Any comments from people playing the campaign game?

[John_C]

Since I'm still waiting for the demo...just wanted to ask those people who are already inmershed in the full campaign game how is the experience going?

Is the way the campaign is conducted on both sides realistic? Historical?

Does one feel closer to the real experience of reliving the Civil War from the view point of the high command of each of the sides?

Any more positive or negative comments from anyone who is already well into the full campaign?

Thanks

[dinsdale]

Since I'm still waiting for the demo...just wanted to ask those people who are already inmershed in the full campaign game how is the experience going?

I tried one on easy to get a feel for the game after the tutorial. I've just started my first real campaign and it's been fantastic.

Is the way the campaign is conducted on both sides realistic? Historical?

I'm playing as the Union, about 9 months in. I won in Manasses, lost in Harpers Ferry but neither battle was decisive. Out west it's been mostly raids and I'm paralysed by bad leaders on both fronts. The Confederates have armies threatening on both the East and West, but neither of us are strong enough to do much damage. The AI has been quite aggressive, but inertia, terrain and the benefits of defensive war drive strategy.

Does one feel closer to the real experience of reliving the Civil War from the view point of the high command of each of the sides?

IMHO yes. It's a game about command, control and maneuver. These components seem to almost perfectly recreate Napoleonic army organization.

Any more positive or negative comments from anyone who is already well into the full campaign?

The only problem I've encountered is that it seems a bit too easy for the Union to do nothing. I accidentally stumbled into one battle and the Confederates attacked me in another, but aside from that I've been preparing for a long war and building an army which will be capable of accomplishing something. It's hindsight: I'm avoiding blundering about trying to win the war by Christmas and I think will add up to a significant advantage over history.

OTOH, I'm stretched thin and either my intelligence is faulty or the Confederates look to have very large forces moving toward both my fronts. I also don't know if doing nothing is going to be costly later as the Confederates may use this period of initiative to amass enough to hold out later, or get enough morale points to be able to defend to game end.

I think timing an offensive is going to be tricky. I don't really want to throw away the army it's been so difficult to create, and everywhere the Rebels look strong...... I feel a bit like McClennan

[dave]

i agree with dinsdale, it definately has the right 'feel'. i am playing my first game on normal difficulty as the south and i am really finding this game to be one of the best ive ever played (BTW ive had computers since the ZX81 so ive played a few games )

I love the way you are in charge of building forces and making grand moviements with your armies and then sitting back and hoping your generals follow them through, much like i would think Davis or Lincoln Did!!!

[jimkehn]

John C. I have been playing the Apr 61 campaign and am up to Late Feb 1862. The game is a blast of fun, and the more I play it the better I like it. It helps that Pocus and Crew have been so diligent fixing the small details. As the South, I waited too long to raise the war bonds and taxes to generate income, and also waited to long to implement the call to volunteers. It's kind of a learn as I go experience for me. Having been able to confiscate my subjects wealth a couple times, and press their sons into service, the South is now beginning to build a force resembling an army. The North has been rather aggressive at launching invasions from their forts they hold near Southern territory. One such saw Nathaniel Banks creep almost to Raleigh, NC. Braxton Bragg, In charge of a corps of South Carolinians chased him away. I have a couple brigades or so, now in charge of taking back Fort Morgan and the one beyond it....name escapes me. There have also been some raids into Mo., Ar., and Tx. by the North. Mostly Cavalry raids, but in Northeastern Missouri, some serious incursions by the north..Nathaniel Lyon. I am in control of Jefferson City and Springfield, but the North controls St. Louis and Rolla. Van Dorn took the small town in the Northeast, but can't remember the name. The North is building hard around Forts Henry and Donelson. Here is where my slothfulness in generating revenue and therefore troops is going to hurt. I don't think I can bring enough troops to bear to save those important guardians of the waterways. Had I not made the mistake I alluded to earlier, I may have been able to raise enough large Tennessee brigades to hold it. By the way, not sure if you know this, but there are, I think, 3 different variations of regular Tennessee Infantry Brigades. Not to mention the artillery, cavalry, militia, etc that you can raise in Tennesse (and all states). Leonidas Polk tried to take Louisville, but I didn't get him there in time with enough stuff to make it work. And, the North wrestled Lexington away, after trading hands a few times, from me shortly before Polk arrived in Louisville. I think this had a lot to do with his loss of supply, then winter set in, so I pulled him back to Huntsville to winter and rebuild. He is stronger now, but so is the North. In Northern Virginia, the North tried several times to take Manassas and Fredricksburg as well as Harper's Ferry. While they were able to take several of these, they weren't that hard to take them away once Jackson activated. Huger had a hard time taking Norfolk. I am sure I could have done that one better. Again, I'll blame it on not having raised sufficient funding early on. He finally got it, and now Longstreet's division is finally in position to assault Fort Monroe.

