Comments and Suggestions

[canuckgamer]

I along with about half dozen friends are old farts who have been playing wargames since the days of Avalon Hill. As for computer wargames we go back to SSI, Talonsoft and the one that really kickstarted it, Panzer General.
The game play mechanics of the Strategic Command series which we played when it was with Battlefront are similar to Panzer General. No stacking, sequential attacks unit by unit. The mechanics favour the attacker as an individual unit can be attacked multiple times depending on how many units have the operational points. The naval aspect of Strategic Command is not much different than the war on land. We played the latest version of SC for a while but did not pick up SC World at War or SC WWI because the games are a little too abstracted for us.
The SC series game engine will not work for an American Civil War game but I would definitely have an interest if it uses a new or revised game engine.
One of my suggestions since there won't be any stacking is that unit counters on the map can represent any number of formations such as corps and divisions. These formations can be placed on a tactical map where battles would be resolved. You wouldn't know what a unit counter represents until you enter that hex with friendly units. I played a couple of block games years ago from Columbia Games about the civil war where they had a tactical board where battles were resolved. It consisted of a centre, left, right flank and a reserve. Each player placed their units in these 4 boxes secretly before the start of the battle. This is a simple set up but you could make it more complicated. There were only about 10 major battles in the civil war so I think this option would not make the game too long. At Gettysburg there were 6 Union Corps and 3 Confederate Corps. However the Confederate formations were larger.
Logistics would be completely different and had a major impact on the size of the number of men in an army.
Leadership in the civil war was much more important tactically since the leaders were on the battlefield so I would assign leader attributes such as aggressiveness, morale boost and tactical prowess etc. Even with major battles taking place in small areas the smoke of battle and having to pass orders by couriers created a lot confusion so this is something else to be considered during the development of the game.
I don't see that research would be a factor because the weapons weren't much different in 1865 vs. 1861. There were some small differences such as some units had carbines (I think cavalry more than infantry) but that is about it.
In regards to naval aspects there were the monitors and gunships especially at Vicksburg and the blockade.
The biggest advantages to a wargame on computer compared to a board game is the fog of war and the computer keeping track of things like morale, fatigue and supply so I assume these factors will be front and centre.
Regardless I hope the end result will be a great game. A new game engine or a revision of the SC one that produces a realistic civil war game could easily be applied to one on the Napoleonic Wars.

[Zeckke]

am a Big fun of Avalon hill game company, and still having Stalingrad and Operation crusader

Stacking units are also boring games, (not is the case WAR IN THE EAST), which is neccesarry

The SC method of units is and advance of games; the SC method is kind of Napoleonics Games, we can say that Napoleon still alive in 1961, his strategys

the Civil war 1961-1965 was important the movements, as Napoleon said; "bring the last men as a reinforce to the main battle" and this is it in american civil-war also.

so the speed of the movements is the key of this game for sure, and for sure there will be from different units, different speed. thats all about this game at that period 1961-1965

and the second key will be the speed of the artillery which will take for sure extra time.

[josh54]

I also think the same, uno onlinethe old one is too boring, need a new tool or something new tunnel rush

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Victory Games U.S. Civil War is the gold standard.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

THAT was a great game! Sadly the computer port of it was buggier than a Louisiana swamp.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

THAT was a great game! Sadly the computer port of it was buggier than a Louisiana swamp.

Eventually, we found the exploits of "command points", where North can delay their moves. The "tying of dice" was wild for turn lengths (and endings).

[OldBlighty]

Agree with original poster:

"The SC series game engine will not work for an American Civil War game but I would definitely have an interest if it uses a new or revised game engine. One of my suggestions since there won't be any stacking is that unit counters on the map can represent any number of formations such as corps and divisions. These formations can be placed on a tactical map where battles would be resolved."

I am a fan of the strategic Command games, and non stacking works quite well for WW1 and WW2 where fronts existed for 100's of miles, BUT I don't think it applies to the American Civil War, and so probably won't be buying the game (in it's present form). This is a shame as it's a war I'm really interested in, speaking as a Brit.

[typhoon]

The key for the success or failure of this title for me is very much in the personality of the commanders. If that bit plays a huge part then the game has a good chance. The victory games thing is important it's was the best the gold standard. Lee needs to be and play like lee Grant the same. Likewise for the leaders that did not succeed. Likewise the separate states need to play a part like in the old computer game No greater glory political support from your regions needs to be in there. War weariness for the north as well. Ageod tried to do this but it never quite worked. Yes it's a Wargame but it was a Civil War and that should not be forgotten and personalities were key.