Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumter to Appamattox

Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumter to Appamattox (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

SittingDuck -> Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumter to Appamattox (6/20/2004 1:30:05 AM)
This thread can serve as a mini-forum of sorts until Frank's site is restored (Frank, I believe, mentions that the payment to the ISP was overlooked and the site taken down; it should be back up). Anyhow, I'd like to use this thread for information on the current status of the game, both the freeware version and the upcoming Matrix version. As well as collect those of us who are interested in email games. Finally, this might be a good repository for people to start chiming in their wish list and concerns. Anyone, of course, could say what they want in the new version, but it would be much more valuable input if you are familiar with the current version of the game. It would also be great if Frank Hunter himself could chime in here with his thoughts about the new project, whatever they may be. Just an invitation, Frank! Current Freeware version: v2.66 (someone correct me if that is wrong and I'll update). If anyone knows the current status of bugs and what was fixed between v2.63 and v2.66 that would be great. Here is a good site with plenty of info on the game, but I don't know to what version this information is applicable: Good info site: http://www.thurb.com/games/acw/intro.htm If people need copies, I or others can send out a ZIP file (an 8.5meg ZIP or 7.3meg RAR file). I also have my custom updates for the counter and unit designation image files. I'll see if I can post an attachment, but somehow I think not..

madflava13 -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/20/2004 1:56:12 AM)
I'm not familiar with this game, but I've been looking for a good Civil War game that covers the entire war, not just one battle... I guess I'll have to wait for the site to get back up to learn more though!

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/20/2004 2:02:17 AM)
Its a good game. The interface could use an update and the supply rules are way too severe IMO. But its a good operational Civil War game.

Cap Mandrake -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/20/2004 3:03:27 AM)
Yes..it is fun. The interface is indeed clunky, however. The River naval rules work pretty well...demonstrating the importance of the Mississippi.

madflava13 -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/21/2004 2:50:27 AM)
Sitting Duck and others- I got the game - thanks - and it looks really good. I printed up the tutorial accompanying the game, but I'm having some problems. I don't know if its because this is the freeware version or what, but the tutorial mentions that you can click on a city with Units that are garrisoning it, then click on them to add them to the "Force Pool". I tried everything I can think of, but I can't for the life of me get those units into any Force Pool. I can get them out if I move another unit over top of the city, but not on their own. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks in advance, and Sitting Duck, thanks for sending me the file!

SittingDuck -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/21/2004 2:53:20 AM)
Look again at the first post and go to the website I mentioned. That tutorial that you are reading is based on a much earlier version and some things aren't applicable. And other things are errors anyways. For example, producing 500 Springfield rifles does not cost 1500 supply points.

*Lava* -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/21/2004 10:33:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madflava13 Sitting Duck and others- I got the game - thanks - and it looks really good. I printed up the tutorial accompanying the game, but I'm having some problems. I don't know if its because this is the freeware version or what, but the tutorial mentions that you can click on a city with Units that are garrisoning it, then click on them to add them to the "Force Pool". I tried everything I can think of, but I can't for the life of me get those units into any Force Pool. I can get them out if I move another unit over top of the city, but not on their own. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks in advance, and Sitting Duck, thanks for sending me the file! Hi! Problem with returning garrison units back to the force pool was that it meant in one move you could take a brigade and "beam" it from one side of the country to the other. Which is a tad bit unrealistic. Frank stopped this. Once a brigade is brought into the game, its there to stay unless it is destroyed. Ray (alias Lava)

*Lava* -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/21/2004 10:36:13 AM)
@SittingDuck Did you receive the 2.8 version of the game I sent you? Ray (alias Lava)

SittingDuck -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/21/2004 8:11:06 PM)
Ray, thanks - but it was v2.63 The EXE file was older than the v2.66 file I have now. Maybe you sent the wrong package?

madflava13 -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/22/2004 1:52:43 AM)
Than for the heads up Lava and others... I've been playing this game non-stop between turns in my 2 Uncommon Valor PBEM games. I really am enjoying it, but I'm getting my ass kicked all over the place as the Union. I'm starting to get the hang of it, but my lack of knowledge about the period is definitely a handicap. Do any of you know what Matrix is planning to do as far as updating, improving, etc? I would definitely buy an updated version of this game...

