How Strategic Command American Civil War succeeds as a strategic and operational game

[*Lava*]

*This started out as a comment intended for the beta test section and grew to this essay.

Excellent write-up!

Though invited to the beta I just didn't have time to play the game. I am looking forward to it being offered on Steam, where I will buy it immediately.

[havoc1371]

Sorry, but the argument made for the game being a good representation of the military operations falls short. Gettysburg battlefield would fit in one hex, yet the game has regiments, brigades, divisions and corps, all with the same limit of one per hex. So in essence, one regiment would "hold" the Gettysburg battlefield. The Eastern campaigns bogged down into a siege of Richmond/Petersburg late in the war, otherwise, most operations (campaigns) were fluid affairs, with divisions and corps marching to a point on a map where they would concentrate for a battle. Instead, the game in the East bogs down into a WW I style line running from the Shenandoah Valley to the Potomac River with very little maneuver other than swapping out units trying to punch a hole.

Actually, although the war in the East was not a WWI continuous line of units, it pretty much behaved that way. The Union tried many times to attack Lee, but the Rebs were able to track the Yankees movement and concentrate against them on favorable ground. The Yankees would then commit to catastrophic frontal attacks with enormous losses.

This is a time when the battlefield favored the defense and wave attacks in the open against rifles were suicidal. Even Lee, when he marched North and encountered his enemy at Gettysburg, found that attacking an enemy in favorable ground was sheer madness.

So the war in the East eventually took on a WWI style attrition warfare, with the Yankees lead by Grant, accepting high losses IOT to destroy the Army of North Virginia.

So yea, from a tactical POV I can understand being a bit disappointed that there isn't room to maneuver, but from an Operational POV, sounds like it portrays the war the way it was actually fought.

We must have a different definition of "tactical" and "operational". Units on a specific battlefield like Gettysburg, regiments/brigades trying to flank enemy regiments/brigades as part of the overall battle plan is tactical. Maneuvering divisions/corps of an army across the countryside of Maryland and Virginia to gain control of a key town or a major road junction to cut off supply, or interpose your army between the enemy and their supply source is operational.

What we have here is a solid front line where you mass units to pound at a section of the line, hoping to breakthrough, and advance one hex at a time. Sounds like WW I to me, which it did become, but the Eastern campaigns did not bog down into static lines of entrenchment until 1864, in front of Richmond and Petersburg. In the instances where they did dig in, it was a "tactical" decision, once the maneuvering stopped and a battlefield was chosen, like Malvern Hill, which could fit in one hex, as I stated in my previous post.

The game is still fun to play, and it seems balanced between players so far, but it still falls short in the part that is a representation of the operational conduct of the war.

[*Lava*]

Take a look at the map.

If you want to play a strategic game with tactical battles I suggest "Grand Tactician: The Civil War 1861 - 1865.

[Bylandt11]

We must have a different definition of "tactical" and "operational". Units on a specific battlefield like Gettysburg, regiments/brigades trying to flank enemy regiments/brigades as part of the overall battle plan is tactical. Maneuvering divisions/corps of an army across the countryside of Maryland and Virginia to gain control of a key town or a major road junction to cut off supply, or interpose your army between the enemy and their supply source is operational.

What we have here is a solid front line where you mass units to pound at a section of the line, hoping to breakthrough, and advance one hex at a time. Sounds like WW I to me, which it did become, but the Eastern campaigns did not bog down into static lines of entrenchment until 1864, in front of Richmond and Petersburg. In the instances where they did dig in, it was a "tactical" decision, once the maneuvering stopped and a battlefield was chosen, like Malvern Hill, which could fit in one hex, as I stated in my previous post.

The game is still fun to play, and it seems balanced between players so far, but it still falls short in the part that is a representation of the operational conduct of the war.

I agree.

I'm a fan of the SC series, but this one fails to deliver. The engine is ill-suited to portray the ACW.

Is it fun to play? Much less so than the other titles. I got over 600 h of play in SC WW2. I am bored after 60 h with this. Each game I do the same thing, with only slight variations. Diplomacy is pointless. Research choices are obvious. The main problem: no real strategic choices to make, perhaps with the exception of how much the Union invests in amphibious operations. The rest is a slow grind across all fronts.

The fact that the ACW was strategically and politically less dynamic than WW2 is not the devs fault. But an engine that includes operational or tactical elements would have had a much better chance of keeping the ACW interesting.

[roy64]

We must have a different definition of "tactical" and "operational". Units on a specific battlefield like Gettysburg, regiments/brigades trying to flank enemy regiments/brigades as part of the overall battle plan is tactical. Maneuvering divisions/corps of an army across the countryside of Maryland and Virginia to gain control of a key town or a major road junction to cut off supply, or interpose your army between the enemy and their supply source is operational.

