AGEOD Forums

The demo has convinced me that AACW should be in my library of games.

My knowledge of the ACW is limited to most of the usual sources for a non-serious enthusiast, I'd guess: Shelby Foote's trilogy, Catton, McPherson, the Burns documentary, the Time-Life series, Shaara, Crane, some boardgames back in the day (VG's Civil War, some SPI and AH battle specific games, GDW's A House Divided). Add to that the usual mass media influences (Gone With the Wind, Glory, etc) a few trips to the region and a military background, and the result is what I would call above average knowledge but no expertise.

The game has some outstanding features, what the boardgaming community used to call "chrome" or little things that add to the atmosphere: I find the graphics evocative of the subject, the music superb and the sounds pretty good, and there is an attention to detail that adds a lot- who wants a generic medical unit when they can have the services of the YMCA!

My extremely limited time with the demo seems to give historically plausible results, and it "feels" like a ACW game should, with the Union having more stuff and less battlefield leadership at the start, and the Rebs having just the opposite.

I'm curious as to how others here view AACW in this context. Do you think of it as a valid reflection of the realities of the event, perhaps even a tool to use to achieve a better understanding of history, or merely as a game that has enough "chrome" and detail to feel evocative without being, for lack of a better term, "scholarly"? Are there specific issues that are either immersion history killers?

Some examples from other games I enjoy...Gary Grigsby's World at War is a fairly light, fun (IMO) WWII themed game that reflects some of the basic issues faced by the WWII strategists, but there are some things that occur in game that make it (for me at least) more of a WWII themed entertainment than a serious gateway to understanding the history involved. It has a low level of chrome, but enough to keep it from being too generic.

I found Rome: Total War to be a fun chrome-fest that felt truly Roman, was a hoot to play and had enough historical flaws (many intentionally put there for the sake of the game, I think) that I never got the "this is how it must have been" feeling, but more of a "this is how a 1960 movie starring Kirk Douglas and flaming pigs would have been" feeling.

Where do you think AACW stacks up here?

It's pretty hard to put the game into perspective, having not finished the grand campaign yet. But I'm finding that one of the chief strengths of this game is that it is capturing not only the flavor of the war, but particularly the strategic decisions that needed to be made. While Forge of Freedom caught the flavor of the time in spades, it broke down with the focus on "choosing" technological advancements, which took it out of the realm of simulation and into that of empire building war games such as Europa Universalis.

Last year, I thought Take Command: Second Manassas and Conquest of the Aegean were the two best titles. So far this year, my vote is going to AACW. A big thumbs up on my end.

That's an interesting observation. Tech trees seem to be a natural in SciFi and WWII settings, but for some reason I just don't see them as belonging in a ACW game.

bloodybucket wrote:That's an interesting observation. Tech trees seem to be a natural in SciFi and WWII settings, but for some reason I just don't see them as belonging in a ACW game.

Concur on tech trees. No place here.

The game really does give you that chrome feel. The activation rule in particular is excellent -- playing with some of the settings so units can be further delayed is also a very realistic touch. Generalship and the coordination of large bodies of troops in a complex campaign was so hard to do and this game does reflect that.

You'll also find that the development team is excellent and are very responsive to good ideas that further the game -- so the AACW as you see it now is still not at its ultimate level. Refinements will continue as we, the community identify needs.

I don't know about "tech trees" as such in ACW, but I saw a list on a ACW website showing about 40 technological advances during the war. The most famous, I suppose, was the Monitor, but some others probably had a greater impact. The list might have included organizational and logistical innovations as well as hardware.

As you say, AACW just 'feels' right. My only concern is the combat and weather models may need some tweeking, but AGEod seems commited to doing needed fine tuning. This is the best strategic/operational level ACW game since the Victory Games board game 25 years ago.

General Quarters wrote:I don't know about "tech trees" as such in ACW, but I saw a list on a ACW website showing about 40 technological advances during the war. The most famous, I suppose, was the Monitor, but some others probably had a greater impact. The list might have included organizational and logistical innovations as well as hardware.

The American Civil war literally was the first conflict, worldwide, to usher in the "modern era" of fighting. The principal advancements, including including submarines (Hunley did sink one ship!), ironclad ships, steam-powered warships, carbines, rifles, breech-loading rifles, the Gatling gun, and trench warfare - all got their first taste of large-scale warfare in the 1861-65 conflict.

IMHO, these events should just happen (as they do in AACW). I don't like having to choose between Advanced Espionage II or Level III Industrial Repair in a war game of this type. In EU, HOI and Civ it's fine.