*Lava* -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/22/2004 3:51:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SittingDuck Ray, thanks - but it was v2.63 The EXE file was older than the v2.66 file I have now. Maybe you sent the wrong package? Hmmm.. I'll check into that.. @madflava13 Frank has been providing support for ACW for a long time, longer than any game company I know of. He has, however, announced that he will no longer be supporting it. That's the bad news. The good news, is he is working on a new Operational ACW game! Just don't expect it any time too soon, his WWI game is next on the production line. As for playing the Union, it is in my opinion the most difficult side. (Especially in PBEM.) The confederate ability to build heavy entrenchments without the offsetting ability of the union to bring siege equipment to bear, means that the rebs have a distinct advantage in this game. Ray (alias Lava)

Capt. Queeg -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/22/2004 8:04:26 AM)
Where can I get a copy of the Freeware version? I have the old CD game but I lost my copy of Frank's update when my HD crashed. Is there an alternate download site? Thanks.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumter to Appamattox (6/22/2004 11:29:13 AM)
Hi there, thanks for the plug for my Web pages about Frank's ACW game (http://www.thurb.com/games/acw/intro.htm). My pages are fully up to date, as far as I know, and cover version 2.66 of the game. I'd be willing to provide the game itself for downloading, but I'd like to have Frank's permission to do that. FRANK ??? As I've noted, the direct railway line between Nashville and Chattanooga is broken and can't be used. You can usually go by rail between Nashville and Chattanooga, by using the alternative line that passes near Decatur. However, if the latter line is cut by the enemy, you'll find that you can't go between Nashville and Chattanooga any more.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumter to Appamattox (6/22/2004 11:37:05 AM)
The current bugs that I know about are listed here: http://www.thurb.com/games/acw/bugs.htm. Some of these bugs are quite serious. They affect both sides, but they have a worse effect on the Union player. So it can be quite a discouraging experience to play the Union against a competent Confederate player.

*Lava* -> RE: Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumpter to Appamattox (6/22/2004 12:27:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SittingDuck Ray, thanks - but it was v2.63 The EXE file was older than the v2.66 file I have now. Maybe you sent the wrong package? Yikes! You are correct. The zip was named 28 but the exe is indeed 2.63. Checking around, you are correct, 2.66 is the latest version. Ray (alias Lava)

SittingDuck -> Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/22/2004 2:49:14 PM)
Good point - I had not known about the circuitous route via Decatur, but that makes sense. I'll amend the point you have made. One thing you mentioned in email is that Union amph invasions only occur at Norfolk and Beaumont, regardless of the target invasion. I assume you mean this for Union as human controlled? Because I saw the Feds attack New Orleans when I was playing as the Confederacy.

m10bob -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/22/2004 3:13:44 PM)
I have tried to get to the site with ver.2.66 and it is still down and the broser is referring me to MatrixGames!!...BTW,I still have my cd copy of the original version,it was a great game!!..[:)]

SittingDuck -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/22/2004 4:17:37 PM)
OK, if CaptQueef and m10boob can PM me with their email addresses, I will send out a copy of v2.66 at the first opportunity (ie, after work). Great names, guys...

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/22/2004 8:04:20 PM)
When the Union player sends an amphibious invasion, there is a significant risk that it will land at Norfolk or Beaufort if it was ordered to land at some other port further south. It's just a risk, it doesn't always happen: sometimes the fleet goes to the right port. However, in my current game none of my invasions has hit the intended target, and when you've suffered total loss of ships, men, and leader several times in a row by landing at a well-defended port, you get a bit reluctant to try it again. I've tried to estimate the risk by experiment, but I don't trust my results. My experiments indicated that if you start from Atlantic City and order the fleet to go around Florida to the underbelly of the South, you always get to your intended target. But when I tried it in a real game, the idiots landed at Beaufort again. Ouch.

madflava13 -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/22/2004 11:57:05 PM)
Quick Q- I'm assuming the game was not intended to run in 800x600, correct? I'm one of those guys who still runs an old computer and I haven't upgraded yet - when I play ACW, I cannot scroll all the way East. I can see the beginning of the word "Philadelphia", but the city itself is off the map. Am I just SOL until I get a new computer (in about a month!), or is there something I'm missing?

SittingDuck -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/23/2004 2:07:33 AM)
Try the ACW_low.exe or whatever it is called. Hopefully that works. I tried it and MAN, it would make me want to upgrade PRONTO!!! Jonathan, one thing I'd like to see in the new version is weather risks for sea travel. Currently there is none of that and there should be. It was really hazardous at times (still is). But now I see what you mean on your website where you mention how the sea bugs take the most enjoyment out of the game. They do stink at times. Could you give me a take on Frank's new Napoleon series? I am leery of a game that goes too much on the glitz. One thing I love about his ACW game is it is fairly grognard. Most of the poop coming out now in military strategy games is so much about 'great graphcis', which is neat for the first few times you play then you see the engine totally stinks. All in all, however, I think Frank's is the best offer out for a computerized strategic/operational ACW game. Which is something I've wanted for a long, long time. I finally got the Brits and French into the US (ok, I cheated via the editor!! haha) and they aren't that big a deal. I did watch (in a valid game) the Brits launch an ill-advised amph assault on Philadelphia and lose everything. Clearly the value is the naval fleets. I do think cavalry at least properly mimics the supply line devastation that occured in the war. To me, that is about their only value as well as good scouts. So I think they are about right. I really do wish Frank had factored artillery into the regular combat routines in a heavier fashion. That is a real disappointment.

