What side is prefered for us the players?

[Coregonas]

Is there any thread asking what Side is more selected for play?

I ve played lots of games about ACW.... For the people, Thunder / Crossroads, Gettysburg AH, The American civil war... cant remember them all.

BUT NEARLY ALWAYS I ve tried playing CSA. Why? dunno exactly, perhaps.. I like to play the real losers side... to beat it.

Is some side more selected for the people?

[MarkCSA]

Same here, beat historical performance and change history.

[Castel]

CSA too.

Trying to change history is always an interesting challenge.

Plus, i kind of dislike most of the Union's generals.

CSA's generals are far more charismatic. ^^

[tyrex]

USA for my part. It's easier to manage and the best way to learn. CSA is quite a too bit strong challenge for me

[soloswolf]

Let's not confuse 'romanticised' for 'charismatic'. Both qualities can be found in heaps on both sides, often in place of the one that belongs there.

I enjoy playing the CSA more than the Federals, but I think both have their fair share of challenges to meet. Any student of the period will be familiar with those for each side. The important thing I feel is that AACW does a great job of modeling the challenge from either side.

[Banks6060]

I prefer neither side over the other with respect to the AACW game experience. As soloswolf mentioned....the game presents a great challenge for each side....though the USA's challenge a bit more abstract than the CSA's.

My personal preference usually err's to the CSA most times when considering a side to play, simply because I'm always one to favor the underdog.

[Coffee Sergeant]

I can certaintly see the appeal of playing CSA as the "underdog", on the other hand you are defending which is not as interesting. Coordinating a good offensive is hard.

[soundoff]

As I only ever play PBEM for me I'm happy, and grateful, to play either side.

Its the cut and thrust and the unpredictability against a 'human' player that is the attraction.

Against the AI you can always find a successful strategy.

So as much as I am critical about this game in some areas...for its scope against another human opponent it sure does rock.

I'd buy every AGEOD game, if it contained a grand campaign module. As it currently is I'm stuck with AACW...but would recommend the company to anyone though.

[AndrewKurtz]

I'd buy every AGEOD game, if it contained a grand campaign module. As it currently is I'm stuck with AACW...but would recommend the company to anyone though.

Doesn't BoA have a complete American Revolution scenario and a complete French & Indian War scenario?

[soloswolf]

Coordinating a good offensive is hard.

And very necessary as the CSA.

[Pubcrawler]

I'm a Union man; just can't seem to get into playing as s reb...

[Timothy Kroll]

I have finished the grand campaign on normal as the Union and am almost complete 2nd time thru on Hard, also as the Union. I am thinking about playing the CSA next, the challenge of the south's position has appeal, but playing the Union has always been my preference.

[Mosby]

I think it was the leaders of the south that got me to play as the rebs.

[Coregonas]

Seems most play CSA as a preference.

Perhaps there is some kind of feeling USA is easy to play... It just has more "power" in the long run.... but can lose, even winning lots of battles and conquering lots of cities!

[Coffee Sergeant]

And very necessary as the CSA.

When? Launching a serious invasion of the North is as foolish for the CSA as it was in real life. You might get away with say, seizing Bowling Greene, Paducah, Harper's Ferry and Alexandria in 1861 when the Union is unprepared and still has crummy generals. Beyond that, though, I don't see the advantage of going on a genuine offensive. I'm not referring to counterattacks against Union beachheads.

[Mosby]

I've got several smaller forces, just around a division each, causing havoc all above the main battle lines. I think that keeping them moving when they need to, and resting when you must is something that I'm still trying to get the hang of.

[soloswolf]

When? Launching a serious invasion of the North is as foolish for the CSA as it was in real life. You might get away with say, seizing Bowling Greene, Paducah, Harper's Ferry and Alexandria in 1861 when the Union is unprepared and still has crummy generals. Beyond that, though, I don't see the advantage of going on a genuine offensive. I'm not referring to counterattacks against Union beachheads.

You do it for the same reason that it was done historically: To dictate the movements of the enemy and because there is no way to stay on your heels and achieve victory.

I would agree with you that in the game it is ridiculously hard to do it effectively and moreover to gain any lasting accomplishments from it. There is far less for the Federals to worry about in the game. No crazy politicians or press clamoring for your armies to pull back to save the home front. Things are much more mathematical in play.

But I would maintain that the only way for the CSA to win is to fight a offensive campaign with defensive tactics. Lee and Longstreet did the only things they could.

[Brochgale]

Always the CSA for me. I might try the Feds after I win on hard with CSA.

[Heldenkaiser]

I have been a Union officer in the ACWGC for seven years now ... I can't just change my coat that simply. It's the North for me.

Besides, if the South is the actual historical underdog, the North is without doubt the popular history and mythology underdog. I'd love to prove, with my performance as the Union, that the Northern army was not entirely led by bumbling imbeciles that in the end overwhelmed the South by sheer mass.

[anarchyintheuk]

Union as well. It's a challenge overcoming the AoP leadership.

[Brochgale]

I have been a Union officer in the ACWGC for seven years now ... I can't just change my coat that simply. It's the North for me.

Besides, if the South is the actual historical underdog, the North is without doubt the popular history and mythology underdog. I'd love to prove, with my performance as the Union, that the Northern army was not entirely led by bumbling imbeciles that in the end overwhelmed the South by sheer mass.

Two ways to look at it?

The South is the underdog from the point of view of Resources and manpower and perhaps geography. The North is perhaps the underdog from the point of view of its Military leadership and having to fight majority of war in the enemies backyard?

In the end Lincoln got his act together and appointed Grant and Grant was close to the almost equally relentless Sherman?