Civil War

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

[2. Gary Grigsby's American Civil War from 2by3 Games (Grand Strategy, based on a massively updated GGWAW engine) - Excellent game based on the alpha, should release Q1 2007]

Awww man another flippin year??? Gawd you guys take forever to make a game.  

As in, almost twice as long as 2by6 might take? [:D]

[diesel7013]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

[2. Gary Grigsby's American Civil War from 2by3 Games (Grand Strategy, based on a massively updated GGWAW engine) - Excellent game based on the alpha, should release Q1 2007]

Awww man another flippin year??? Gawd you guys take forever to make a game.  

As in, almost twice as long as 2by6 might take? [:D]

Actually, mathamatically speaking - 2by6 should take half the time [:D]

Unless they are all monkeys, then you are sorta waiting on that infinite time thing... [;)]

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: diesel7013

Actually, mathamatically speaking - 2by6 should take half the time [:D]

Unless they are all monkeys, then you are sorta waiting on that infinite time thing... [;)]

If only you could add additional bodies with 100% efficiency...

[Vyshka]

ORIGINAL: diesel7013

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

[2. Gary Grigsby's American Civil War from 2by3 Games (Grand Strategy, based on a massively updated GGWAW engine) - Excellent game based on the alpha, should release Q1 2007]

Awww man another flippin year??? Gawd you guys take forever to make a game.

As in, almost twice as long as 2by6 might take? [:D]

Actually, mathamatically speaking - 2by6 should take half the time [:D]

Unless they are all monkeys, then you are sorta waiting on that infinite time thing... [;)]

Fred Brooks would beg to differ. [:)]

[Dunhill_BKK]

It's a game from another publisher, so I don't know if it is taboo to mention it, but Take Command 2nd Manassas is a very, very, good tactical Civil War game. It uses 2D sprites, has a great AI and is very modable. The developers at Mad Minute Games are very helpful and post on the forums daily. Im currently helping a number of members develop a Revolutionary War mod. There are already a number of graphics and uniform mods out.

They are currently working on multiplayer and a strategic layer, but the tactical game is well worth it by itself.

I put this game in my top 3 of PC games. It's a very well done game. It's a game built by grognards for grognards. I hope they do well with it, so they can bring us multiplayer. The clicky crowd sometimes give it bad reviews, because its not quick enough for them. That is the problem with using real-time movement I guess. I love it myself. The more realistic the better for me, I love that sinking feeling when I realise my units are in trouble.

It's definitely a thinking man's real-time, computer wargame. Not clicky enough for the youngsters though.

[Gil R.]

Back to the original point of this thread, the anniversary of the Civil War in 2011, we at WCS (developers of "Forge of Freedom") have plans not to let that date go by without releasing something. (We're keeping mum on the idea.) Check back with us in 2010 for details. But if any of you wishes to preorder and lock in a cheaper price, please send $40 to my bank account in Switzerland...

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Here's a quick look at a part of the map for our Civil War game. We hope to be done with it around the beginning/middle of next year.

Oh the JOYS of TURN BASED WARGAMES. That looks pretty impressive Joel. Of course you know I will be mainly interested in how the AI plays and which side it plays best on.

[rhondabrwn]

I'm with Ravenhood on this one! I can hardly wait. [&o][&o][&o]

[David Heath]

Hmmm do you really feel its the best one out there. Mark Herman For the People Civil War game is more popular at WBC then Eric Smith's Civil War game. I admit that Victory Games Civil War is a great game.

David

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: David Heath

Hmmm do you really feel its the best one out there. Mark Herman For the People Civil War game is more popular at WBC then Eric Smith's Civil War game. I admit that Victory Games Civil War is a great game.

David

Tried it. Liked it. Lost interest in it.
That whole batch of card-driven wargames GMT in particular, but others as well, have fostered is entertaining, but, like Chinese food, makes you want something more after an hour or so. Paths of Glory was, to me, the best of the bunch, but still lost a lot of the flavor of its subject with the plug-ugly map and the point-to-point movement system.

I guess I am just kind of a six-sided guy. You can build in so much detail that winds up being abstracted in point-to-point or area movement systems. I have, after a lot of playing, started to grumble a little about this very thing in BoA, a game I have raved about in the past.

My tastes seem to be different from yours in significant ways, David. I was unable to get it up for Crown of Glory, and I seem to be a little limp with regard to the new Civil War game using that game's system, as well.

One last thing, while I am emptying my cyber-cholostomy bag: that map screenshot you posted of the Civil War game to be based on GGWaW? One of the most horrid 30 square inches I have ever been forced to view on my monitor.

[Tankerace]

I must be crazy. I for one would like to see a good Civil War naval simulation. Though obviously a niche within a niche, I think it would be pretty cool to see the Battle of Hampton Roads, duel of the Kearsarge and Alabama, or the ill fated attack on the Housatonic in full 3D. Or at the very least a good 2D tactical game. While I am in the mood for a new ACW game (My Sid Meier's, CWG2, and TS titles are a little worn out ), I'd like to see something a bit different modeled.
 
Still, can't wait!

[Sarge]

I am looking forward to the release of Forge of Freedom, I truly enjoy playing COG with the tactical battle option, which from what I have heard will only be improve, on top of the already fun COG game engine

[Joel Billings]

Is this any better? Since it's an alpha, I'm always interested in constructive criticism.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Is this any better? Since it's an alpha, I'm always interested in constructive criticism.

