Which Civil War game should WHQ support?

[Don Maddox]

I need more information before I can make an informed decision as to whether there is sufficient interest for WHQ to support a Civil War wargame. Please vote so that I know what the level of interest is and which direction our efforts would be best directed.

Allow me to point out something. Some of the games listed above are PC games while others are traditional boardgames. For those who are not aware of it, the boardgames can now be played via computer with Aid de Camp II or VASSAL.

[Boonierat]

I'd say Talonsoft Battleground Series (I know, I'm old school :p )

[Nico]

Of course Great Campaigns of American Civil War !! :) And dont forget about Cyberboard program which is far more better than ADC in my opinion :p .

[6th Vermont]

You have missed what is by far the best tactical level ACW game on the market today: Civil War:Bull Run. See http://www.madminutegames.com to read all about it.

[Tom DeFranco]

My fondness for the CWB/CWR system is legendary on this site. I've already written an article about how the system plays. For money, this system best captures armies at battle. It has successfully captured the ACW in battles as famous as Gettysburg and Antietam and as obscure as Perryville and Champion Hill. It has covered the whole Seven Days campaign and the Spring Hill/Franklin campaign in 1864.

The system highlights orders writing without it becoming a headache (There is no hex-by-hex plotting, a simple written order is all that is needed - "take Longstreet's corps and attack up the Emmitsburg Road rolling up enemy forces posted along the road.") . In fact, the system, because of the orders writing involved, actually facilitates solitaire play by enforcing that troops don't get moved until oreders are accepted. Likewise, this works well with team play. The combat and morale results are a hoot, too.

I have played the GCACW (once or twice) and the old Talonsoft Battleground system, but no one covers the ACW like the CWB and CWR.

See my article, the Anatomy of a Game System dated 6/7/04, in the boardgaming section of articles in this very website.

Note these games can be played via ADC2 and, I guess, Cyberboard. There is another PBEM system, made specifically for this system, due to be released which allows this system to be played via PC enforcing the Line of sight rules, movement rules and combat rules, too.

[Nico]

I have played the GCACW (once or twice) and the old Talonsoft Battleground system, but no one covers the ACW like the CWB and CWR.

CWB and old Talonsfoft dont cover ACW cause they are tactical systems. They cover single engagments. GCACW covers whole campaigns and that is why I think it is better.

Spring Hill campaign beigns at Columbia or even earlier and ends at Nashville. CWB doesnt give such big area to play. Seven Days battle is part of whole 1862 McClellans campaign which can be played better with GCACW "On To Richmond" - from march to july 1862, You can link "Stonewall in the Valley" GCACW game and have even bigger campaign.

[Tom DeFranco]

CWB and old Talonsfoft dont cover ACW cause they are tactical systems. They cover single engagments. GCACW covers whole campaigns and that is why I think it is better.

On the contrary, it could be argued in the GCACW series that the combat is too abstracted and that the supply rules do not create as much concern as they should for mid-nineteenth century (something that should be especially troublesome for the Confederate player) armies on the march. With the CWB, you get command problems representing enough chaos to go around for a while, tactical problems that reward you for using proper period tactics and realistic morale problems. So you DO learn about the ACW, but at a different level than the GCACW represents.


Spring Hill campaign beigns at Columbia or even earlier and ends at Nashville. CWB doesnt give such big area to play. Seven Days battle is part of whole 1862 McClellans campaign which can be played better with GCACW "On To Richmond" - from march to july 1862, You can link "Stonewall in the Valley" GCACW game and have even bigger campaign.

So what if the CWB doesn't cover the whole Columbia to Nashville campaign? At least it covers it. The GCACW has yet to leave the Eastern Theater! The Seven Days is intended to cover the Seven Days and Seven Pines before that. It's not intended to cover the whole campaign, but it does cover enough territory with nine maps to give all of the significant terrain form north of the Chickahominy River to Harrison's Landing and from White House to all around Richmond. And again the combat is detailed (yet simple) enough to make the whole thing satisfying. Regarding the battles and partial campaigns covered, I challenge any other currently published boardgame system to have gaming situations as diverse as both Bull Runs (plus a hypothetical third Bull Run in 10/1863), The Seven Days (plus Seven Pines), Antietam, Gettysburg, and Wilderness, and that's just in the East. For the Western Theater, there is Shiloh, Perryville, Stones River, Champion Hill, Chickamauga and Franklin. There is more to come out soon, as soon as it takes for people to pre-order a new game about the North Anna portion of the Overland Campaign. After that Cedar Creek, Atlanta, Solferino (yes, they will go to Europe) and possibly Chancellorsville are in the pipeline.

