Should I get this game?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Sheytan]

no demo afaik.

[Grotius]

I agree with everyone else: get this game. Battle results are usually plausible. The new command rules really do mitigate the concern about stacks. You need dispersion as well as concentration of force in this game, because you have to control supply lines, which are well-modeled. I do think it's possible for the Union to replicate the historical 1862 results, though in my campaign against the AI, I didn't take Nashville until 1863.

Also, the interface is quite cool. The game is just very pleasant to play.

One side note on WiTP: I don't think that game deliberately tries to favor one side or the other. Between evenly-matched players in a PBEM, Japan will lose the war. The disparity in power is handled by victory conditions. People argue about whether various game systems favor one side or the other: some people think the game favors the Allies more than Japan, and others think it's the other way around. I see the same philosophy here in AACW: the power imbalance is accounted for primarily in victory conditions.

[PBBoeye]

I see the same philosophy here in AACW: the power imbalance is accounted for primarily in victory conditions.

I think this is a strong point, and one I wish I'd recall a lot more when playing a game. And perhaps developers, too (AGEOD does a nice job, though). Because the historical loser in a war shouldn't have to WIN the war in a historical replay (game). Rather, they need to meet certain conditions that weren't achieved by their historical counterpart.

For example, the Rebs maintaining control of the Mississippi and Tennessee and other things, in April 1865. Germany holding Russia out of Poland, blahblahblah...

There's so much more to victory than just the ultimate level. And when developers account for that, I think the games are better regarding play balance.

To the OP's point: I am sure, quite sure, that the combat results and validity will only improve. AGEod is still sharpening the engine, IMO.

[Hobbes]

I think this is a strong point, and one I wish I'd recall a lot more when playing a game. And perhaps developers, too (AGEOD does a nice job, though). Because the historical loser in a war shouldn't have to WIN the war in a historical replay (game). Rather, they need to meet certain conditions that weren't achieved by their historical counterpart.

For example, the Rebs maintaining control of the Mississippi and Tennessee and other things, in April 1865. Germany holding Russia out of Poland, blahblahblah...

There's so much more to victory than just the ultimate level. And when developers account for that, I think the games are better regarding play balance.

To the OP's point: I am sure, quite sure, that the combat results and validity will only improve. AGEod is still sharpening the engine, IMO.

Yes if the war ends in the same way as it did historically the result between the players should be a tie.

[scout1]

Yes if the war ends in the same way as it did historically the result between the players should be a tie.

I doubt Jeff Davis would have considered his final results a tie, nor would the Japanese in WWII.

Players looking for an "even" game should play chess or checkers. Wargames typically are (to one degree or another) lop-sided .... Just like history. Question is whether you can do better, same as or worse than history.

[PBBoeye]

LOL - yeah, I pretty much think you'd have gotten most Confederates in 1865 to say they were finished off. Ground pounders, at least.

[Hobbes]

"Question is whether you can do better, same as or worse than history."

That's what I meant. If you do better than the historical outcome you get a win even if you lose the war.

Cheers, Chris

[PBBoeye]

OK, I understand what you're saying.