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

[SittingDuck]

Try the ACW_low.exe or whatever it is called. Hopefully that works. I tried it and MAN, it would make me want to upgrade PRONTO!!!

Jonathan, one thing I'd like to see in the new version is weather risks for sea travel. Currently there is none of that and there should be. It was really hazardous at times (still is). But now I see what you mean on your website where you mention how the sea bugs take the most enjoyment out of the game. They do stink at times.

Could you give me a take on Frank's new Napoleon series? I am leery of a game that goes too much on the glitz. One thing I love about his ACW game is it is fairly grognard. Most of the poop coming out now in military strategy games is so much about 'great graphcis', which is neat for the first few times you play then you see the engine totally stinks.

All in all, however, I think Frank's is the best offer out for a computerized strategic/operational ACW game. Which is something I've wanted for a long, long time.

I finally got the Brits and French into the US (ok, I cheated via the editor!! haha) and they aren't that big a deal. I did watch (in a valid game) the Brits launch an ill-advised amph assault on Philadelphia and lose everything. Clearly the value is the naval fleets.

I do think cavalry at least properly mimics the supply line devastation that occured in the war. To me, that is about their only value as well as good scouts. So I think they are about right. I really do wish Frank had factored artillery into the regular combat routines in a heavier fashion. That is a real disappointment.

[Pippin]

I also have been having trying to dl this package. If you want can email it to me at pippin@highpoly3d.com Thanks. Also, I can even chuck the binary on a server while there is a scramble to find a new one for it. Been looking for a decent civil war game since civil war general III got canned by sierra half way through completion.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Weather risks for sea travel -- yes, in principle. But as the game stands, the various bugs make sea travel risky enough, I think.

I seem to remember seeing some European troops getting into action in solo games I played in the past. But that was in small numbers and on their own initiative. In my previous e-mail game, in which I played the Confederacy, I investigated St George and Nassau and found that there are really quite a lot of troops stacked up in garrison in both places. If I could get those troops transferred to a friendly Confederate port and add them to my own forces, I thought, they could be really useful. But they refused to board transports at my command -- either their own transports or mine.

I don't find cavalry useful for anything much in the game. They can see one hex further than infantry can; big deal. They can cut supply lines only if you can persuade them to follow orders. Just like the infantry, if you give them Advance orders they tend to make suicidal attacks on the nearest enemy forces; and if you give them Defend orders they probably don't move at all. They suffer a bit less than infantry from being out of supply themselves; but they still suffer from it.

The game is basically a good design and contains good ideas, but there are many things about it that need putting right. If the source code were available, I think most of the problems could be fixed fairly quickly. The trickiest part would be to get the play balance right after fixing the problems.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

See the relevant forum for discussion of Frank's Napoleonic game. It follows much the same approach as ACW: it's a serious turn-based wargame with the emphasis on gameplay rather than flashy graphics.

There are differences of scale and communications. In ACW a turn is ten days; in CotD a turn is one day. And in 1809 all communications were by messenger on horseback, so it can take more than a turn for your orders to reach some of your forces. If you turn on full Fog of War, you don't even know what your own forces are doing until the messengers come back with their reports.

The game seems to me very well designed to simulate Napoleonic warfare, but I haven't played it enough yet to say how well it turns out in practice. So far it doesn't seem to be seriously buggy (I'm playing with the first patch installed).

It's quite easy to play. The main problem is getting the hang of the supply rules.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: madflava13

Quick Q-
I'm assuming the game was not intended to run in 800x600, correct? I'm one of those guys who still runs an old computer and I haven't upgraded yet - when I play ACW, I cannot scroll all the way East. I can see the beginning of the word "Philadelphia", but the city itself is off the map.

That is correct.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Originally there was an 800 by 600 version of the game, but Frank stopped supporting it some time ago, so if you can find it anywhere the version number would probably be 2.3 or something like that. This means it would have more bugs than the current version 2.66.

It would be nice if all games rescaled themselves elegantly to fit any size of screen, but Frank doesn't seem to have the technology for this yet.

[ShermanM4]

I also have been having trying to dl this package. If you want can email it to me at pippin@highpoly3d.com Thanks. Also, I can even chuck the binary on a server while there is a scramble to find a new one for it. Been looking for a decent civil war game since civil war general III got canned by sierra half way through completion.

No Way, was there really a CWGIII in production?[&:] That would have been a great idea since CWGII proved a vast improvement over CWGI.

[Pippin]

Sierra CLAIMS Civ Gen III was completed up to the Prototype stage. But states (in some odd way) that they did not want to add the polish to it as they thought it would be un-practical to market?

