Should I get this game?

[KillCalvalry]

I am a major Civil War nut. I am a dedicated WITP player, because I love the level of detail and historical accuracy. I am a real stickler though for games that produce historically possible results. Should I get this game?

I have Birth of America, and though I like the game, I wasn't going to buy ACW on the same engine. The biggest problem I had with BoA was the Uber-Stacks, and unrealistic combat results where an entire side would usually get wiped out. Cavalry was particularly vulnerable, and would almost never survive a pitched battle.

I understand there have been changes, so tell me:

1. Is it possible to create monster armies that everything bounce off of, or no?
2. Are battle casualties usually in the 1/3 or less category?

#2 is important. The ONLY forces that were wiped out IRL were either in Fortresses (Vicksburg, Donelson, etc), or Garrisons that were cut off and in a hopeless position, led by timid leaders, against aggressive ones (Harpers Ferry, Murfreesboro-Forrest Capture, etc), and the only Army-sized bag was Vicksburg, after a siege of a couple months.

Please give me an honest opinion, because it does look good.

[Bodders]

On your list, #1 is largely fixed by the command chain rules. Each stack can only gain a certain benefit from leaders so a really large stack will suffer the greatest possible penalty. You're better off with mutually supporting corps keeping to command point limits.

To be fair to you, I have to say I don't think #2 will have been solved to your satisfaction. In PBEM games maybe you don't see large army losses but against the AI there'll definitely be times where large forces are wiped out to a man (most taken prisoner, to be fair). There will also be plenty of times small 'raiding' cavalry will be wiped out, although you could rationalise that as out of logistical support and they head home. It may be possible to mod this to where casualties are acceptable to you or it may be an engine issue.

Others may argue that with two 'intelligent' opponents (i.e. non AI) then the results make more sense. However, even then I bet you see entire (smaller)forces wiped out more than you'd like to see. Personally I can rationalise as desertions/running away to be re-constituted later or whatever but I can understand if it's a sticking point to others.

Why not download the demo and give it a try, anyway?

[joram]

I also have BoA and the first thing I will say in general is that the game mechanics have been improved quite a bit. To answer your specific questions though:

1. Not really, I believe you could stack commanders in BoA to give you those monster stacks but in AACW there is a upper limit to command. So if you create too large an army, you will suffer severe movement and combat penalties. I really like the new army dynamic they added where you form armies and divisions in the army. The Army leader can give bonuses (or detriments if they are particularly bad) to it's subordinate Division leaders. Properly positioned, they can help each other out in adjacent provinces too so you don't need to stack everything in one province.

2. Usually, yes, always, not sure. I haven't played 1.06 (I've played everything up to it though) but I think they tempered the combat more due to player feedback. I never had issues with it before but on occasion (in my opinion) there were odd results of leaders fighting to the death and losing their whole command. Someone else would have to comment on this for 1.06. You'll be happy to know that cavalry don't ride on glass horses anymore too!

[emu]

Get it. I play a lot of wargames, WITP included, and this one is special. Just finished my first campaign (April 61) as Union and though I went all out printing money etc to produce the biggest armies asap to nail the CSA before it could get on a roll, it still took until Jan 63 to win. I didn't stop for winter though it certainly slowed me down. According to Brassey's almanac the 50 major battles of the civil war resulted in ca 252,000 csa casualties and 256,000 on the union side. I was very careful in picking the battles I wanted to fight and usually had numbers on my side(lost when I didn't). CSA lost ca 292,000 (incl. or plus 60,000 prisoners - not sure about this) and union ca 165,000. Huge numbers of CSA losses came in the closing months when out of supply/ low supply armies were hit by a succession of well supplied corps. A number of AI etc improvements occurred whilst I played with more to come so I doubt it would be this 'easy' in a second game. There are also some mods that look like they really could fine tune the game, leader mods in particular.

Negatives:
(personal opinion only) Some of the events that sprinkle the game make no sense in terms of actual game development but appear anyway. The late fall/ winter weather in a number of southern regions is ridiculous(blizzards etc). There has been a lot of weather improvement discussions so I think AGEOD will fine tune this one once they get back from vacation.