I will let you know after I get to play them both [;)] [:D]


PS/EDIT: The one thing I do like with the COG engine is the tactical battles

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Is this any better? Since it's an alpha, I'm always interested in constructive criticism.

Thanks for not taking me to task for being my usual smart@$$ed self, Joel.

I dunno. This looks to me like it's got a long ways to go.

I guess my biggest problem is that nothing stands out distinctly, so that everything is difficult to see.

I suggest this:
-start with the underlying map. Work in fresh, full earthtones to get a pleasing, pastoral, historically flavorful background on which to play the game. Blues for water, greens for forests, and so on. There's no substitute for the ambience created by a warm, richly colored, engaging map.

-make the divisions between areas interesting and vivid in themselves (electric colors are always good). Dashed lines are dead. Rivers make their own borders, of course, but should include the area division line themselves in order to avoid visual confusion.

-you've got a good start toward unit icons with the ships, but the rest is sh1t. A great idea for an area movement game like this is to perpetuate the "Civilization" series games unit icons for all purposes, or at least add some liveliness to the blocks and squares. You are going to have some density problems here, but consider ditching the "NATO designations." Telescoping multiple units into a single army organization helps relieve some of the congestion, for example (a rollover feature letting you "see" what you have in a particular area ought to be easily renderable).

-I like the start you have made toward presenting information through the cascading representations to the left of the HQs and with the circles around unit type symbols (representing supply or command status, I suppose), but it is, in this incarnation, totally inadequate. Once you have created a comprehensive scheme of unit and headquarters graphics, you can work with stars, bars, exclamation points, and whatever to show the player what the player needs to know, but, for reasons expressed with regard to unit icons above, you're just not ready to start on this yet.

-Cities, ports, forts, roads, railroads ... awful. Start fresh and give us some content here. If a railroad exists from point A to point B, let's see it. If a naval unit exerts some kind of zone of control over a segment of river or coastline, let's see it. If there is a conflict between units trying to exert control over such a river or coastline, let's see it. Again, the viewer's eye is strained beyond any idea of interest trying to follow those various sad grey things as they are now. One of the big mistakes many of your company's games have made is trying to pretend detail when there really is no function to it (the goofy "switchback" trails in UV and WitP are perfect examples of this). Make it attractive, but make it functional, is what I prefer.

In short, let's see it. This looks to me like a pretty lame effort at graphic representation so far.

Sorry. I don't like what I'm seeing here. I think a lot of rethinking and work is necessary. I'm not trying to be a "trasher," and I hope these remarks are helpful.

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah well, that's why it's an early alpha. Definitely need more definition on the map (brighter colours, more contrast, etc). However, I actually like NATO symbology icons; still, both should be available in the final product, so to each his own. I'm still looking forward to getting my hands on it.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
I actually like NATO symbology icons;

I do, too, actually, but in an area movement game, they seem a little out of place, unless they are the actual focus of the graphics.

I think, though, that HQs (meaning leadership and command-and-control) are so important in simulating a game in this era, that infantry, cavalry, and artillery ought not to be represented separately at all, unless they are in a location where they are not subordinated to an HQ. This approach has been used a lot of times in the past with games (computer and otherwise) based in this general era (Napoleonic through pre-WWI).

Besides, I would like to see some thought given to how units attached to a particular HQ but not co-located with it ought to be represented on the map.

I guess my idea is that fresh thought ought to be applied to the design, not formulaic applications from past game systems.

Being from what has always been a revolutionary, forward-looking nation, you ought to see where I'm going with this...

[liuzg150181]

It is seems really good, reminds me of the early "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" & "Nobunaga's Ambition" series by koei~~~[;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Is this any better? Since it's an alpha, I'm always interested in constructive criticism.

Just my 2 cents here. I own and have played dozens of American Civil War board games, mostly in the 1970's and 1980's.

The unit symbols in the screen shot are heavy handed and out of balance with the background.

Basically the map and units need higher contrast. You could go with pale, bland terrain and bright, colorful units - a typical choice. However, in the ACW you have these required units in blue and gray. The blue can be jazzed up, but not much can be done about the gray. So, I would suggest a somewhat more colorful background - though not a rainbow effect (of course). Strong earth tones, borderline dark. My idea then would be for the units to be pale blue and pale gray and thereby readily visible because of the contrast.

You need to decide on whether you are displaying the units as icons or text symbols, or both - with the option of which up to the player. Generally it is hard to do both well. Given the amount of information you are going to want to communicate about each unit, I would expect textual symbology to work better.

One of the more important aspects of the ACW was the leadership. Adding the name of the generals would be quite nice. Perhaps that could replace the HQ symbol - the commanding general's name as a banner with the other information arranged below it (e.g., stars, inf/cav/art, size). This would work for garrisons too, as many of the poorer generals were given static positions to hold throughout the war. Right now all the units are non-descript.

If you aren't already familiar with it, I would suggest looking through The Official Military Atlas of the ACW for ideas from the period about map details.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

[2. Gary Grigsby's American Civil War from 2by3 Games (Grand Strategy, based on a massively updated GGWAW engine) - Excellent game based on the alpha, should release Q1 2007]

Awww man another flippin year??? Gawd you guys take forever to make a game.  

What do you care, ravinhood - you don't buy any anyway!