What we have here is a solid front line where you mass units to pound at a section of the line, hoping to breakthrough, and advance one hex at a time. Sounds like WW I to me, which it did become, but the Eastern campaigns did not bog down into static lines of entrenchment until 1864, in front of Richmond and Petersburg. In the instances where they did dig in, it was a "tactical" decision, once the maneuvering stopped and a battlefield was chosen, like Malvern Hill, which could fit in one hex, as I stated in my previous post.

The game is still fun to play, and it seems balanced between players so far, but it still falls short in the part that is a representation of the operational conduct of the war.

I agree.

I'm a fan of the SC series, but this one fails to deliver. The engine is ill-suited to portray the ACW.

Is it fun to play? Much less so than the other titles. I got over 600 h of play in SC WW2. I am bored after 60 h with this. Each game I do the same thing, with only slight variations. Diplomacy is pointless. Research choices are obvious. The main problem: no real strategic choices to make, perhaps with the exception of how much the Union invests in amphibious operations. The rest is a slow grind across all fronts.

The fact that the ACW was strategically and politically less dynamic than WW2 is not the devs fault. But an engine that includes operational or tactical elements would have had a much better chance of keeping the ACW interesting.

Sadly I agree.

[DavidG3276]

I am really dating myself but I started with AH's Tactics game and even played their Civil War game. This game is not "fun" to play. The map scaling is far larger than other games in the SC line which makes it easy to miss things and hard to implement a grand strategy. Consequently, it takes a lot longer to achieve anything. I appreciate that the war took several years but the game shouldn't make you feel that it takes that long to finish a game. The defense even on the lowest AI level is absurdly balanced in its favor. I will try a few more games and see if any updates improve the game but otherwise I plan to uninstall it.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

I am really dating myself but I started with AH's Tactics game and even played their Civil War game. This game is not "fun" to play. The map scaling is far larger than other games in the SC line which makes it easy to miss things and hard to implement a grand strategy. Consequently, it takes a lot longer to achieve anything. I appreciate that the war took several years but the game shouldn't make you feel that it takes that long to finish a game. The defense even on the lowest AI level is absurdly balanced in its favor. I will try a few more games and see if any updates improve the game but otherwise I plan to uninstall it.

I couldn't disagree more. I can date myself too and state that I started playing hex and counter wargames in 1972, when I was 13...so do the math.

Unfortunately the title of this thread uses the word 'Operational' when in fact it is a Grand Strategic game.
This in my opinion is a superb strategic level game and is excellent in multiplayer. Otherwise, my opinion mirrors the OPs statement at the opening of this thread.

Can't really understand how a beginning or intermediate level AI could be unbalanced in the AI's favor, having tested SP for two months in beta. As a matter of fact numerous tweaks were necessary to make it preform better. Even now there are folks with pretty good knowledge of SC game mechanics wanting the AI strengthened in some areas.

Well, there will always be naysayers and nincompoops that feel they have to publicly air their grievances about a product. I don't really get that though. There are a lot of games here in the Matrix/Slitherine ecosystem that I have bought and decided later I either didn't like or it failed my expectations. I don't go out and publicly diss those games.
I just move on and play something else.

Maybe you should too.

[DavidG3276]

Are you normally this rude to others? Have you considered that you have already invested so much time as a tester that you are too close to the game to recognize that others may have a different perspective? When I see AI units which are completely surrounded and not close to a HQ unit and yet still fully regenerate strength points each turn even at the lowest AI level, then I think that most players would agree with me that the AI's defense has a significant advantage. When I see it necessary to have four or more units to ensure the wipe-out of a surrounded AI unit with no connection to a HQ unit then I think that most players would agree with me that the AI's defense has a significant advantage. Thanks to that, this game becomes an exercise in frustration for me.

In my opinion, it may use some of the same mechanics as the other games in the SC collection but it's not really an SC game. There is not much re-playability in this game and the AI's advantage on defense takes what should be a game of a few hours and turns it into a game which can really take the better part of a day to play. If you disagree with me, that's fine. People are looking for different things in wargames and that's ok. However, I was expecting a game which would be as fun to play as others in the SC line of games and give one the opportunity to try out different ways to win and which could be completed in under three hours. I would honestly recommend that Matrix should make a demo of this game available to potential purchasers.

Lastly, I try to provide reviews to help others decide whether or not to spend their hard earned money on a game. That means that I pan as well praise games. That doesn't make me a nincompoop any more than your disagreeing with me makes you one. If you want to live in an echo chamber that's your choice but I'm glad that Matrix thinks otherwise and allows purchasers of their games to voice their opinions both pro and con. And from what I have seen in this forum and at Steam, there are very few mixed reviews of this game. People either love it or hate it. Whether that's enough to make a success of this game remains to be seen.

