Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:38 pm
I understand that the player wants absolute control and micro-management about everything, that is the biggest request in every game I have been playing, discussing, or involved in. However, a good game forces things out of the player's control, so you avoid the 'winning by micro-managing' strategies that have become commonplace. In life, you can do your best to prepare, but eventually you have to hand off the reigns to someone else to actually go through. I view AACW as you are the strategic head of everything, you assign commanders and dictate where they go, but it is up to them to actually fight out the battles. As a leader, you put your best men and best leaders (if possible) in the best situations, and it is up to them to organize the battles.
With more control you really eliminate the issues of poor leadership, or awesome leadership, as you now take the role of Robert E Lee and George B McClellan. Very few players will play like McClellan, so the Union will win in the first few battles (one of the reasons why AACW is good, because you are stuck with your poor generals as the Union).