As for your question about is the campaign realistic and historical? Well, I don't know how you would define historical. It does not follow historical paths to a "T", but if it did, it would not be a game, but a movie. Is it realistic?? I think it is as realistic as we will ever get with today's technology. Does it feel like you have a position of high command?? Not only yeah, but hell yeah. Is it a fun game to play??? For me it is one of the best, if not THE best I have played. But then I like the logistical stuff of having to organize your troops, follow the command structure, etc., etc. Is it worth the money??? At twice the price. My question for you is.....why are you so adamant about waiting on the demo?? This game and this company has more than proven itself. My recommendation would be to forget the demo and buy the game. Like.....yesterday. And...oh yeah....I would suggest buying the game direct from AGEOD (not even sure it is offered anywhere else, yet), as this puts the most money back in their pocket to work on the next project. I promise you won't be sorry...IF...you take the time and effort to learn how and why the system works.

[Gargoyle]

The only problem I've encountered is that it seems a bit too easy for the Union to do nothing.

I'm having a simmilar experience, but...

It isn't so much that its easy to do nothing as its difficult to do something.

The low command of higher ranking Union Generals and the lack of Army HQs and the length of winter makes it impossible to attempt anything significant unitl spring of '62. Thats where I am now. So now we will see.

BTW, I am not complaining. I think this represents the reality of the situation facing the Union in the first year of the war very well.

[John_C]

Thanks jimkehn and others.
The reason I am so adamant about the demo is not because I doubt the game's quality, but I am not sure if it's going to be the style of game I am willing to play.
There are a lot of fantastic games out there. I can think of Europa Universalis, for example, same designer as this one. Great game but not my style, because there's too much going on and too much depth. I prefer a quicker fix if you like.
So, until I try out the demo and see how I actually feel with it, and if I am going to invest time in the learning curve, I won't be able to buy the game.

[jimkehn]

John C.
I understand your point. This is not beer and pretzel style like the old ACW game from the old S&T magazine. This game has a lotta meat. The mechanics aren't hard to play, but there is a lotta info to absorb.

[LAVA]

Well...

I'm playing the Union and I'm not holding back...

[SIZE="4"]THIS IS WAR![/size]



Ray (aka LAVA)

[Gargoyle]

Thanks jimkehn and others.
The reason I am so adamant about the demo is not because I doubt the game's quality, but I am not sure if it's going to be the style of game I am willing to play.
There are a lot of fantastic games out there. I can think of Europa Universalis, for example, same designer as this one. Great game but not my style, because there's too much going on and too much depth. I prefer a quicker fix if you like.
So, until I try out the demo and see how I actually feel with it, and if I am going to invest time in the learning curve, I won't be able to buy the game.

Ohhhh. I understand what your asking better now. I love HOI but hated EU. So I understand both sides of that type of game.

This game is much more user friendly. Very intuitive. Detail is extensive, but micromanagement is not. First of all, its turn based. Yes moves are executed by day, but orders given only once every 15 days.

This is a game of army organization and battle supported by your economic and political decisions. No sliders or resource gathering. Here you move your forces, request new units and replacements and sign bills into law. You do need to keep enough transit resources and keep supply lines open. But the game does all the movement of supplies.

Most of the game is spent organizing and moving your troops performing what I like to think of as operations. You really do have the frontal assaults, sieges and flanking manuevers like on the maps of civil war battles you see in the history books.

[John_C]

Ohhhh. I understand what your asking better now. I love HOI but hated EU. So I understand both sides of that type of game.

This game is much more user friendly. Very intuitive. Detail is extensive, but micromanagement is not. First of all, its turn based. Yes moves are executed by day, but orders given only once every 15 days.

This is a game of army organization and battle supported by your economic and political decisions. No sliders or resource gathering. Here you move your forces, request new units and replacements and sign bills into law. You do need to keep enough transit resources and keep supply lines open. But the game does all the movement of supplies.

Most of the game is spent organizing and moving your troops performing what I like to think of as operations. You really do have the frontal assaults, sieges and flanking manuevers like on the maps of civil war battles you see in the history books.

HOI is another great game, with a lot of details, but I never got into it for the same reasons as EU.

Thanks for the last comments. I feel quite confident about this AACW game, specially taking into account I've been waiting for a long time to have a PC game at the strategic level of the Civil War. In my cupboard I still have my old copy of the Boardgame "Civil War" by Victory Games, which I loved years ago when I still played boardgames. Have been waiting for a computer game all these years that would somehow be able to give me that same pleasure playing it as the mentioned Board Wargame gave me...