[BillRunacre]

Are you normally this rude to others? Have you considered that you have already invested so much time as a tester that you are too close to the game to recognize that others may have a different perspective? When I see AI units which are completely surrounded and not close to a HQ unit and yet still fully regenerate strength points each turn even at the lowest AI level, then I think that most players would agree with me that the AI's defense has a significant advantage. When I see it necessary to have four or more units to ensure the wipe-out of a surrounded AI unit with no connection to a HQ unit then I think that most players would agree with me that the AI's defense has a significant advantage. Thanks to that, this game becomes an exercise in frustration for me.

Hi David

The AI does follow exactly the same rules on supply and reinforcement as human players.

I can understand some circumstances where a Regiment is cut-off yet able to reinforce to strength 5 (its maximum permissible, without elite reinforcements) as the supply & reinforcement rules don't take into account the maximum permissible strength of a unit (it's something for us to consider for the future).

Though with all other units they should not be able to reinforce to full strength, i.e. 10, unless their supply levels is 6 or greater.

I would be happy to look at examples, preferably saved turns though screenshots are better than nothing, if there are any occasions where units appear to be reinforcing beyond what should be possible.

You can email them to me at: bill.runacre@furysoftware.com

Bill

[DavidG3276]

I was not referring to "five pointers" but units which could regenerate to ten points. The next time I run into the situation then I'll attempt to provide screenshots to you.

[havoc1371]

I am really dating myself but I started with AH's Tactics game and even played their Civil War game. This game is not "fun" to play. The map scaling is far larger than other games in the SC line which makes it easy to miss things and hard to implement a grand strategy. Consequently, it takes a lot longer to achieve anything. I appreciate that the war took several years but the game shouldn't make you feel that it takes that long to finish a game. The defense even on the lowest AI level is absurdly balanced in its favor. I will try a few more games and see if any updates improve the game but otherwise I plan to uninstall it.

I couldn't disagree more. I can date myself too and state that I started playing hex and counter wargames in 1972, when I was 13...so do the math.

Unfortunately the title of this thread uses the word 'Operational' when in fact it is a Grand Strategic game.
This in my opinion is a superb strategic level game and is excellent in multiplayer. Otherwise, my opinion mirrors the OPs statement at the opening of this thread.

Can't really understand how a beginning or intermediate level AI could be unbalanced in the AI's favor, having tested SP for two months in beta. As a matter of fact numerous tweaks were necessary to make it preform better. Even now there are folks with pretty good knowledge of SC game mechanics wanting the AI strengthened in some areas.

Well, there will always be naysayers and nincompoops that feel they have to publicly air their grievances about a product. I don't really get that though. There are a lot of games here in the Matrix/Slitherine ecosystem that I have bought and decided later I either didn't like or it failed my expectations. I don't go out and publicly diss those games.
I just move on and play something else.

Maybe you should too.

Pointing out flaws in a game (whether you agree with their opinion or not) is constructive. Insulting others is not. The fact that you play tested it means you have a deeper understanding of the system and the game, so how about sharing knowledge instead of disparaging those who are finding the game difficult?

[BillRunacre]

I was not referring to "five pointers" but units which could regenerate to ten points. The next time I run into the situation then I'll attempt to provide screenshots to you.

Yes, please do, and if playing the AI you can always turn off Fog of War temporarily via Options in order to take the screenshot.

Perhaps take one with the units showing, and another after pressing H so that the underlying resource strengths are displayed.

[Zeckke]

nah, my expectatives of this game----very bad

hasta la vista babys¡

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Pointing out flaws in a game (whether you agree with their opinion or not) is constructive. Insulting others is not. The fact that you play tested it means you have a deeper understanding of the system and the game, so how about sharing knowledge instead of disparaging those who are finding the game difficult?

I was asked to lower the temperature on this otherwise excellent thread started by JWW, but I feel I should give an explanation of why I responded thus to after reading this one particular commenter.

Forensically look at all his recent posts. He started spamming the forums with negativity about ACW.
He took it on as a gatekeeper to dissuade others from buying the game.

Secondly, His lack of understanding of some basic game mechanics and using that as an example of things that are wrong seemed unjust to decide to write a 'review". If he needed help with understanding the game, or wanted to post his concerns or criticisms he simply could of went on the main forum page a new thread without sullying this thread.

Funny thing...he basically posted almost the same thing about WiE that 'he wanted a game that was easy and can be played in 3 hours'...almost verbatim to what he posted recently. If he thought WiE was hard and couldn't be played in 3 hours, why would he expect ACW which was advertised as SC's biggest map to be any easier.

