AGEOD Forums

I understand CW 2 is designed to have a really strong tactical defense, that we don’t control the battles, and if you want to win you must supply your troop and “Get there first with the most.”

I am also aware of historical battles like Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor were thousands of boys were shot down trying to cross an open field.

But, the fact still remains, especially early in the war, there were battles like Chancellorsville where Confederate forces, outnumbered 3-1, attacked and won in a wooded terrain.

Should a Civil War game have a way of recapturing the historical possibility of Southern armies pulling off successful attacks with poor ratios? I think so. And there is a way this possibility could be incorporated into game mechanics.

Use shifting combat tables.

When the South is riding high in the war’s early years, before trenches and massed cannon bring a foreshadowing of WWI, use a combat table that favors the South. As time passes, and the Union becomes more organized and skillful, use a balanced combat table. For the end game, use a combat table that favors the North and reflects the shrinking combat power of the South.

Old wargamers may recall that War in the East used six or so shifting combat tables to reflect, the unpreparedness of the Russians, the changes in weather and the rise and fall of German abilities.

What do you think?

I've played War in the East. The problem with a game like this is that the player isn't in control. Your army fights well or poorly because the combat table says it will. CW2 is more realistic. Your army will do well because you took the time to learn the system or not. I explained in another thread how you can overcome seemingly impossible odds. I took Richmond from Colonel Athena with less than 1-1 odds initially, because I set up a fresh Corps to reinforce my assault with MTSG. In another battle, I attacked with a weaker Corps, so that the stronger Corps could rest for 9 days and then MTSG for the victory. This is much more satisfying than attacking at 1-3 odds because the combat table says you can win.

I've also played War in the East and that was one of its "features" that quickly caused me to dump it in the Bit Bucket (I'm still waiting for a good WWII east front game on computer). I don't want to be at the mercy of a CRT that reflects nothing more than the way the war went historically. CWII gets it right, with a complex strategic/tactical system that rewards study and innovative play.

By the bye, and completely OT, anyone else excited about the pending release of "Brother against Brother" by Matrix?

You know gents, I do believe you are right.

I never thought of it. But looking back, I'm starting to remember why War in the East was such a frustrating game. Funny, maybe the cat eating Army Group South really was a blessing in disguise.

Toss out the combat table suggestion; I'll invest more time learning how to play the game right.

If it was simulated in the game, C-ville would definitely be a defensive battle.

Straight arrow has a point about the fact that CSA troops could pull off a win in situations where they were outnumbered.
I thought this was modelled in the game via better generals at the start of the war, and the roll of the dice that influences a battle.
Maybe not enough at the start? Should the dice roll be more in favor of the CSA in 1861 and 1862?

Do you ever want to win because the game is programmed to give you a win? I don't see the point in that. Earn it.

True, I have no problem winning as the CSA against Athena. I was just commenting on the valid question Straight Arrow's is asking
whether or not the chance of the CSA pulling of a win when outnumbered is modeled on the game or not.

Great thread thank you all very much- very illuminating.

Familiar with SPI's WITE- never owned or played it (tons of others though), but was in the other camp- GDW's DNO/Unetscheiden, and given the similar backgrounds I have a question: given the 30 percent off Easter Sale, is To End All Wars a buy? Love Civ II (also bought Alea Jacta Est and Rus during the Xmas sale- but haven't gotten into them as much as Civ II) and all its nuances and steep learning curve; and learning from all of you here on the forum. Do any of you own TEAW? One thread on Matrix really railed it, but that was the v1.0 release version.

In your experience, is it as satisfying as Civ II. Or should I pass?

Any comments/opinions most welcome.

Thanks in advance

I've only been playing both CV II and TEAW for about a month now so I'm no expert in either. It was hard for both to learn as the manual is sorely lacking, but reading through many of the posts in the forums I've learned quite a bit. I'm finally getting how to play the division/corps commanders in CV II. Still learning TEAW's.
With that I enjoy both. Often I'll play one turn in CV II then I'll switch to TEAW and play a turn. I've never been one to play video games but both of these have peaked my interest and I'm looking forward to the Napoleon version.
I did win one campaign game out of the 1/2 dozen I've played. Sometimes I just start over realizing I've been playing certain aspects "wrong". The Navy aspects, especially river navy in CV II, are still not catching on yet but getting there.

I'm not a fan of a big change on the scale of new combat tables. If I were to mod it I would look at making changes to the effectiveness of early game entrenchments or to the affects NM has on combat.

Isn't there a commander trait in one of the other AGEOD games that increases the frontage limit of the stack that that general commanded - maybe it was called defensive expert? I think it could be fitting if Lee had a trait that increased his frontage limits a small amount on the offensive. That might help facilitate some more accurate historical outcomes of battles for the CSA in Virginia.