Pippin -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/23/2004 2:37:08 AM)
I also have been having trying to dl this package. If you want can email it to me at pippin@highpoly3d.com Thanks. Also, I can even chuck the binary on a server while there is a scramble to find a new one for it. Been looking for a decent civil war game since civil war general III got canned by sierra half way through completion.

Jonathan Palfrey -> Game defects (6/23/2004 7:59:40 AM)
Weather risks for sea travel -- yes, in principle. But as the game stands, the various bugs make sea travel risky enough, I think. I seem to remember seeing some European troops getting into action in solo games I played in the past. But that was in small numbers and on their own initiative. In my previous e-mail game, in which I played the Confederacy, I investigated St George and Nassau and found that there are really quite a lot of troops stacked up in garrison in both places. If I could get those troops transferred to a friendly Confederate port and add them to my own forces, I thought, they could be really useful. But they refused to board transports at my command -- either their own transports or mine. I don't find cavalry useful for anything much in the game. They can see one hex further than infantry can; big deal. They can cut supply lines only if you can persuade them to follow orders. Just like the infantry, if you give them Advance orders they tend to make suicidal attacks on the nearest enemy forces; and if you give them Defend orders they probably don't move at all. They suffer a bit less than infantry from being out of supply themselves; but they still suffer from it. The game is basically a good design and contains good ideas, but there are many things about it that need putting right. If the source code were available, I think most of the problems could be fixed fairly quickly. The trickiest part would be to get the play balance right after fixing the problems.

Jonathan Palfrey -> Campaigns on the Danube (6/23/2004 8:11:45 AM)
See the relevant forum for discussion of Frank's Napoleonic game. It follows much the same approach as ACW: it's a serious turn-based wargame with the emphasis on gameplay rather than flashy graphics. There are differences of scale and communications. In ACW a turn is ten days; in CotD a turn is one day. And in 1809 all communications were by messenger on horseback, so it can take more than a turn for your orders to reach some of your forces. If you turn on full Fog of War, you don't even know what your own forces are doing until the messengers come back with their reports. The game seems to me very well designed to simulate Napoleonic warfare, but I haven't played it enough yet to say how well it turns out in practice. So far it doesn't seem to be seriously buggy (I'm playing with the first patch installed). It's quite easy to play. The main problem is getting the hang of the supply rules.

*Lava* -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/23/2004 12:06:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: madflava13 Quick Q- I'm assuming the game was not intended to run in 800x600, correct? I'm one of those guys who still runs an old computer and I haven't upgraded yet - when I play ACW, I cannot scroll all the way East. I can see the beginning of the word "Philadelphia", but the city itself is off the map. That is correct. Ray (alias Lava)

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: 800 by 600 support (6/23/2004 2:56:52 PM)
Originally there was an 800 by 600 version of the game, but Frank stopped supporting it some time ago, so if you can find it anywhere the version number would probably be 2.3 or something like that. This means it would have more bugs than the current version 2.66. It would be nice if all games rescaled themselves elegantly to fit any size of screen, but Frank doesn't seem to have the technology for this yet.

ShermanM4 -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/23/2004 11:25:47 PM)
quote: I also have been having trying to dl this package. If you want can email it to me at pippin@highpoly3d.com Thanks. Also, I can even chuck the binary on a server while there is a scramble to find a new one for it. Been looking for a decent civil war game since civil war general III got canned by sierra half way through completion. No Way, was there really a CWGIII in production?[&:] That would have been a great idea since CWGII proved a vast improvement over CWGI.

Pippin -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/24/2004 5:27:45 AM)
Sierra CLAIMS Civ Gen III was completed up to the Prototype stage. But states (in some odd way) that they did not want to add the polish to it as they thought it would be un-practical to market? Try to figure that one out. I am a tad suspicious as I dont see why companies would make a game to prototype stage and then ****-can it. But then again, Hasbro used to do similar things to raise an eyebrow or two. The old support forums are long gone now, but I could maybe try and hunt down some of the responses from back then. Big shame though, a lot of online players were waiting bigtime for CWGIII. If no for the graphical improvements, etc, at least to eliminate those drasted (ghosting bug) units that pop up all over the place and cause a real downer to serious play. Oh well. ..

madflava13 -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/24/2004 9:20:50 AM)
I've read the manual, the tutorials, and the hints on Thurb's site... Any of you guys have some more strategies or hints for a new player? (Either side...) Appreciate your patience and help!

*Lava* -> RE: Nashille/Knoxville/Decatur (6/24/2004 10:47:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pippin Sierra CLAIMS Civ Gen III was completed up to the Prototype stage. But states (in some odd way) that they did not want to add the polish to it as they thought it would be un-practical to market? Read Vivendi here. Sierra is owned by Vivendi and Vivendi, as a cooperation has been losing lots of money. One of the few bright spots for Vivendi is its games dapartment. As I understand it, they have been trying to sell-off that department for quite some time now. So... you end up with a "low risk" strategy, one that maximizes the bottom line (to attract buyers). And product which doesn't promise a high return, thus is put on hold or put to sleep. Ray (alias Lava)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.469727