The AI still needs some improvement so it better defends the road to Richmond. Too many troops were tied up in Winchester instead of defending Manassas or Fredericksburg. I have also never seen a successful counterattack(which should have eventuated after I took Norfolk and New Orleans). NO was counterattacked a turn(2 weeks) late and thus failed. Richmond and Petersburg had the troops to make Norfolk a costly mistake but they stayed there. Still, given the scope, the ai has done well and my current opinion may well change after a full campaign fighting the latest v1.06 ai. I am trying the CSA next

[PBBoeye]

As far as the weather and events, all of that is within our reach to modify.

As for the AI, that is in Pocus' hands, and I am sure he is intent on improving it. That being said, an AI is still an AI...

[bloodybucket]

In regards to your question about historically possible results, I would say that's a yes, within the limits of the AI. I'm very confident that with a few tweaks that are going to be implemented by AGEOD or the using community, the results will only get more plausible, even with the AI in command.

Given your preferences and your concerns, I'd say this game is a go for you. You can get a good sense of the mechanics from the demo, but the full game has a more of a sense of the sweep of events. When playing, I truly feel that I'm getting a better understanding of the war, and I get involved in the unfolding events.

[General Quarters]

For me, AACW has a bit too much detail, but it sounds as if that would be a big plus for you. I have noticed that a lot of people who like AACW also are fans of WitP. Obviously, try the demo first, but if you are a Civil War buff, I would give 10 to 1 odds that you will like this game.

[KillCalvalry]

Great feedback guys, thanks! I think I'll get it for PBEM play. Are there alot of PBEM games going on?

Smaller forces getting wiped out by large ones is realistic and historic. I can think of a couple examples (the Front Royal Garrison captured in '62, Harpers Ferry). But in large battles, the absolute bloodiest produced 1/3 casualties a side, and even then some of those were wounded and back in action shortly.

But I'm getting it, I'll practice up against AI and find an opponent

[Hobbes]

Wise decision

Not sure how many PBEM's are going on as there is nowhere to report games.
I'm playing one though and thoroughly enjoying it.

Cheers, Chris

[Jacek]

KillCalvarly, you can always download the AACW demo.

[WhoCares]

Wise decision

Not sure how many PBEM's are going on as there is nowhere to report games.
I'm playing one though and thoroughly enjoying it.

Cheers, Chris

What do you mean by reporting PBEMs? If it is about writing an AAR, there is a section here in the forum to do so: AACW AARs

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Hobbes]

I was really just thinking about a forum like Blitz where they record completed PBEM games and victory levels so you can get an idea of scenario balance.

Cheers, Chris

[WhoCares]

I'm sure Hobbes is referring to a thread for PBEMers to post to in order to find other PBEMers.

I see, in this case there is not just a thread but another sub-forum just for this purpose, PBEM [SIZE="1"](Looking for an opponent? Register here! Vous cherchez un adversaire? C'est ici!)[/size]

[blackbellamy]

2. Are battle casualties usually in the 1/3 or less category?

I just had a bad experience where one of my entrenched Union corps was attacked cross-river by an inferior force. Final result 4k Union casualties and 32k Rebel casualties (entire Reb force wiped out end of second day).

I looked at the log and every round it was the same thing: The rebel force doesn't need to retreat. The rebel force doesn't need to retreat. The rebel force doesn't need to retreat. And then they were no more. So it's not like they were trying to retreat across the river and couldn't, they just fought on until all were dead.

I was examining the battle log and that whole situation for a long time to see how that could have happened, but couldn't come up with anything. The AI aggressiveness was set to normal too. Personally I would never have ordered the attack to begin with, considering there wasn't a single factor in the Rebel favor (numbers, river, entrenchement), but that's ok, commander initiative and all. Still, once things started going south the rebs should have looked to retreat, but no.

Anyway, that's not representative of my typical large battle result. Most of the time the casualties are in line. I'm just scratching my head on that one because it just happened last night and it was a turning-point event.

[Drakken]

What's the difference between this and real-life Fredericksburg? Burnside didn't have to send wave after wave of Infantry brigades to attempt to budge the Rebels out of their entrenchements at Marye's Heights, but he did nonetheless, taking huge casualties in the process for no ground taken.

The only difference is the whole force surrendered or getting wiped out in the process. That worries me. I can accept that it can happen rarely in very desperate circumstances (like in the Battle of Nashville). However, it should be very, very rare and never when a province is available to retreat. Most of the time, the army should attempt to pull out as soon as the casualties taken outweight the value of the objective.

