Unofficial thread for Frank Hunter's ACW: Fort Sumter to Appamattox

[MisterX]

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

Sent and enjoy.

Never knew about the Fredericksburg blackhole, but I do notice that either side keeps hacking away at Fredericksburg.

Anyone want to share their ideas on some houserules that could make games more balanced? I don't know all of the weaknesses yet so I can't offer much.

I am surprised that Frank has not chimed in with a comment or two yet.

Thats strange when i looked in my email inbox i dint saw your email ? Could you give me your email adres and then you could send me the game then ?

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: GameTester
Tried this game out but just don't like it. Maybe someone could make a new one, it can't be that hard.

Was there anything specific you didn't like?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I bought the game in 1996, I've been playing it on and off since then, recently completed an e-mail game and I'm halfway through another one. I've never encountered this "Black Hole of Fredericksburg" problem -- perhaps because the right circumstances haven't occurred in my games? So I don't know whether any patch has addressed it or not.

The latest version is 2.66, dated 30 September 2003.

Frank is planning to rewrite the game completely and use a bigger map next time.

(However, Frank seems to have disappeared in recent weeks. Gone on holiday, perhaps?)

[SittingDuck]

whoof - I'll say one thing - there needs to be a MUCH greater challenging AI in any new version. This one is just not getting it done at all. And I know most AI's are weak challenges, but this one is not good.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

whoof - I'll say one thing - there needs to be a MUCH greater challenging AI in any new version. This one is just not getting it done at all. And I know most AI's are weak challenges, but this one is not good.

Make sure you give the computer full advantage. There is a setting on the set-up menu for that. Also, if you are playing the rebs, make intervention "no chance." Putting random leaders also tends to make things more difficult.

Ray (alias Lava)

[SittingDuck]

Good point on the random leader thing. I am intrigued by the slightly 'off' leader ratings option and will try that. As well as hidden.

One thing I certainly don't like about the AI-handicapping (and this is almost all games) is that it's simply mathematical handicapping. IOW, making them *not* subject to the same rules/restrictions/etc that a human player does. One of these days someone needs to actually make an AI that has *levels* of strategy and not this poor handicapping stuff. Because those AI advantages don't make the AI any more interesting. It just makes you have to use twice the amount of force to accomplish something, skewing already games that often have their numbers off.

[*Lava*]

@SittingDuck

Are you playing the rebs? That could explain a lot, the AI in the east simply throws itself at you trying to wear you down. If your able to entrench yourself in Fredericksburg and hold out, there is little the AI can do to unseat you (they same holds for PBEM btw).

A tougher match is playing the Union. Some suggest giving the rebs Missouri to balance things out, but leave Kentucky neutral. I always played with leadership qualities hidden with a slight variation, and most PBEM gamers do the same. Give the rebs a good chance of intervention and I think you will find it more interesting.

Ray (alias Lava)

[sabre100]

hey sittingduck could you please send me the game as Frank's website is still down so I can not download. my email is sabre@renderfx.com regards

[MisterX]

Still dint recieve an email sitting duck my email is :nickrburg@msn.com

[SittingDuck]

Nick, I sent the game to you as requested on 6/28. I am resending it to you and also Sabre.

Nick - it bombed again. You'll have to get it from one of these guys. Suggest you try Yahoo mail or something. I am not sure of Hotmail's inbox capacity, but again it would not accept it.

[MisterX]

I got my Yahoo Mail adres here it is :nroozenburg@yahoo.co.uk

Could you already show me some pics ?

[MisterX]

Sittingduck are you gonna send the game to my Yahoo Mail ?

[Williamb]

I love the premise of this game but have a few small problems.

This are really just nitpicks.

One is the armies. I understand that you have an army commander over their subordinate corps and that the corps commanders carry out orders according to their abilities.

My complaint stems from "Basing" the armies and their objectives.

For example I made Lee Commander of the Army of N Virginia with j Johnson and Beauregard as subordinate Corps commanders on day one.

The PROBLEM is that I made Richmond the Armys home base and the objective as Washington DC (later I changed this to defending Richmond)

Johnson proceeded to link up with Beauregard HOWEVER Beauregard proceeded to march on Washington without him !!!

The army got divided up and chopped up.

Just dont like that you can stage an army in open terran rather than in cities. Like to see Lee MOVE with his subordinates.

The other nitpick was starting command levels for officers.

didnt like that DH Hill, J Magruder, B Huger, ect ect.. start out as CORPS commanders rather than divisional. This is strange considering the lack of troops early on. Had to create 8 or 9 Confederate Corps rather than divisons.

Really should be a way to edit starting command levels. As well as changing Cavalry commanders into Infantry and vice versa.

[ShermanM4]

I love the premise of this game but have a few small problems.

This are really just nitpicks.

One is the armies. I understand that you have an army commander over their subordinate corps and that the corps commanders carry out orders according to their abilities.

My complaint stems from "Basing" the armies and their objectives.

For example I made Lee Commander of the Army of N Virginia with j Johnson and Beauregard as subordinate Corps commanders on day one.

The PROBLEM is that I made Richmond the Armys home base and the objective as Washington DC (later I changed this to defending Richmond)

Johnson proceeded to link up with Beauregard HOWEVER Beauregard proceeded to march on Washington without him !!!

The army got divided up and chopped up.

Just dont like that you can stage an army in open terran rather than in cities. Like to see Lee MOVE with his subordinates.