I started using computers when the ZX 81 came out too, only that I started with a ZX Spectrum myself. I have lived the history of computer games since its very beginning and was always fascinated by them. We've come a long way, I can tell you, but there's still some things missing, like for example a good Civil War game at the strategic level. Perhaps AACW is the one I've been waiting for. We shall soon see...

[Queeg]

I'm playing the April 61 scenario as the CSA. It's now January 1862, and the game is really starting to draw me in. The early turns of that scenario involve a lot of buying, building and moving units around. Things pick up considerably in late 1861, and I've had several large battles on both fronts.

The map is simply amazing. First, the size. There is plenty of room to maneuver and a wonderful sense of scope. Texas is a LONG way from Virginia, and it's easy to understand why the Confederacy had a a hard time defending New Orleans. The game really does have an epic scope.

The map also just "works" in terms of its effects. Everything feels right - terrain matters, weather matters, rail and water transport matters, supply matters. You really have to give serious thought to how to get your units where you want them when you want them there. Units that are low on supply or cohesion or strung out on the march fight at a serious disadvantage, and the game rewards careful planning and execution.

The army organization routine takes some time to learn but becomes second nature once you get the hang of it. New Armies and Divisions usually appear in your capital, which does require some micromanagement to move them to where they are needed, but I hope they adopt the suggestion of others here who have proposed that Divisions be buildable by state or region.

I now have a good-sized army in the East and the foundation for a comparable army in the West. The game does a great job of distinguishing between Militia and Regular units - the former being plentiful and immediately useful but relatively weak, and the latter being much more expensive and time-consuming but more powerful. You can have a Militia army that looks pretty impressive in terms of numbers of units, only to find it to be very fragile in action. As the war progresses, you realize that you need a solid core of strong, experienced regular units. And leaders make a big difference, as does organization.

I'm having a great time overall. The game plays out historically in the sense that the objectives and results are plausible. But the game doesn't march in lockstep with a history book. Just right, in my view.

I've done a fair amount of reloading to correct some stupid moves as I'm learning the game, so I'm doing pretty well. But the real Yankee onslaught is still to come, and I find the game plenty challenging. When I play through next time, and hold myself to my mistakes, I expect to have my hands full.

The level of micromanagement is just right for my tastes. The political and economic aspects of the game really take very little time but provide a reasonable number of options. I find myself spending most of my time, by far, organizing my units and figuring out where I want them to go and how to get them there - pretty much as I expect Lee and Grant did in real life.

[Queeg]

I enjoy this game much more than HOI. I found HOI to have too many moving parts that didn't always sync well. AACW is a much "tighter" game - much less mouse clicking and menu mining, and far more actual planning and executing. I really don't think AACW and HOI are comparable at all in terms of their respective levels of micromanagement.

[tc237]

John_C,
I was gonna scream "Just buy the game already!!" but you have your reasons for waiting and they are justified. I was burned by jumping the gun a few times on other games myself.

In regards to the micro-managing thing, I think it all has to do with the player's style.
While you do have to build units and move them to the front, it is up to each individual player on how much time and detail they want to spend on this aspect.
On one hand you can just build a bunch of units and when they are ready send them to the armies in most need.
On the other, you can sit down and meticulously plan out each campaign, where to build new units, how and where they will meet their army in the field, etc...

[Gargoyle]

I enjoy this game much more than HOI. I found HOI to have too many moving parts that didn't always sync well. AACW is a much "tighter" game - much less mouse clicking and menu mining, and far more actual planning and executing. I really don't think AACW and HOI are comparable at all in terms of their respective levels of micromanagement.

I was only using HOI and EU in comparison as very different than AACW, not simmilar. John C mentioned EU as to much micromanagement.

[DON]

I have played every strategic level boardgame that I think exists in regard to the Civil War. None of them have come close to the historical "feel" that this game has. As the commander-in-chief you are bedeviled with the same problems that Lincoln and Jefferson faced: incompetent or do-nothing generals, raising troops, raising money, building navies, building an economy to supply your forces, dealing with events that the game throws at you, the threat, or promise, of foreign intervention, directing your forces, keeping up national morale, etc. All this in a very playable system that emphasizes strategic decisions and not bookkeeping. It is truly a wargamer's dream come true.

[Queeg]

I was only using HOI and EU in comparison as very different than AACW, not simmilar. John C mentioned EU as to much micromanagement.

Understood. I was just using it as a point of reference too.

[Levis]

Not only does AACW recreate the "feel" of organizing armies and planning operations (including the frustrations of inept political generals) but it has one of the most (if not THE most) sophisticated AIs I have ever seen (and I've been around a long time).