[Mike]

1. Is it possible to create monster armies that everything bounce off of, or no?
2. Are battle casualties usually in the 1/3 or less category?

#2 is important. The ONLY forces that were wiped out IRL were either in Fortresses (Vicksburg, Donelson, etc), or Garrisons that were cut off and in a hopeless position, led by timid leaders, against aggressive ones (Harpers Ferry, Murfreesboro-Forrest Capture, etc), and the only Army-sized bag was Vicksburg, after a siege of a couple months.

Please give me an honest opinion, because it does look good.[/QUOTE]


Haven't seen the monster army problem. Jackson usually has his way with my army no matter what size they are.

#2 has not been solved IMO. Most of the battles are fine, with losses a tad lop-sided, but within reason. However, I recently had my Army of the Potomac under McDowell pummelled by Lee and Jackson. No problem losing the battle, but the losses were 16500 to 3500. The worst was the part of the army that took the brunt of the losses was the army HQ and my supply trains... completely wiped out despite 4 corps being in the area or adjacent to it.

Also some funny things happen that don't make sense. I've got an army under Burnside out on the outer banks being besieged by a much smaller force under Joe Johnson. No matter what orders I give, I can't get Burnside to leave the fort to give battle. I am reduced every turn by a few points and the besieging army takes no losses. I have 4 fleets bombarding Johnson to no effect, and have landed forces in Moorhead City and cut Johnson off. My opponant tells me Johnson's supply situation if fine. I think Burnside will eventually be destroyed if I stay there. I'm giving up the fort, loading Burnside on my boats and trying something else.

Also I've got Grant who can't do anything in the west against Albert Sidney. He gets his butt stomped at every turn though he outnumbers Johnson. He is in danger of being wiped out along with Sherman and Thomas.

I don't see that a Union player can duplicate anything even remotely close to historical results in '62.

However this is the best ACW game out there IMO. And AGEod keeps working on fixing the issues. I'll keep playing this for a while.

[McNaughton]

Also some funny things happen that don't make sense. I've got an army under Burnside out on the outer banks being besieged by a much smaller force under Joe Johnson. No matter what orders I give, I can't get Burnside to leave the fort to give battle. I am reduced every turn by a few points and the besieging army takes no losses. I have 4 fleets bombarding Johnson to no effect, and have landed forces in Moorhead City and cut Johnson off. My opponant tells me Johnson's supply situation if fine. I think Burnside will eventually be destroyed if I stay there. I'm giving up the fort, loading Burnside on my boats and trying something else.

Is Burnside activated? If he isn't he can only be set on defensive, and thereby will not engage Johnson unless Johnson attacks. Do you press 'sally from the fort', or do you manually move the stack out of the city? Your best bet is to send a relief force under the command of someone with high Command ratings, to rescue Burnside. Pretty realistic IMO (Rosecrans was caught at Chatenooga by a smaller force under Bragg's command and had to wait for Grant to rescue him).

Also I've got Grant who can't do anything in the west against Albert Sidney. He gets his butt stomped at every turn though he outnumbers Johnson. He is in danger of being wiped out along with Sherman and Thomas.

This is a pretty elusive statement. How are your forces compared to his (amount of artillery, infantry, cavalry, supply, etc.). Are you in full supply? Are you attacking or defending in most of your battles? Are you activating your commanders to be more aggressive? What terrain are you fighting over? There are countless reasons for being defeated, and just because you command a 'good' general and a lot of men does not mean that they will win their battles.

I don't see that a Union player can duplicate anything even remotely close to historical results in '62.

However this is the best ACW game out there IMO. And AGEod keeps working on fixing the issues. I'll keep playing this for a while.

Here I agree, as there isn't the infrastructure in place for the Union to build their army to 1862 levels if you start in 1861 (not enough men, money, or equipment).

[anarchyintheuk]

For most of the lopsided battle results that I've seen there have been explanations, the most dangerous one being the "retreat to town" button. If a defending army retreats to a town in its province after losing a battle and the attacking army has assault posture on, it's going to be a beat down.

OT: It's not easy getting Grant, Meade, Sherman and Thomas their promotions consistent w/ their historical ones.

