How much Replayability?

[John_C]

Wondering, won't the game become repetitive after a while, specially the beginning moves of the grand campaign in the East?

Does anyone have enough experience with the game to give his opinion on its replayability?

And, overall, doesn't the South stand to always lose in the Grand campaign as happened in reality?

[Hell Patrol]

Funny, i'm sure you'll get other responses but i initially pondered this question as well. I have not had the game play out the same way once, even the small scenarios are always different and the Ai is not predictable either. There are SO many strategies to try, not to mention force makeup, that i don't see it getting old anytime soon. The big Campaigns will take alot longer, and IMHO have INFINITE replayability. Then you add the constant tweaks, additions like we were spoiled with in BoA and it just keeps getting better.

[John_C]

Good to hear that...

[Korrigan]

Given time, we also plan to implement new campaigns that could not make it for release date.

[frank7350]

i don't even remember how many games i started in beta....each one began differently...

[pasternakski]

Well, and let me add one humble comment...

The eastern theater can take on any number of shapes depending on the strategies employed by both sides.

Just as one example, I have wondered what would have happened if, instead of expending the Confederacy's scant resources hammering and hammering away at the Union in its strongest area, Lee had undertaken a different approach that might have better applied his leadership and mobility advantages in, say, a campaign to "split the Union" by driving north through western Pennsylvania or eastern Ohio to Lake Erie, then turning east to complete a massive envelopment. Whether he could have left sufficient competent force to hold off the Army of the Potomac before Richmond would have been one of the more delicate calculations - and risks - in such a move.

The possibilities are myriad on both sides. Once I reach a decent level of competency, I plan to try out any number of madman schemes ... perhaps even by PBEM against some of you critters ...

[Chamberlain]

Funny, i'm sure you'll get other responses but i initially pondered this question as well. I have not had the game play out the same way once, even the small scenarios are always different and the Ai is not predictable either. There are SO many strategies to try, not to mention force makeup, that i don't see it getting old anytime soon. The big Campaigns will take alot longer, and IMHO have INFINITE replayability. Then you add the constant tweaks, additions like we were spoiled with in BoA and it just keeps getting better.

Hell Patrol,

Thanks.

This is good news to hear

I was also wondering the thing as I am about to start a Scenario as I am finished with the tutorials.

Chamberlain

[Rafiki]

I think "infinite replayability" might be a bit too strong

However, the way I see it, for the Union player alone, there are quite a number of strategic options that need to be weighed against eachother already from the start, e.g.

- Do you pursue an East, West or balanced strategy?
- Do you hold back to build up your forces, or do "go for it" aggressively?
- Do you devote your resources to industrialization for the long run, or do you opt for a potenial force-wise edge here and now?
- How much emphasis do you give to the navy? (A significant navy is *expensive* to say the least )

Do some combinations of these, and you have enough material for interesting games the next year or so, at least

[Hell Patrol]

I think "infinite replayability" might be a bit too strong

Do some combinations of these, and you have enough material for interesting games the next year or so, at least

It would be nigh impossible to calculate game time considering force-makeup and strategy pursued .
Chess is also a game of infinite replayability...it takes years to master .

[jimwinsor]

I think the events are somewhat randomized too, leading to game variations here and there.

[Rafiki]

One thing I think will be interesting, is to run a game with all leader abilities fully randomized

[Gargoyle]

AACW has more replayability than I'll ever be able to exhaust. I played BoA twice thru, once each side (won both). I loved BoA but I'm sure that BoA has quite a bit less replay value than AACW.

Edit: Possible game feature: Have the game do some kind of evaluation at the end to determine a projected future of the side/sides. Put that in a story format to "Treat" the player for making to the end of the game, lol.

[Reiryc]

I haven't found the replayability to be an issue.

I find that I try different things all the time. I've even built up a sizable confederate navy, but the land portion of the war didn't go so well for that achievement. leure:

I think I might be able to correct that, but only against the AI methinks.

[Snoob]

One thing I think will be interesting, is to run a game with all leader abilities fully randomized

I considered that, but from the test campaigns I've been playing, a lot seems to depend on the Union leaders' inability to act as agressive generals.

In this sense, a couple of competent 2 or 3 star generals (apart from the lone 1-star Hooker) would act as a significant advantage for the Union.

Still, I agree it'd be interesting to get an incompetent Lee (oh, the blasphemy) or something like that...not sure how long the game would last, though...

[Rafiki]

I couldn't agree more

[DennyWright]

Replayability is very high - the AI plans all sorts of surprises (including a first turn attack on Washington) and is not 'scripted'.

[Snoob]

By a "first turn attack" do you mean the attempt by a CSA militia to besiege Washington?

[John_C]

By a "first turn attack" do you mean the attempt by a CSA militia to besiege Washington?

[Snoob]

No, seriously, the reason I'm asking is that this particular militia unit has started displaying this suicidal behavior in my more recent test campaigns and (although as a Union commander I'm rather grateful for the chance to eliminate this pesky unit early on) in terms of strategy it would be much more reasonable to lay siege to Harper's Ferry (as it used to happen in my early tests).

As it happens now, the 8th US battalion becomes activated, the militia is lost or forced to retreat and Harper's Ferry receives early reinforcements.

[Snoob]

I can now confirm that the Wilmington Militia is constantly displaying this near suicidal behavior, moving to Washington DC, laying siege (or not) and then departing, after destroying the rail lines. In some cases it actually attacks the forces stationed in DC, in which case it is destroyed, more often than not.

Also, in version 1.00, the CSA forces would move in force within a couple of turns towards Harper's Ferry. I'm not positive that it is not happening now, but they seem to be staying away...