I'm currently playing the July 1861 campaign as the South. Out west I am having great fun sending cavalry raids over the Ohio to tear up railroads and burn supplies to keep the Yanks from concentrating their forces. More interesting is what is happening in the East. Expecting a Union attack on Manassas, I sent Johnston's command there by rail on turn one. Instead, the AI attacked Harper's Ferry and began to march down the valley. I forstalled that with an attack on Alexandria, threatened Washington, and then dug in, waiting for a Union frontal assault against my prepared positions. The AI countered by spreading the Union army out between Washington and Harper's Ferry on the other side of the Potomac (which would force me to attack at unfavourable odds) while sending troops to Bulter at Fortress Monroe to march up the peninsula towards Richmond and landing troops by sea near Fredricksburg to try to cut my supply lines. Now I have to either weaken my main force in the face of a superior enemy, or order a general retreat.

When has an AI ever been able to do that?

[Queeg]

I have played every strategic level boardgame that I think exists in regard to the Civil War. None of them have come close to the historical "feel" that this game has. As the commander-in-chief you are bedeviled with the same problems that Lincoln and Jefferson faced: incompetent or do-nothing generals, raising troops, raising money, building navies, building an economy to supply your forces, dealing with events that the game throws at you, the threat, or promise, of foreign intervention, directing your forces, keeping up national morale, etc. All this in a very playable system that emphasizes strategic decisions and not bookkeeping. It is truly a wargamer's dream come true.

Agreed.

[Lascar]

Not only does AACW recreate the "feel" of organizing armies and planning operations (including the frustrations of inept political generals) but it has one of the most (if not THE most) sophisticated AIs I have ever seen (and I've been around a long time).

The AI countered by spreading the Union army out between Washington and Harper's Ferry on the other side of the Potomac (which would force me to attack at unfavourable odds) while sending troops to Bulter at Fortress Monroe to march up the peninsula towards Richmond and landing troops by sea near Fredricksburg to try to cut my supply lines. Now I have to either weaken my main force in the face of a superior enemy, or order a general retreat.

When has an AI ever been able to do that?

That sounds very impressive. But after playing BoA I am not surprised, Pocus is a brilliant developer. I think AGEOD is setting a new standard for the potential of historical computer wargames. Looking forward to playing ACW and any others that they produce.

Lascar

[pasternakski]

When has an AI ever been able to do that?

YasSUH! And under Pocus's tutelage, "she" will get better and better...

I wish those designers who wring their hands sorrowfully over their miserable creations and moan, "Oh, you just can't design a good AI for a computer wargame, and, besides, it takes too much time and effort" would pay closer attention to AGEod's work and learn from it.

But then, Dr. Frankenstein would probably send Igor out to steal Pocus's brain...

[John_C]

Queeg, thanks for your comment. It really is at the "Game Review" level and answers to what I was asking very efficiently. i like hearing things such as that:

"...The game really does have an epic scope.

The map also just "works" in terms of its effects. Everything feels right - terrain matters, weather matters, rail..."

Thanks

[John_C]

Thanks for this one. Very encouraging really.

I have played every strategic level boardgame that I think exists in regard to the Civil War. None of them have come close to the historical "feel" that this game has. As the commander-in-chief you are bedeviled with the same problems that Lincoln and Jefferson faced: incompetent or do-nothing generals, raising troops, raising money, building navies, building an economy to supply your forces, dealing with events that the game throws at you, the threat, or promise, of foreign intervention, directing your forces, keeping up national morale, etc. All this in a very playable system that emphasizes strategic decisions and not bookkeeping. It is truly a wargamer's dream come true.

[frank7350]

John- I understand your point about EU and HoI, I never really got into them either... I get all fired up to play them, and quickly become bored.

To be honest....it took me a while to even get into BoA. I'm glad I did, because this game's been a blast since early beta

[marecone]

Can't find right thread.
Guys playing grand campaign are really doing amazing work. When I read it, it is like reading about real war.
Well done gentlemen!

[NewAgeNapolean]

For those intrested in commenting on the Grand Campaign:
Click on the Grand Campaign Forum in The War Room
At the top of the page is a sub-forum entitled comments.
(had a hard time finding it myself the first time)
Please no spoilers in the open thread!
Thanks everyone
Thanks marecone

[Rafiki]

To add to what my esteemed opponent is saying:

For those intrested in commenting on the Grand Campaign:
Click on the Grand Campaign Forum in The War Room
At the top of the page is a sub-forum entitled comments.
(had a hard time finding it myself the first time)

http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=112

Please no spoilers in the open thread!

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3723

(If you wish to discuss "spoilerish", the thread of choice can be found at http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3722 )

Thanks everyone
Thanks marecone

Indeed