I give up! This game will now go to my "do not play" folder

[von Beanie]

I've tried to play this game against the AI for about a month--always as the Union. As a 50-year veteran of wargaming, I've seen many bad game designs, but few with the fatal flaws of this one. I've been to most of the Civil War battlefields from Fort Craig, NM to Fort Monroe, VA. Although the level of geographic detail on the map is more accurate than Ageod's ACW2 (which has features on the map in 1861 that didn't exist until 1864), for an old person with declining eyesight, this game's map is horrible. It is mostly shades of green and tan, with huge areas of repetitive hexes of "mountains" and "forests." Yet it is the road network (as well as the RRs) that are vital to operations, and they are way too difficult to see in the forests and mountain terrain. The map desperately needs to be upgraded to be functional. If the ugly green patterns are retained, at least put the road and railroad networks in white for the increased contrast.
Then there are a whole host of game-design flaws. Stacking of any units is impossible. Thus, in a campaign like Gran'ts attack on Forts Henry and Donelson, individual timberclads and river gunboats must be moved forward one by one to attack a CSA fort, often inadvertent creating traffic jams on the rivers that prevent ground troops from crossing the same river! The latest flaw ruining my game is the appearance of partisans showing up far behind my lines in 1862 as I am reaching TN. These units show up in villages that I must leave unoccupied simply because there are way too many to garrison with the game's low unit density. Right now two such towns in WV are controlled by partisan units, as well as one in Maryland. Like eastern TN, the western part of Virginia that became WV had strong Union loyalties. It takes a force of divisions and brigades to oust the partiisans from each town, which is very unrealistic historically. When Quantrill sacked Lawrence, KS in 1863, they left before noon because they had no chance of holding the town even with the dispersed Union troops in eastern Kansas.
In my opinion, this design flaw stems from the fact that the game doesn't permit the creation of supply depots. Partisans could be used to wipe out such depots, but not require large military forces to retake the villages. Moreover, such depots are also needed to efficiently deploy new units. To deploy new units I have had to move my cursor to numerous villages and cities to figure out where I can deploy new units. The game mentions large cities and capitals, but Kansas became a state in Jan 1861 and neither Topeka nor the effective Union capital of Lawrence (or Fort Leavenworth) will allow for new deployments. The westernmost Union town I have found is Jefferson City, MO, but only after I have captured it. Why the possible deployment locales are not highlighted on the ugly map is another design flaw.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that unless a major reworking of this game takes place, it is not a better similation of the American Civil War than Ageod's ACW2 that is still available on the Matrixgames website.

[BillRunacre]

Hi

For the map, you may want to try some of the alternate map sets that come with the game.

These can be found from the Main Menu by going to Settings -> Mods, and there are two alternate sets to choose from:

Alternate Map Set
Alternate Map Set (Classic)

While playing, these can be found by going to Options -> Settings -> Mods

Turning National Colors on (or off) in the Options screen may also help.

Additionally, you may also find this mod made by another player useful for the rail lines:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=386355

With respect to Partisans, a change was made in the latest patch to make them more vulnerable to attack. Though if you'd rather Partisan units not appear in game, these can be simply disabled either when starting a game or during one against the AI, by going to:

Options -> Advanced -> Scripts -> Decision

Untick the second one from the top: DE 1001: Disable to Play Without Partisans

I hope this helps.

Bill

[lionel1957]

Interesting perspective von Beanie. We have similar previous gaming experiences. I find this game both challenging and fun. I hope you try the suggestions Bill outlined for you. I think you will find them useful. In addition, the excellent Editor may help you develop some of your own scenarios that meet your needs.

Good luck fellow gamer!

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

victory conditions need to be turned into a point system. South is gonna loose, just need a better measuring stick.