The other nitpick was starting command levels for officers.

didnt like that DH Hill, J Magruder, B Huger, ect ect.. start out as CORPS commanders rather than divisional. This is strange considering the lack of troops early on. Had to create 8 or 9 Confederate Corps rather than divisons.

Really should be a way to edit starting command levels. As well as changing Cavalry commanders into Infantry and vice versa.

Heya,
first they do that for several reasons. Make sure you check initiative and things like that. That is also just part of their profiles to do that. Thats why I always play with the commanders stats at random. Second, you do realize this game is eight years old don't you? In December, we should receieve our next installment of ACW, or if I recall correctly that is what Franks site read the last time I saw it. Hopefully things like this will be fixed.

[ravinhood]

Did any of you guys try "No Greater Glory" by SSI? An old operational Civil War Strategy game back in the late 80's. I was a beta tester, I know it's good! LOL It has a lot of politics in it, or at least as I recall. Wasn't too bad of a game for an Amiga 500.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

You can assign a cavalry commander to an infantry division; but you can't assign an infantry commander to a cavalry division.

[*Lava*]

Army Basing..

Your army should always be based as close to its area of operations as possible. I believe an army has a supply zone of 5 hexes. So in your case, if you want to attack Washington, you should base your army in Fredericksville.

As for moving armies... ahh, this is an art. If you give an army an "advance" order, they will. The closer the objective, the more likely they will all go there. Also, it depends on the type of march you chose. If you REALLY want the boys to attack fast, select "forced," but the down side is they arrive for battle fairly fatigued, and that could lose you the contest.

Also remember, that leaders with high initiative ratings will sometimes act independently. Although you may want to disregard the yank division a couple hexes west of your objective, Jackson for example, won't... and he will attack. Others, especially corps leaders, with poor ratings, will hang back and may not take part in the upcoming battle. One work around here, is to use divisions. Divisional leaders will almost always follow your orders to the letter.

Another interesting way of moving armies is by using the "defend" and "withdraw" orders. With these two orders you can actually advance on an objective but keep much tighter control on your forces. Use the unit movement system (click on unit) and then with your mouse give it a path. By this technique, you can advance your army say 2 hexes (where they will be less fatiqued). Once your army has moved closer to its objective (say within 2 hexes), a normal advance will get them to launch the final assault. Note, although army elements need army orders, there is nothing to stop you from giving each element its own movement path. I always do this to reinforce the army orders and it seems to help quite a lot in maitaining control.

Also, be aware of the weather. Any movement will be hampered by poor weather. So if you ask an Army to march 6 hexes in the winter and they only move 2, don't be surprised.

Hope that helps some..

Ray (alias Lava)

[Williamb]

ORIGINAL: ShermanM4

Heya,
first they do that for several reasons. Make sure you check initiative and things like that. That is also just part of their profiles to do that. Thats why I always play with the commanders stats at random. Second, you do realize this game is eight years old don't you? In December, we should receieve our next installment of ACW, or if I recall correctly that is what Franks site read the last time I saw it. Hopefully things like this will be fixed.

Well the whole premise of my comments was aimed at seeing corrections in the NEXT game rather than trashing the current one.

Why I said nitpicks rather than complaints.

I understand about how armies and inititive works. My thoughts were maybe a more cohesive way for armys to act might be usefull.

Also wanted to address the "Basing" of armies in cities. Felt that was too limiting.

I think one thing that would GREATLY improve this game is an increase in game map. You create a stack limit and increase game map size and MANUEVERS will take place in a game.

For example lets look at gettysburgh battle.

if this battle was to be fought over several hexes we might see Sickles corps fighting Andersons division below little round top. Another part of the army would fight on Cemetary hill. Still another part might see Pickets charge.

yes I know would be impractical to increase map to size that would reflect down on to individual battles. But I was thinking in terms of armies having "right wing, Center , Left wing , Reserves..." instead of moving in just one big peice.

just a thought.

[ShermanM4]

Well the whole premise of my comments was aimed at seeing corrections in the NEXT game rather than trashing the current one.

Why I said nitpicks rather than complaints.

I understand about how armies and inititive works. My thoughts were maybe a more cohesive way for armys to act might be usefull.

Also wanted to address the "Basing" of armies in cities. Felt that was too limiting.

I think one thing that would GREATLY improve this game is an increase in game map. You create a stack limit and increase game map size and MANUEVERS will take place in a game.

For example lets look at gettysburgh battle.

if this battle was to be fought over several hexes we might see Sickles corps fighting Andersons division below little round top. Another part of the army would fight on Cemetary hill. Still another part might see Pickets charge.

yes I know would be impractical to increase map to size that would reflect down on to individual battles. But I was thinking in terms of armies having "right wing, Center , Left wing , Reserves..." instead of moving in just one big peice.

just a thought.

Agreed[:)]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Some people seem to feel the urge to get some representation of tactics into a strategical game. Not me.

Frank's existing old ACW game is a strategical game with no tactics, but it already takes a very long time to play. Adding any tactical element would just make it unplayable, at least for me.

Furthermore, one turn represents ten days. Ten days is not a battle, it's a campaign including a whole series of battles. I don't think it makes sense to split armies into left and right wings on this scale; and still less sense to talk about representing Pickett's Charge, which took about half an hour if I remember rightly.

Fortunately for my point of view, I doubt that Frank could face the programming complications and further debugging problems of adding tactical elements into a strategical game. (If we can assume that Frank is still alive out there somewhere...)