New title - any news??

[Alex Krolikowsk]

Gents, any news about new title? I was sure that we'll see something in May/June and now it's July and Duchet again put an ominious info: nothing new relased this month :upset:

I don't know what campaign it will be, but I would put 100 bucks that it will be 2nd Manassas/Antietam. There are few reasons for saying so, most radical is a secret code in Peninsula game - patch 1.01 changed qualities of two Rebel regiments and say what you want but the most probably reason for doing it, was that battle of Cedar Mountain was studied in depth.

I would put some money also for Vicksburg or Valley but something is telling me that we'll fight in Northern Virginia/Maryland soon.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

That wouldn't be a bad bet as a lot of the mapwork would be done with some of the work on Gettysburg but I've decided no bet would be a safe bet until you see something in print.

[Coaling]

My favorite choice would be the campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley . . . But I've seen many people wish for either an Atlanta or Wilderness campaign.

[Alex Krolikowsk]

My favorite choice would be the campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley

I like Valley campaign of '64 and would be fine to try it on virtal battlefields. The only problem is that Rebels were greatly outnumbered so there would be a problem with balance of the play. On the other hand, Confederates had a veteran infantry and fought very well. Famous words of Union officer from Russel division, VI Corps, a veteran unit which met head-on Rodes’ division at Winchester – “They aimed better than our men. They covered themselves more effectively, they could move in a swarm, without much care for alignment and touch of elbows.... The result was that they lost far fewer men, thought they were far inferior in numbers”.
So with Rebel infantry having A,B-quality and Yanks C,D,E-quality (except Vermont Brigade), maybe Rebels will have some chance to win.
Other problem is cavalry - Union large advantage in this arm.
Generally, campaign ’64 would be a good game for ambitious supporters of the Rebellion.

I'm not a fan of g'nral Jackson so don't care much about campaign of '62. Guess that supporters of Rebellion will have their hands full here as well.

[rahamy]

There's stuff in the pipeline, but not ready to release right away. One should be ready before the end of the year though, and another in '07, at least. :smoke:

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I always put my two cents in for the Atlanta campaign starting at Chattanooga though if they wanted to go back and start with Rosecrans Tullahoma campaign that wouldn't bother me either.

[Alex Krolikowsk]

There's stuff in the pipeline, but not ready to release right away. One should be ready before the end of the year though, and another in '07, at least. :smoke:

Ough, you killed me with this one Rich. I thought that you are standing on better ground:laugh:

[Navarone]

I always put my two cents in for the Atlanta campaign starting at Chattanooga though if they wanted to go back and start with Rosecrans Tullahoma campaign that wouldn't bother me either.

I agree with you Mark.

In my wargaming life, "holistically" speaking, I have fought Gettysburg, Shiloh, 1st and 2nd Manassas (not to mention Austerlitz, Waterloo, the Bulge, Stalingrad, Operation Crusader....but I digress..) so many times that what I look forward to are the Campaigns which you could write Leavenworth Papers about ad infinitum, but which aren't the "sexy" battles (Nappy, Lee, Rommel, Patton, etc weren't there/The Gottdammurung of the particular war, etc.). Vicksburg and the Atlanta Campaign of 1864 sure pass the Leavenworth litmus test. I'd rather do those than run Pickett up to that 'ole ridge the 5,999th time.

I "Once more into the Breach"-ingly Remain,

[Mad Cow]

Wilderness Campaign or the Chickamauga campaign would be what I would like to see.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

The 1864 Virginia campaign wouldn't be a bad bet as some of those necessary maps would also be done with the Gettysburg/Peninsula games. Though if it was up to me we'd do one campaign Murfreesboro to Atlanta with all the battles in between.

[Alex Krolikowsk]

Though if it was up to me we'd do one campaign Murfreesboro to Atlanta with all the battles in between.

There was many changes in army's oobs during that period - do you think that it is possible to recreate it with keeping losses carry over properly between the battles?

I mean that at M-boro some brigade fought in X division, at Chickamauga in Y division and at Chattanooga in Z division, not to say about Atlanta and particular regiments. Is it possible to recreate it all and have all things working properly?

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Probably not but a man can dream can't he. :D