[CSSS]

I've tried to play this game against the AI for about a month--always as the Union. As a 50-year veteran of wargaming, I've seen many bad game designs, but few with the fatal flaws of this one. I've been to most of the Civil War battlefields from Fort Craig, NM to Fort Monroe, VA. Although the level of geographic detail on the map is more accurate than Ageod's ACW2 (which has features on the map in 1861 that didn't exist until 1864), for an old person with declining eyesight, this game's map is horrible. It is mostly shades of green and tan, with huge areas of repetitive hexes of "mountains" and "forests." Yet it is the road network (as well as the RRs) that are vital to operations, and they are way too difficult to see in the forests and mountain terrain. The map desperately needs to be upgraded to be functional. If the ugly green patterns are retained, at least put the road and railroad networks in white for the increased contrast.
Then there are a whole host of game-design flaws. Stacking of any units is impossible. Thus, in a campaign like Gran'ts attack on Forts Henry and Donelson, individual timberclads and river gunboats must be moved forward one by one to attack a CSA fort, often inadvertent creating traffic jams on the rivers that prevent ground troops from crossing the same river! The latest flaw ruining my game is the appearance of partisans showing up far behind my lines in 1862 as I am reaching TN. These units show up in villages that I must leave unoccupied simply because there are way too many to garrison with the game's low unit density. Right now two such towns in WV are controlled by partisan units, as well as one in Maryland. Like eastern TN, the western part of Virginia that became WV had strong Union loyalties. It takes a force of divisions and brigades to oust the partiisans from each town, which is very unrealistic historically. When Quantrill sacked Lawrence, KS in 1863, they left before noon because they had no chance of holding the town even with the dispersed Union troops in eastern Kansas.
In my opinion, this design flaw stems from the fact that the game doesn't permit the creation of supply depots. Partisans could be used to wipe out such depots, but not require large military forces to retake the villages. Moreover, such depots are also needed to efficiently deploy new units. To deploy new units I have had to move my cursor to numerous villages and cities to figure out where I can deploy new units. The game mentions large cities and capitals, but Kansas became a state in Jan 1861 and neither Topeka nor the effective Union capital of Lawrence (or Fort Leavenworth) will allow for new deployments. The westernmost Union town I have found is Jefferson City, MO, but only after I have captured it. Why the possible deployment locales are not highlighted on the ugly map is another design flaw.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that unless a major reworking of this game takes place, it is not a better similation of the American Civil War than Ageod's ACW2 that is still available on the Matrixgames website.

So I assume this is your first Strategic Command game? I have seen playing their games for over 20 years. It is very intriguing to me that the number one complain I have read over and over again is that people complain that the game is not a tactical warfare resolution, with stackable counters. While you could make that demand on a tactical scale game or even and operational scale game.This game is clearly a strategic or grand strategic scale. As are ALL of their games for the past 20+ years. I about so sorry you had to move your gunboats one by one to take a strategic fort on the Mississippi. Perhaps you should buy games that are linear simulations that allow you to participate in linear battles and campaigns with no elasticity of play? I Dislike that Richmond is the Holy Grail for the Union.
Now all joking or sarcasm aside von Beanie. One thing you can count on IS that player will make MODs of the game with different maps and styles within the programing frameworks of the game. Stacking has never been the goal of Fury Software but players create some amazing Mods. I would strongly recommend that you keep an eye on the MODs as they are being offered. AGEODs games are incredible as well their WWI game is one of the most amazing games I have ever owned or played. If it would have stopped crashing.
von Beanie we have about the same amount of years playing computer games. Be sure to hit the "S" button to see supply in the game often, it will guide your battles in this game. Well here's to hoping your die rolls may always be legendary!

[lion_of_judah]

Hi
Since this is on the strategic level, then why not have each hex = say 50miles a hex.

[havoc1371]

Hi
Since this is on the strategic level, then why not have each hex = say 50miles a hex.

This game is really abstract when it comes to units/hexes. Since the combat units are corps/division/brigade mainly, 50 mile hexes means a brigade has a 50 mile front, since there isn't any stacking. This was my original comment on the game; that the scale to units is way off. The game is playable and works as a "game", but if you expect a semi-realistic representation of the campaigns of the American Civil War, this isn't it. Even the largest battle of the ACW would fit in one of these hexes. With this map, a better representation would be units representing a key leader with infantry, cavalry, artillery strengths represented within each leader unit. But the Strategic Command system isn't set up this way, so you have to accept the game as it is, or move on to something else.