AGEOD Forums

For anyone who is unaware of them scourge of war are the best real time historically accurate battle/tactical civil war game ever made [ see scourge of war Gettysburg].



Given the same is true of civil war 2 on the grand strategic side, if they were to combine, none would ever buy another civil war game...ever. Is their any chance of something like this ever happening or just in my dreams?

I've played most of the Total War series. In one Western Roman Empire game I was able to win every single pitched battle in the campaign, about a hundred of them. I don't recommend it. When you click the "Next Turn" button, you need a lot of extra time on your hands if every few minutes you have to fight a tactical battle with thousands of soldiers that takes half an hour. It's interesting if you don't have a life.

Scourge of War: Gettysburg ist not from the Total War series. SoW:GB has one of the best AIs erver made.
http://www.scourgeofwar.com/index.shtml
You don't want to miss that ...

Well thank you, but the thread is about merging a strategy game with a real-time tactical game for the battles...like the Total War series. I've played a board game of Gettysburg, so I'm sure that I would enjoy this game too. Maybe I'll try the demo.

I must say that Gray Fox hits some nails here. Merging an operational game with a tactical one, if we suppose it's possible (at least twice as much work compared to creating a game on only one aspect) poses problems. To progress in the operational game, you need to spend 75% of your time in the tactical module. Plus, it is easy to abuse it and win against all odds.

Pocus wrote:Plus, it is easy to abuse it and win against all odds.

Winning 100 battles in a row wasn't that easy. After all, the odds are one in a thousand...billion billion billion.

Pocus wrote:I must say that Gray Fox hits some nails here. Merging an operational game with a tactical one, if we suppose it's possible (at least twice as much work compared to creating a game on only one aspect) poses problems. To progress in the operational game, you need to spend 75% of your time in the tactical module. Plus, it is easy to abuse it and win against all odds.

I agree somewhat, that is why i would suggest options. Such as maybe battles for only division level or higher option, battles must be agreed upon by both players [if pbem] or simply a option do you wish to fight on map? I for one would rather fight a single war with battles that make the war longer, than multiple without.

I don't know about the more recent Total War games, but the old ones I played never had multiplayer in the strategic level, only in the tactical. That was a real letdown for me.

Forge of Freedom by Matrix does both now but not on the scale that AGEOD does with the strategy available in CW2. They have
released a tactical version of Forge of Freedom recently with no strategic option.

Cardinal Ape wrote:I don't know about the more recent Total War games, but the old ones I played never had multiplayer in the strategic level, only in the tactical. That was a real letdown for me.

they did add it starting with empire total war. Me and my brother played a epic war on the campaign map and faught all the batteles best war ever. We had over 200,000 causalities each side in the war. To me a civil war game would be perfect for that.

Mixed games always kind of bored me, all the way back to Archon on my Atari 400 in the 80s. It was a kind of battle chess. In the end, it came down to being good at shooting with your manticore. There was no real need to be good at the strategic part because I could win at the tactical part every time against the computer, and most of the time against my sister or friends. Total War games reminded me of Archon every time I played them: it didn't really matter what I was doing on the big board, I could pretty much win every battle, so the strategic part of the game faded into the background.

I like to play strategy games, and I don;t like multiplayer computer games of almost any type, so for me AGEOD titles are great in that they don't distract me with battle cutscenes that break the strategic immersion I am looking for. For me (and tastes vary, I recognize I am a grognard) AGEOD games scratch my itch for the old Avalon Hill bookshelf games that I loved as a kid but never got to play because my friends thought they were boring and took ten hours to play. Not that a well done stategic/tactical game couldn't be cool, but I would rather see an improved AI for the game we have than a tactical component.

TLDR: What Fox said.

plasticpanzers wrote:Forge of Freedom by Matrix does both now but not on the scale that AGEOD does with the strategy available in CW2. They have
released a tactical version of Forge of Freedom recently with no strategic option.

if they were to do something with battles i would want it done right, no offence to fof but just not near the level of scourge of war.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Mixed games always kind of bored me, all the way back to Archon on my Atari 400 in the 80s. It was a kind of battle chess. In the end, it came down to being good at shooting with your manticore. There was no real need to be good at the strategic part because I could win at the tactical part every time against the computer, and most of the time against my sister or friends. Total War games reminded me of Archon every time I played them: it didn't really matter what I was doing on the big board, I could pretty much win every battle, so the strategic part of the game faded into the background.

I like to play strategy games, and I don;t like multiplayer computer games of almost any type, so for me AGEOD titles are great in that they don't distract me with battle cutscenes that break the strategic immersion I am looking for. For me (and tastes vary, I recognize I am a grognard) AGEOD games scratch my itch for the old Avalon Hill bookshelf games that I loved as a kid but never got to play because my friends thought they were boring and took ten hours to play. Not that a well done stategic/tactical game couldn't be cool, but I would rather see an improved AI for the game we have than a tactical component.

TLDR: What Fox said.

I agree, just the reason a scourge of war mix would be perfect, not a tw ai mix. Also if they were to mix, than many would buy game just for battles, and many would buy game just for the grand strategy, we all come away well off. Both have made great games, just add them/put together. Even in TW you have option to fight on map or auto resolve. To me with realistic battles that would just enhance the immersion.

ArmChairGeneral wrote:Mixed games always kind of bored me, all the way back to Archon on my Atari 400 in the 80s.