I have read other critical posts and they are fine. I also understand this is a valid way to collect data. But this guy rubbed me wrong. When I checked and saw that he wrote basically the same thing in the past, well that angered me as this fella seemed like some kind of a grievance artist. So...I responded. I guess I shouldn't of used the word nincompoop.

That's it. I will speak no more on the matter but I stand by my observations and my comments.

[Patrat]

3 hours. Wow I must be getting old. It takes me several days to finish a game against the AI.

Btw since we are dating ourselves, I started with Avalon hill games in the late 60s.

I myself have posted lots of critical posts regarding the AI. There are ways to be critical, without being negative about the game.

Back to orginal topic. The game does a good job of recreating the strategic war of movement in the west and the strategic stalemate in the east.

Does it simulate the operational movements of the armys or the tactical battles. No not really. But then again the other games didn't simulate WW2 operations or tactics well either.

That's why it's called Strategic Command, and not Operational Command I guess.

[Duedman]

I was not referring to "five pointers" but units which could regenerate to ten points. The next time I run into the situation then I'll attempt to provide screenshots to you.

You probably won't have a "next time" since the game is so bad.

From your posts one can see that you just do not know whats happening.
And instead of trying to understand the game or asking in the forums why this or that just happened, you just blame the game. I have no sympathy for that.

But still: Try to figure out, how entrenchment works and how to remove it (early war units can't).
Combine that with the "prepared attacks" mechanic.

And maybe and you might understand why moving in the open towards an entrenched enemy position and waiting for their prepared attack while not yet being entrenched yourself feels like "defense is totally in the AI's favor"

[*Lava*]

And maybe and you might understand why moving in the open towards an entrenched enemy position and waiting for their prepared attack while not yet being entrenched yourself feels like "defense is totally in the AI's favor"

Because advancements in weaponry far outstripped advancements in tactics (especially at the beginning of the ACW), the defender (no matter what side that was) always had the advantage. Attacking an enemy armed with rifles in the open (especially cavalry) was pretty much suicide.

The Europeans found this out for themselves in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) when massed cavalry hurled at the enemy were slaughtered.

As technology advanced with the use of accurate large caliber rifled artillery and the use of swarms of skirmishers instead of massed lines of infantry, the attacker (the Union fundamentally) was able to ameliorate the clear advantage of the defense. However, even then, a frontal attack was enormously costly.

If the game simulates that, it is historically correct.

[Tanaka]

Fantastic post. And I agree. SC ACW really does an outstanding job of portraying the Civil War at the strategic and operational levels. I think this game is the now the current king of that actually. The only other competitor is the older classic Ageod's Civil War 2. Really loving this one! And the huge map covering the entire US to Mexico and all theaters is fantastic!

[kennonlightfoot]

I am afraid I will have to disagree with this being a good simulation of the Civil War. Mostly because of the need to make WW I style continuous lines across Virginia and later Kentucky/Tennessee. I am not sure how this can be fixed since it seems to be the nature of the game engine.

However, it is fun to play, and it is probably the only Strategic level game that can be played against live opponent in a reasonable time (not lifetime ). There are far better Strategic games simulations. But they are usually either like Grand Tactician The Civil War where you can only play the AI or like AGEOD's which can be played against an opponent as long as you have 2-5 years to set aside for a game.

I do have one suggestion. Remove the Swap unit command. It gives the game to much of a blitzkrieg ability. The Civil War while having a lot of maneuvering was ultimately a war of attrition. Battlefield victories left both sides to exhausted to exploit the result. Eliminating the Swap command would make killing Corps very difficult.

Eliminating the tendency to form continuous lines in the game would be much more difficult because of so many parts of the game system interact on this. But it may be possible by modify the supply system (restrict it heavily to rails, rivers and roads) and making ZOC's of units more rigid so enemy units couldn't move between gaps.

[sokulsky]

I disagree that SC: ACW is good representation of Civil War - military operations simply looked differently than presented in game and this game feels like "what if ACW was fought like WWI" with exception to the fact that one hex could muster much more units than single corps.

Still, it doesn't matter that much as it is just a game and as a game about this period, it somewhat properly (and in hollistic way) presents issues that were present in this conflict. It is fun to play eventhough CSA seems to be buffed a bit in order to keep it fun to play after 1863 (anybody who knows economical and manpower differences between USA and CSA in ACW would point out blatantly low amount of USA resources in this game). Still, it is fun. Notwithstanding lack of stacking, ahistorical WWI entrenchment lines since 1861 etc. and so on and so on. It is good enough to be fun and PBEM is excellent - I have a lot of fun with it