For the regimental level, there is Gettysburg, Chickamauga and Shiloh with South Mountain and Antietam in the future.

If that's not ACW, I don't know what is?!

[Blackcloud6]

Well, whynot have just a 'Civil War Game' ladder where any game on the subject will count, with a simple win. loose, draw results. Why does it have to be limited to one?

I shied away from ladders for many years as I felt they would pigeonhole me into playing just one or two games and I like to play many.

So maybe some thinking out of the box may do the trick.

[Keith Todd]

I voted for the CWB and CWR (Gamers) but have to mention the GMT series of GBACW and Glory series are worth mentioning as well as VG's Civil War.

I have to agree with Nico that GCACW is a great game but agree with Tom that the abstraction level is very high. In the GCACW campaign games there are some very "gamey" aspects that are definitely not representative of the ACW. It is indeed enlightening to play the GCACW monster campaigns by using all the corps available and the geography but not the warfare itself.

IMHO,

Keith

[Keith Todd]

Well, whynot have just a 'Civil War Game' ladder where any game on the subject will count, with a simple win. loose, draw results. Why does it have to be limited to one?

I shied away from ladders for many years as I felt they would pigeonhole me into playing just one or two games and I like to play many.

So maybe some thinking out of the box may do the trick.

I would go for this also, good idea.

Keith

[Nico]

I have other idea. Instead of supporting title, voting should show what type of game should be supported. Boardgames or Computer :). Cause someone will always like tactical level like other operational, but most here 4:2 like better boardgames ;). :cool:

[Tom DeFranco]

Friends and fellow posters, Dave Powell, who created many of the CWB and RSS (aka CWR) games was on Civil War Talk Radio yesterday, being interviewed by Dr. Gerry Prokopowicz about his games and how they simulate history. He also spoke about his recent work about Chickamauga. The interview was archived and could still be heard. Enter Consimworld, stay on the first page and scroll down till you see "Dave Powell on Civil War Talk Radio". Click on that sentence and the article appears. Click on the link and it should take you directly to CWTR.

[Tom DeFranco]

Again, the the above mentioned very enlightening interview about ACW wargaming is in the archives of World Talk Radio.

[Don Maddox]

Please help us get the word out about this new section by telling your friends and gaming partners. Thanks!

[GeorgiaDixie]

I've never played these type of thing before, but I'm pretty interested. How's it going to work?

[SoccerDJ]

I've never played these type of thing before, but I'm pretty interested. How's it going to work?
Im in the same boat. I love the American Civil War period and would love to know how this section will work and what games I should go get that will be supported by this section!! This is an exciting day here at WHQ:)

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Well I can't speak to the boardgames played via PBEM but I love playing the HPS games. They are loaded with individual scenarios but the beauty of them is playing the campaigns. You can start at Brandy Station for Gettysburg and depending upon the results of that battle each commander is presented with a set of options for his army to select and then depending upon that selection and that of your opponent the next battle is generated and so on and so on. Losses carry over with some regeneration of losses and once you lose a commander he is gone. You can play using the same phases as the old Talonsoft system or you can use the HPS engine's ability to allow defensive units a chance to fire at a moving unit any time it is in it's LOS and range. The games have numerous maps, and in the case of Gettysburg huge maps, and they allow for plenty of maneuver and a chance to fight the battles differently then what happened. These games would be my recommendation for what to buy and support here on the ladder. I've been playing them at the ACWGC since Corinth came out and yes, the AI is sad, but the real fun comes in playing them PBEM and that is what we all intend to do isn't it?

[Don Maddox]

You can read more about the HPS titles here:

Corinth: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/RifMusk/Corinth/Corinth.html

Ozark: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/RifMusk/Ozark/ozark.html

Franklin: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/RifMusk/Franklin/franklin.html

Gettysburg: http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/RifMusk/Gettysburg/gettysburg.html

The Gettysburg game has a whopping 314 scenarios included on the CD! If I am not mistaken, this game covers much more than the battle of Gettysburg; it covers the whole campaign in the region over a much longer period of time.

[The Purist]

I've played a few civil war battles (computer and board game) but would love to play an on-line game that covered the entire war on a strategic level while resolving the battles on a tactical level 'We go' system.

[Palantir]

Has any one played the "American Civil War" for TOAW?

I'm playing it now & I helped with the OOB's, map & terrain. It's a strategic level game that does require a number of house rules.