My first real computer! I remember that game too. Had a lot of fun
with it, and another called Galaxy that you could even play with friends.
Younger people today don't know how good they have it though compared
to the graphics from back then! Nor do they know how to bend a tape back
after waiting for 13 of the 15 minutes to load a program only to find a kink
that crashes the load! I really don't miss those days at all

ArmChairGeneral wrote: AGEOD games scratch my itch for the old Avalon Hill bookshelf games that I loved as a kid but never got to play because my friends thought they were boring and took ten hours to play.

I had a few friends that played but schedules often got in the
way. Did you ever try that abomination they came out with
for computers that was supposed to simulate the Victory Games
The Civil War? It was horrible, with graphics like this

[ATTACH]33582[/ATTACH]

I view AGEOD's civil war games, especially CW2, as a good
reproduction of that most excellent game from Victory. Of
all the AH games I played that, and 3rd Reich were my favs

Pocus wrote:I must say that Gray Fox hits some nails here. Merging an operational game with a tactical one, if we suppose it's possible (at least twice as much work compared to creating a game on only one aspect) poses problems. To progress in the operational game, you need to spend 75% of your time in the tactical module. Plus, it is easy to abuse it and win against all odds.

I would put an export button on the CW2 battle screen to export the armies' data in the Scourge of War format (excel csv file)
and let the player decide how to play the battle (and later import the result). One must own SoW:GB for this and have some
mods installed for user maps etc, but it's all here today. This is most possible minimal work for the developers i can think of.

And how you would get back the end result in CW2? You would create a new scenario using the new data? I imagine very few people actually doing that, sorry.

The idea sound fun for when you've got the inkling to make cannonballs fly and rifles thunder... or was it the other way around

Anyway, I'm missing a part. The regions are big. Shove two forces into a single region and in reality there's going to be a lot of maneuvering before the first shot is fired. The operational level where roads, hills, creaks and fields all play an integral role. Something on the scale of the GCACW series GREAT CAMPAIGNS OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, but who's going to do the entire country on maps at that scale so that battles would take place simply where they took place and not the same hill over and over again, and playing one game would take as long as the war actually did....

Pocus wrote:And how you would get back the end result in CW2? You would create a new scenario using the new data? I imagine very few people actually doing that, sorry.

SoW stores the battle result (unit stats etc) in a csv-file. It would have to be imported and, after a required fix or modification, used as the battle's result.
I can't see a new scenario therein?

One of the first Civil War Games on the Grand Strategy level, the American Civil War or something like that, was a dual strategy and tactical game. The tactical battles were abstracted a bit, along the lines of some of the Napoleonic games. You would have cavalry, artillery and infantry markers that you could set up in a battle formation then move them around on a turn by turn basis to resolve the tactical battle. It seemed to take forever. As stated, the game will drag no and one. Not sure how old some of you are on here. I am nearly 60 and have been a gamer since I was 16 or so, starting with the original Blitzkrieg board game back in the late 1960's. I still have it, but computer games give you the luxury of not having to look as hard for a live opponent. I was out of gaming for a while, say about two decades, which began when I discovered girls, and I started gaming again when I got married. So gaming is very much time dependent and subject to other more primary interests...lol.

Godagesil wrote:One of the first Civil War Games on the Grand Strategy level, the American Civil War or something like that, was a dual strategy and tactical game. The tactical battles were abstracted a bit, along the lines of some of the Napoleonic games. You would have cavalry, artillery and infantry markers that you could set up in a battle formation then move them around on a turn by turn basis to resolve the tactical battle. It seemed to take forever. As stated, the game will drag no and one. Not sure how old some of you are on here. I am nearly 60 and have been a gamer since I was 16 or so, starting with the original Blitzkrieg board game back in the late 1960's. I still have it, but computer games give you the luxury of not having to look as hard for a live opponent. I was out of gaming for a while, say about two decades, which began when I discovered girls, and I started gaming again when I got married. So gaming is very much time dependent and subject to other more primary interests...lol.

option to chose what battels [if any] you would want to fight would help with that.

CW2 is ultimate enough for me. I know enough elements are factored in
to make the battles as realistic as possible. I have enjoyed those games
mentioned where you micromanage regiments or brigades but that just
seems like too much work to add to a strategic level game.

Europa Universalis II was a quality RTS. Combo'd Grand Strategy but you don't use battlefields. Gamy tactics would be used. One game I ate a million enemy over a 100 years Pre-Napoleonic cause I found a game sinkhole.

Played a lot of tactical and strategic combos but it's hard to come up with a highbred that is beautiful plus could ever blend the realities of war perfectly. It would require a lot more processing than anyone could dream up with todays technology to please me.

DrPostman wrote:CW2 is ultimate enough for me. I know enough elements are factored in
to make the battles as realistic as possible. I have enjoyed those games
mentioned where you micromanage regiments or brigades but that just
seems like too much work to add to a strategic level game.

1stvermont wrote:option to chose what battels [if any] you would want to fight would help with that.

Exactly. Lots of talk about mixing tactical/strategic side by side here, not much about merging.

I've worked on a system that allows you to zoom in like a google map--send in WEGO orders to army commands and leave it at that, or corp commands, divisional, right down to a particular tactical battle using sub-divisional deployments on a "real" topographical map. The replay will play out specific tactical or operational level battles you choose to micro-manage--but since it's merged you are not obliged to.
It's a long-term project still playtesting (8 years later).


Edit: It's focus is the Ostfront 1941-45, not ACW.