Have you considered the US Civil War, or has it been done to death?

[KG Erwin]

This is a subject I haven't seen in these many posts on many topics. Do you at Matrix consider the US Civil War a dead issue as far as new games are concerned? There have been a few commendable attempts at tactical combat in the last few years, but as yet, there is not (at least in my knowledge) a successful strategic level attempt at this admittedly VERY complicated event. Comments?

[Arralen]

Originally posted by KG Erwin:
This is a subject I haven't seen in these many posts on many topics. Do you at Matrix consider the US Civil War a dead issue as far as new games are concerned

Not only done to death, but back from the graveyard at 0.00 o'clock ... at least that's how most of these games look for me.

Why doing what others have done before, and again and agian? Are ther only Us war gamers out there that think only the Us has any history to speak of?

What about all those other conflicts that happended alll the time, etc:

- The Rose Wars
- The Crusades
- The "Reconquista"
etc etc

Arralen

[David Heath]

Yes one is in the works... its called Brother Against Brother....

[Don]

For some of us, there can never be too many CW games! And since Matrix is doing it, I'm sure it'll be better than most!

[nikb]

I really enjoy Civ war games - and I'm from New Zealand. It just seems such a rich wargaming era, with much variation in the battles etc.

I'm not too fussed on a strategic game - more into the tactical side (but thats my choice not matter what age we are talking about).

I agree with Arralen, there are a heap of conflicts that are still to be modelled.

Nik

[Jerre]

Strategic Games create many "what if" situations that would be great to fight out in current or future tactical Civil War games. It would be nice for Brother against Brother to be able to export Army data down to regimental level for use in a tactical level game then be able to import that data back.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg is excellent.
The Antietam sequel, not as much.

Try the new Strategic Command US Civil War.
I've hosted 2 games.

-Legend

[governato]

The Civil War is a fascinating and relatively underdone topic at the operational level (day turns/divisions/brigades). Brian Kelly ("Stalingrad" designer) and I are testing the WEGO engine in the ACW setting as a possible expansion. It's pretty fun so far.

WEGO means that turns are planned and then executed at the same time, making campaigns with lots of movement and fog of war much more exciting/realistic.

A great example of a WEGO game at a similar scale is Frank Hunter's "Campaigns of the Danube"

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Interesting, turn based which calculates at same time.

[simovitch]

The Civil War is a fascinating and relatively underdone topic at the operational level (day turns/divisions/brigades). Brian Kelly ("Stalingrad" designer) and I are testing the WEGO engine in the ACW setting as a possible expansion. It's pretty fun so far.

WEGO means that turns are planned and then executed at the same time, making campaigns with lots of movement and fog of war much more exciting/realistic.

A great example of a WEGO game at a similar scale is Frank Hunter's "Campaigns of the Danube"

AEGOD's Civil War II has all the checkboxes ticked for me on the strategic level. Once you understand the peculiarities of the game mechanics it is really fun to play, and the AI is challenging as well. Same can be said about the Scourge of War series on the tactical level. The WDS/Tiller Civil War Campaign games cover the operational level very well, but I only play them PBEM since the AI is inadequate in most respects. I guess my point is for myself I don't need any more Civil War Computer Games.

[AndySfromVA]

I have several Civil War games but I find myself preferring those focusing on strategy, rather than tactical battles. That's because Civil War battles were pretty simplistic. Unlike the Napoleonic era, cavalry was a non-factor on the battlefield. Artillery was effective only at short distances. The most common tactic consisted of two sides lining up at musket range and slaughtering each other. Strategically, though, the campaigns were very interesting from the perspective of either side. Was there an effective alternative to Grant's grind it out campaign? Should Lee have been more defensively oriented instead of sacrificing men at Chancellorsville, Antietam and Gettysburg?

[governato]

I have several Civil War games but I find myself preferring those focusing on strategy, rather than tactical battles. That's because Civil War battles were pretty simplistic. Unlike the Napoleonic era, cavalry was a non-factor on the battlefield. Artillery was effective only at short distances. The most common tactic consisted of two sides lining up at musket range and slaughtering each other. Strategically, though, the campaigns were very interesting from the perspective of either side. Was there an effective alternative to Grant's grind it out campaign? Should Lee have been more defensively oriented instead of sacrificing men at Chancellorsville, Antietam and Gettysburg?

Exactly! I really like the Great Campaigns of the American Civil War boardgame series, but being boardgames they do not have any real fog of war and 'analog' Command *& Control rules are complicated...
They have been very well researched tho. https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/GCACW_Series#