CV1 vs CV2

[allan_boa]

Hi, how would you describe the differences ? What are cv2 improvements over cv1 ?
I never played CV1 but by looking at videos, it seems to me that the map is much more playable ... artwork looks much better, smoother colors, clearer map, more sober colors. Generally speaking, at least visually, the game looks better.
I would be interested in reading your opinions on the cv1 vs cv2 subject :-) (and not just graphically but of course in terms of gameplay too)
Thanks

[Gray Fox]

As a strategic war game, AACW is similar to CW2. The "all east" Union strategy and the quick blitz of D.C. works in both. The artillery Division works in both games. Many of the combat mechanics are also similar if not identical.

A game feature not in the original is the Regional Decision cards (RGDs). These add many very interesting events that can be used to create new strategies. As one example, I use the stockade RGD to create a first line of defense for D.C. or Richmond. A new unit, the flatboat, is an economical way to build a depot in a port city. The two element Supply Unit (SU) is another new unit that can give small stacks a SU at half the cost.

At the input of players some features in both games were only tweaked in CW2. For example, Athena will use artillery Divisions only in CW2. IMHO, the community for AACW wanted to enjoy the experience of a great CW game in time for the sesquicentennial. CW2 was scrutinized more and feedback was actually used to improve it in many ways.

[allan_boa]

Thanks mate, useful comment.

[DrPostman]

I started with the first game and loved it. Then I was able to be a beta tester on CW2 and
it was awesome. Much better, even though similar. The map is twice the size of the first
and many more features included. Some that I miss, like being able to look up individual
generals and find them, but that can be fixed eventually.

[Captain_Orso]

I think the greatest improvement going from AACW to CW II is that the retreat rule finally got developed to its current working state. Pocus spent weeks trying many things out, tweaking and testing, until he had developed IMHO a very logical and historically correct paradigm. Retreats into enemy territory was eliminated, and the importance of maintaining lines-of-communication to the rear was emphasized.

All throughout AACW and the beginnings of CW2 there were nearly weekly cries of "why are my stacks retreating like this?!?!!" in the forums. Now I can't recall the last time I've heard a complaint. Well done Pocus

The map has been expended by about an additional 1/3 to the west and about 1/4 to the north, and added a number of OMB's as well, which changed game play on the western fringes greatly. No more sneak attacks from Denver and Santa Fe, or was it Albuquerque... El Paso?

Aside from that, the core of the map remained to the greatest extent the same, although graphically it was dressed up in some finer cloths

Army HQ units, after much discussion, were dropped as being unhistorical, as army staffs were generally already in place and personal staffs were brought by the general himself. No need for very expensive units, which took an extremely long to train, could be justified.

Marines and Sailors lost their River Crossing bonuses, but retained their Invasion ability, which negates the Invasion penalty. The River Crossing bonus was given to a new unit, the Pontooners/Pioneers, which is much more historical.

The North received Wooden-Clad Gunboats and the South Cotton Clads, and the North can lease Merchantmen (Transports) for Naval Shipping, but otherwise the naval game did not really change, although a few new Naval Leaders were added on both sided, along with several, who function as Naval and Land Commanders at the same time.

Regional Decision Cards (RGD's) were added, which add flavor, and can leverage some distinct advantages in certain situations, such as raising a small number of insurgent units in loyal regions, behind enemy lines.

Overall, the game gained flavor and some nuance and simply said, became a better and more enjoyable

[Durk]

I agree with all of the above. I would add:
Scenarios galore. I love playing more than just the longest Grand Campaign as using an 1863 or 64 start may yield more historical later war game. With the base game and the extension, Bloody Roads South, so many more scenarios to play. Each scenario begins with faithful order of battle, and the battle games are fun for a quick pbem event.

I would say CV1 is a decent representation of the American Civil War, albeit with an enhanced CSA production. But the game lacks intuitive interface for a player like me who just likes to start playing a game.
I would say CV2 is the best darned strategic level computer game every published on the American Civil War (with the same caveat).