Forgot to add . . . get this game.

[KillCalvalry]

If the Union can't produce historical results in '62, that doesn't bother me. That makes it a closer game. It would bother me, though, if the South was consistently on the strategic offensive, invading Indiana, beseiging Cincinnatti, etc, against a good Union opponent. But having it more even, not a problem.

WITP is like that, there are some changes to help the Jap generally. You have to give the South a little help, so they don't get steamrolled and make it boring.

[Spharv2]

What's the difference between this and real-life Fredericksburg? Burnside didn't have to send wave after wave of Infantry brigades to attempt to budge the Rebels out of their entrenchements at Marye's Heights, but he did nonetheless, taking huge casualties in the process for no ground taken.

The only difference is the whole force surrendered or getting wiped out in the process. That worries me. I can accept that it can happen rarely in very desperate circumstances (like in the Battle of Nashville). However, it should be very, very rare and never when a province is available to retreat. Most of the time, the army should attempt to pull out as soon as the casualties taken outweight the value of the objective.

Imagine what might have happened had the Union at Fredricksburg not had such a commanding artillery position on the opposite shore of the river. Jackson wanted to attack and push the AoP after they had been repulsed, but couldn't because of those positions. If those weren't in place, and an exhausted and whipped Union army gets pushed back against the river, who knows what happens? It's hard enough getting an army across pontoons when you're not being fired on, imagine the chaos that would occur if they were trying like hell to get away from an advancing and victorious ANV after the day's pointless attacks up the hill.

I do agree though, the AI needs to retreat sooner in some cases. Tricky though, getting the balance just right. If you set the threshold too low, then everyone complains about not being able to press attacks. If the casualties are too one sided for an extended period an attempt to retreat should be made. But if it's just an even, or close to even, slugfest, maybe you'd prefer they try to fight it out.

[Jabberwock]

If the Union can't produce historical results in '62, that doesn't bother me. That makes it a closer game. It would bother me, though, if the South was consistently on the strategic offensive, invading Indiana, beseiging Cincinnatti, etc, against a good Union opponent. But having it more even, not a problem.

I've done the offensive strategy for the South. You can do those sort of things against the AI, but if you are in a PBEM, it is a whole different game. I got my posterior booted trying some of the stuff I've posted on the forum against a good Union opponent.

[Spruce]

there should be a law against "not having" this game

[Queeg]

Get the game. It's well worth it.

As to casualties, they usually are fine. Sometimes, though, the AI seems to fight to the death far more than is realistic. My own view is that it is an artifact of the 15-day turn. Instead of fighting for a day or two and then backing off, the AI sometimes decides it needs to fight virtually every day for the whole turn. Still needs some tweaking.

[richfed]

All I can say is I have enjoyed many hours of playing this wonderful game. The support is tremendous, and you can count on the game getting even better.

[blackbellamy]

Also some funny things happen that don't make sense. I've got an army under Burnside out on the outer banks being besieged by a much smaller force under Joe Johnson. No matter what orders I give, I can't get Burnside to leave the fort to give battle.

I bet you anything Burnside's force includes a static unit that can't move. Like that artillery you captured when you initially took the place.

[Wardyr]

Wise decision

Not sure how many PBEM's are going on as there is nowhere to report games.
I'm playing one though and thoroughly enjoying it.

Cheers, Chris

In the War Room there is a PBEM thread where people post there games as well as looking for opponents.

[Mike]

I bet you anything Burnside's force includes a static unit that can't move. Like that artillery you captured when you initially took the place.

I kept those boys in a seperate force, but I'll double check that one again.

[tagwyn]

Is there a demo for WitP? If you have to give artificial help to the Nipponese, then what value is the game? Tag

[Sheytan]

the AI has some real problems with fuel management. among other issues. the game itself however is one outstanding piece of work. play a pbem to understand this. a human player isnt going to let thier fleets run out of fuel in the middle of the pacific, the AI does this. but the tools to recreate a really epic and looooonggg pbem game are there. I assure you, you will be biting your fingernails as a enemy airstrike hits your carriers, and you will quake in fear hoping...your carriers dont get tagged :}

Is there a demo for WitP? If you have to give artificial help to the Nipponese, then what value is the game? Tag