist-sdc.com/downloads/cwb/maps/ ... r_plus.gif

_________________
~Retired~