Kentucky (Full Version)

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



Message

sushidog -> Kentucky (4/10/2015 1:48:03 PM)

Is there a place to see what the percentage chance is that Kentucky will align with the other side if you invade?

I'm guessing that if you're the Union, if you can wait a few months, the chances are less.



ryan1488 -> RE: Kentucky (4/13/2015 1:39:58 AM)

im not sure, but I know declaring emancipation affects it.



JD Walter -> RE: Kentucky (5/5/2015 9:12:07 PM)

Sushi,

The % chance for KY siding with the other side if invaded is listed in 15.2.1 of the rules.

If KY passes this check, all of its unoccupied regions will become friendly to the side which did not violate
its neutrality.

If KY does not permanently align due to this check, each of its regions will remain neutral until occupied by a
combat unit. In this case, that unit will be treated as an occupier, and a partisan value will appear (14.0,
hotkey "g").

If KY passes the check and becomes a friendly permanent state, there is an increased chance its population points
will generate & join your pool each production phase.

Otherwise, KY can only be aligned, and follows the standard border state percentages for population, etc. (15.2.2).



sushidog -> RE: Kentucky (5/5/2015 11:15:40 PM)

Thanks for the info and for giving us more than the standard RTFM response, which is what I deserved!



JD Walter -> RE: Kentucky (5/5/2015 11:50:30 PM)

Not at all, Sushi. Glad to help!

I'm always glad to see someone new pick up this excellent game. I myself have moved on to AGEOD's likewise excellent Civil War II, but I think Gary's design (along with Mark Herman's boardgame "For the People") is the best command study of the ACW yet produced.

I do hope you or your opponent will treat us to a small summary of your game as the turns progress. It would be nice to see an AAR again on it after so many years. Although I doubt I'll ever equal the skill of GShock or Treefrog, I do enjoy reading over other player's moves to see what I can do better in my own games when I get the chance to play!



sushidog -> RE: Kentucky (5/7/2015 12:12:59 PM)

Hey Def-

I've got AGEOD's original ACW title, but I just haven't been able to get into it. Like other games of theirs that I own (Alea Jacta Est and the Revolutionary War one), I just can't get a handle on their interface. I think some of it is I find their maps hard to read. Too much colour and way too busy (the Grigsby game map is far subtler). Still, I'm sure I'll push on and try it again at some point.

I really liked Forge of Freedom and was disappointed that the developer decided to make their next game strictly tactical. I was really hoping for a Forge of Freedom 2.

In terms of boardgames, have you tried Blue vs. Gray? It's an ACW card game by Evan Jones, currently published by GMT. It's fantastic. I've been playing it PBEM with another fan using VASSAL and we're on our 4th game. No two have been the same and it's been interesting enough that as soon as we finish we start a new one. I really recommend it.

On a broader note, one thing I've really noticed with playing a variety of ACW games is that each designer has strong opinions about the various generals. One designer will make a certain general a key piece, while another will rate the same general so low as to be almost unusable. Civil war history allows for a lot of subjective evaluation.



JD Walter -> RE: Kentucky (5/9/2015 6:12:27 PM)

Sushi,

I too found AGEOD's Civil War I a bit disconcerting. The map was too "busy", with too many little things on it, and it was too hard to see the big picture. Civil War II, however, is much better. Perhaps it is because I am now more familiar with AGEOD's Athena-engine games, having played BoA I & II, PoN and RUS. I prefer Civil War II's UI to GG's WBtS at this point:

1. It is "point and click" to move. You can see clearly whether a commander can make it to a point, and how many days it will take. Multi-turn (>15 days) moves are possible, and easy to enter.

2. It is "drag and drop" to build armies. Simple to make or disband formations.

The things I like far better about GG's WBtS are Leader Activations (6.5) and Leader Initiative (6.4). Years later, Gary's design remains the best at portraying the episodic nature of Civil War campaigns.


I liked Forge of Freedom as well. Its political system with the state governors was well done. I am very happy with Brother Against Brother as well. I would love to see a game with FoF's strategic level & BaB's tactical fights.

I played Blue vs. Gray when GMT re-published it as a professional-level release. (It was a DIY download originally.) It was a lot of fun! Simple, fast-paced. I still carry my copy around in my trunk when I drive out to the local game store. Unfortunately, I've never been able to get VASSAL to run on my computer. Tried it with ASL, Twilight Struggle & Blue vs. Gray. My computer literacy extends to opening the box and pushing the "on" button, so that's probably why.

I fully agree about the subjectivity in Civil War General ratings. There's a huge volume of information written about the war and its battles, and both the OR's and personal autobiographies written afterwards give ample reasons to rate anybody from 1-10 anywhere. I think the funniest game I ever saw was a foreign publication where the designer didn't understand English too well. He thought "beast" meant "divine, god-like". (As in, "That was a beastly score, dude!".)

So he rated Benjamin "Beast" Butler the best Union Commander of the war, equal to R.E Lee and better than Grant!



sushidog -> RE: Kentucky (5/12/2015 11:34:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Def Zep




I liked Forge of Freedom as well. Its political system with the state governors was well done. I am very happy with Brother Against Brother as well. I would love to see a game with FoF's strategic level & BaB's tactical fights.

I played Blue vs. Gray when GMT re-published it as a professional-level release. (It was a DIY download originally.) It was a lot of fun! Simple, fast-paced. I still carry my copy around in my trunk when I drive out to the local game store. Unfortunately, I've never been able to get VASSAL to run on my computer. Tried it with ASL, Twilight Struggle & Blue vs. Gray. My computer literacy extends to opening the box and pushing the "on" button, so that's probably why.

I fully agree about the subjectivity in Civil War General ratings. There's a huge volume of information written about the war and its battles, and both the OR's and personal autobiographies written afterwards give ample reasons to rate anybody from 1-10 anywhere. I think the funniest game I ever saw was a foreign publication where the designer didn't understand English too well. He thought "beast" meant "divine, god-like". (As in, "That was a beastly score, dude!".)

So he rated Benjamin "Beast" Butler the best Union Commander of the war, equal to R.E Lee and better than Grant!



If you ever get VASSAL working (or need help getting it working), PM me and we can play some PBEM. Or if you get the itch to PBEM Forge of Freedom, same thing. I may have to give Aegod's ACW2 a try. I read some not great reviews on usenet when it came out, but it's always good to hear from someone who likes a game.



JD Walter -> RE: Kentucky (5/12/2015 2:15:51 PM)

Thank you, Sushi, that's a very kind offer. Right now, I don't have the time to play anything on a consistent basis. (I am self-employed and my schedule is dictated by my clients.) But if I ever get to retire, I'll keep you in mind!

I think many of the launch problems of AGEOD's Civil War II have been corrected. They just released another new patch earlier this month. The game gets excellent support from AGEOD (as do all of their in-house titles, like RoP & AJE), and my own experience is that many of the problems pointed out at release have been addressed. AGEOD is clearly thinking about ways to improve the game.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875