One thing that worries me... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

jcjordan -> One thing that worries me... (3/28/2008 1:23:33 AM)

One thing in reading the AAR's above that worries me is the uber armies that seem to be built especially in the western theatres plus casualties seem to be on the light side on the couple of major battles that have taken place. Both seem to be building 2 western armies of 70k+ whereas in history it was hard to get 50k together in a battle in the west. Now the east was a diff story especially on the Union side. Is production too easy on creating units as far as costs or time to create? I still do like the game over FOF though.



PyleDriver -> RE: One thing that worries me... (3/28/2008 1:42:12 AM)

Jordan production is real close to reality. But as a player the Union calls all the shots and the CSA needs to respond. The rail and river transport could have provided that level, it's just a different look at what could have happened. This game has so many different outcomes and options...

[8D]
Jon



Joel Billings -> RE: One thing that worries me... (3/28/2008 1:54:11 AM)

Read my next entries when I post them and you'll see the disadvantage of the uber armies in the west. Also, keep in mind that the "casualty count" issue may be more of a translation issue as we convert units damaged/destroyed into manpower casualty numbers. I'm working on getting info up on the April and May battles and other activities. Also, even though a leader enters an area with a large number of troops, there's no guarantee they'll all make it to a battle, in fact, they usually don't. So big armies don't guarantee big battles and big casualties. It can happen where you get losses of over 20k in a battle, but it's very rare (as it was historically), and big armies in places where supplies can be disrupted can cost a lot to maintain. We think the manpower numbers overall are pretty good, but keep in mind that some things (like constant attrition to disease) is abstracted at this level.



jcjordan -> RE: One thing that worries me... (3/29/2008 5:24:46 AM)

Thanks for the replies, it just seemed too easy to build a large armies all over the place on either side. All the AARs seem to have 2 large Union armies coming down through TN along w/ a 20+K army somewhere on the coast along w/ what may be in the east & the Confederates seem to be able to match each Union army. I've still liked what I've seen better than FOF though.



Joel Billings -> RE: One thing that worries me... (3/29/2008 7:51:34 AM)

I haven't always matched his armies, depending on how many outlying units I'm able to recall to a battle. But being outnumbered in the area doesn't mean I'm outnumbered in the battle (depending on the leaders and some luck). One reason our PBEM game has seen larger armies in general is that the Union player was able to declare Emancipation and Black Recruitment very early (late 1861) which is unusual. This has given him a steady inflow of black recruits, but also kept my political points high which has allowed me to recruit heavier than normal as well. Believe me, the Union is starting to pay a big cost for having that army in Grenada where it keeps getting cut off by Confederate cavalry raids. The armies may be a bit bigger than they should be, but again, part of that is Jon's strategy of not attacking Northern Virginia. In fact, most of the game his army in Washington has been his smallest army, and I elected to pull unneeded troops out of Virginia as well and move them elsewhere as I didn't want to attempt an invasion of the north.



PyleDriver -> RE: One thing that worries me... (3/29/2008 8:23:25 AM)

I agree Joel, I have been stuck there for months due to Forrest's cav raids and the long supply line. I've seen Jackson so many times but the supply of my army has been hindered. With Sherman training and building an army in Washington, you may see a shift. Lee keeps kicking Lyon's ass, even though I have twice the army. Time to change caps...lol..

[8D]
Jon



histgamer -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 7:02:54 AM)

So is this game going to be a typical GG type game like WITP ie massive detail and thus the greatest civil war game ever? Or are things going to be simplified so that its easier to grasph and doesnt have to steep a learning curve... I hope for the first.



PyleDriver -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 7:07:23 AM)

Steep learning curve, but years of fun thereafter....

[8D]
Jon



Adam Parker -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 12:07:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Steep learning curve, but years of fun thereafter....

[8D]
Jon


That's a shame for me - I really no longer have the time to go complex anymore. We could have used something in between Forge of Freedeom and Ageod's ACW. Or AACW and Civil War Generals 2. My .02.



Erik Rutins -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 1:39:14 PM)

Adam,

FWIW, I don't find the learning curve particularly steep. This is definitely not WITP/AACW/FOF complexity level in my book.

Regards,

- Erik



Adam Parker -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 1:47:33 PM)

Ok Erik, I appreciate that.

The map is one of the best I've ever seen.



Crimguy -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 5:59:34 PM)

People find AACW that complex?  I thought it was pretty easy, hampered by a vague manual though.



Erik Rutins -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 6:43:37 PM)

Well, this is just my opinion. I enjoy AACW and FOF, but I'm a pretty busy guy, so time is at a premium. It takes me quite a while to get through a full turn in AACW, with the payoff being the incredible detail down to the operational level. I have not yet been able to find the time to finish a full campaign in AACW, though I got quite a ways in and had a lot of fun. It takes less time for me to do a turn in FOF, though when I choose to fight a detailed battle that does take time and is a separate system to learn (but incredibly rewarding). I have finished a few full FOF campaigns vs. AI and in PBEM. For both AACW and FOF I felt the tutorials were necessary and the manuals mandatory in really learning how to play.

WBTS on the other hand I found easy to learn even in beta before a manual was written. Mastering it takes more work, but I can see myself playing through 2-3 WBTS full campaigns in the time it takes me to do one FOF full campaign, yet the strategic results seem as realistic as both FOF and AACW. I have to say I also love the leader system 2 by 3 game up with for this game, I personally think that this is one area they really "nailed". I think for gamers with limted time and less tolerance for a learning curve, WBTS should get a very long look, but ultimately I think every ACW gamer really should try all three games. I will be happy with the collection of the three of them for years and years to come.

Regards,

- Erik



GShock -> RE: One thing that worries me... (4/30/2008 11:10:08 PM)

If the game (as it seems) correctly models leadership, uber armies without uber leaders won't be manageable. No deal. 



histgamer -> RE: One thing that worries me... (5/1/2008 8:48:32 AM)

Whats AACW? Sounds great... I am a WITP fan.[:D]



Erik Rutins -> RE: One thing that worries me... (5/1/2008 6:07:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
Whats AACW? Sounds great... I am a WITP fan.[:D]


AACW = Ageod's American Civil War

If you enjoy WITP-level complexity and detail then you'll most likely enjoy that (or FOF = Forge of Freedom).

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=343

http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=333



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375