It would also be nice to have someone write up a single quick review here of the games mentioned so people who have not seen or played them but are interested could make some decision on what type they might like to play. I would rather not have to guess & buy several different game types only to find out those I bought were not going to be supported or played by many others.

Obviously there will be 2 types: a good "tactical" level game and a strategic level game that hopefully will be noted as being head & shoulders above the rest.

[Tom DeFranco]

Don, since I have had beau coup time with the Gamers' CWB/CWR systems and know the people who created the system, I would be happy to manage a few threads about that series. I try to be on at least five days a week. I trust you want me to take those threads to the boardgame section?

[Keith Todd]

Don, since I have had beau coup time with the Gamers' CWB/CWR systems and know the people who created the system, I would be happy to manage a few threads about that series. I try to be on at least five days a week. I trust you want me to take those threads to the boardgame section?

So the Civil War Battles forum is for computer games only?

Keith

[Keith Todd]

Don, since I have had beau coup time with the Gamers' CWB/CWR systems and know the people who created the system, I would be happy to manage a few threads about that series. I try to be on at least five days a week. I trust you want me to take those threads to the boardgame section?

Tom,

Well, I sort of think you will not see this question, just as well as I may never come back to this forum to see the answer but is there a forum besides Consim for us ACW boardgamers?

Keith

[Don Maddox]

Tom,

Well, I sort of think you will not see this question, just as well as I may never come back to this forum to see the answer but is there a forum besides Consim for us ACW boardgamers?

Keith
Warfare HQ is a wargame club. The way we have run the club for the last five years is by supporting a small number of hand-picked games. Look at the other wargame forums we have here; they are not general in nature, they are dedicated to a particular wargame.

Why do we do it this way? Should we have a "WWII" wargame section that supports all WWII wargames? If we did that, it would have a massive number of games inside and no one would know what anyone else was talking about. You would have to qualify every post by stating what wargame you were referring to and it would be a big mess. Second, each of the very limited number of wargames we support has 2 volunteer staff members, WARS support, and a full section on the main WHQ website. We simply can't do that for the hundreds of wargames that are on the market. As it is, WHQ is a massive undertaking will a fairly large staff of people working behind the scenes to run each of the separate wargame sections.

Warfare HQ should not be directly compared to Consimworld. Both support the wargame community, but they are entirely different creatures. Consimworld is a general gaming resource. It's primary focus is to provide news and a place for gamers to gather and discuss things of interest. Due to the way it evolved and is set up, the various wargame companies themselves basically have a hand in running the place. They serve as the moderators on the various forums there and the whole system of links and news is oriented toward supporting the developers/publishers. Nothing wrong with that forumula, but it is not what we do.

Warfare HQ is a club. It's primary focus is wargaming. Our focus centers on W.A.R.S. (our online wargame ladder system) and the various tournaments we run. We also provide file archives where gamers can upload or download new scenarios, maps and other utilities. Each wargame gets a dedicated section of the file archive just like it gets a forum. In short, each wargame we support gets the following:


2 staff members.
Discussion forum plus assorted sub-forums.
File archives for scenarios, maps, and misc files.
A full section on the main WHQ website.
Tournaments.
Articles.
After action reports.
WARS support
This is entirely different than what Consimworld does. That is a great resource for the community too, but it is far more general in nature and is primarily oriented towards boardgamers. WHQ is not attempting to be all things to all people, we just want to be the best at what we do offer.

Having said all that, there is some room for further discussion about exactly how we run this section. But it will not differ radically from our other sections. The formula we have here is tried and true and we have to keep some degree of focus. If we attempt to support everything, all that will do is dilute our focus and ensure what we offer is mediocre.

[Tom DeFranco]

Tom,

Well, I sort of think you will not see this question, just as well as I may never come back to this forum to see the answer but is there a forum besides Consim for us ACW boardgamers?

Keith

Keith,
Seems to me that the CWBS/CWR just didn't make their cut. As you know, I would rate that above any ACW gaming system out there right now, PC or board. I thought for sure that they'd cover one system (maybe two) in each venue. Oh well for what it's worth, between you're exposure to the Seattle group, and mine to Dave Powell, Dan Cicero, etc. from the Chicago area we could've made a good one-two punch for explaining the system to others on this board.

[17poundr]

I'm a total 'greenhorn' at civil war game's to my shame, and have not played any, but I voted for the talonsoft game, as I LOVE their TOAW, still my favourite strategy game...

[rahamy]

We're working on getting them integrated as well. :)