Try to figure that one out. I am a tad suspicious as I dont see why companies would make a game to prototype stage and then shit-can it. But then again, Hasbro used to do similar things to raise an eyebrow or two.

The old support forums are long gone now, but I could maybe try and hunt down some of the responses from back then. Big shame though, a lot of online players were waiting bigtime for CWGIII. If no for the graphical improvements, etc, at least to eliminate those drasted (ghosting bug) units that pop up all over the place and cause a real downer to serious play. Oh well. ..

[madflava13]

I've read the manual, the tutorials, and the hints on Thurb's site...

Any of you guys have some more strategies or hints for a new player? (Either side...)

Appreciate your patience and help!

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Pippin

Sierra CLAIMS Civ Gen III was completed up to the Prototype stage. But states (in some odd way) that they did not want to add the polish to it as they thought it would be un-practical to market?

Read Vivendi here. Sierra is owned by Vivendi and Vivendi, as a cooperation has been losing lots of money. One of the few bright spots for Vivendi is its games dapartment. As I understand it, they have been trying to sell-off that department for quite some time now. So... you end up with a "low risk" strategy, one that maximizes the bottom line (to attract buyers). And product which doesn't promise a high return, thus is put on hold or put to sleep.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Jonathan Palfrey]

As the program doesn't play well, correct strategy against the program may be somewhat different from correct strategy against a competent human player.

Playing against a human, the game is basically one in which the Union player tries to batter his way into a series of almost-invulnerable fortified cities.

The Union player needs to build a lot of ocean and river ships to destroy city fortifications wherever they can be reached by water. He will lose a lot of ships doing this and needs to be able to replace them quickly. But as a first priority, he must blockade the South by patrolling every Confederate port with at least six ships each. This cuts Confederate supplies dramatically and is the easiest and most effective way to hurt the Confederacy. It's probably best not to lose ships attacking forts until you have the blockade in place. Increase your shipbuilding capacity; this is expensive, but needs to be done: even the Union has nothing like enough capacity at the start of the game.

Compared with the Union, the Confederacy is short of men and supplies -- especially after the blockade is in place. I know it's boring, but the Confederacy should try to fight almost every battle as the defender. There are occasional opportunities to benefit from attacking, but be very careful, because an attack can easily go wrong and lose men you can't afford to lose. Sit in fortified cities and let the Union player attack you. There's nothing else he can do.

If you lose a battle or your forts are destroyed, don't panic and order a retreat. Build more forts and sit tight. Units in a fortified city never seem to retreat unless they're ordered to do so.

I really don't know whether it's worth building a Confederate navy or not. It can certainly worry the Union player if you do, but if your ships just get sunk, as they probably will, they might end up looking like a waste of men and supplies. In a game I played, I found that a Confederate navy came in useful after European intervention, to join forces with the French/British navies, but if you never get European intervention this doesn't apply.

Ship as much cotton as you can before the Union blockade becomes effective. Try not to spend all the supplies you get that way: you'll have more need of them later.

At the start of the game, defend Beaufort and Norfolk (with divisions, not just garrisons) and preferably New Bern and Plymouth too. The other ports are a lower priority because a bug in the game may prevent the Union player from reaching them by sea (don't rely on this, though). Remember that you can lose the whole of Texas by leaving Sabine undefended; but it takes a while for Union ships to get to Sabine, even if they manage to bypass Beaufort on the way.

The Union player should invade Norfolk, Plymouth, New Bern, or Beaufort if his patrolling fleets find that they're undefended. Garrisons are invisible, but garrisons are very vulnerable as long as the invaders have some artillery with them. Unfortunately artillery is heavy and requires more ships to carry it; but you have some understrength artillery brigades at the start of the game that can be used. Trying to invade the more southern Confederate ports is risky because your fleet may decide of its own accord to land at Norfolk or Beaufort instead.

The Union player should take and hold Missouri and Kentucky early in the game, and defend each city in those states with a permanent division (use low-rated leaders for this duty). A garrison is not enough, for two reasons: garrisons sometimes vanish (a bug in the game), and garrisons are sometimes defeated by civilian revolts (a feature of the game). But a division, even of only one brigade, seems to be safe against both problems.

[*Lava*]

Nice summary Jonathan!

Ray (alias Lava)

[SittingDuck]

Anyone up for email games?

[MisterX]

hey could you send me the game here is my email :nickrburg@msn.com

[Blackhorse]

I bought the original game . . . the publisher rushed it out way too soon -- unplayably buggy -- but I was delighted with Frank's efforts to support it.

When I finally found a PBEM partner we discovered the "Black Hole of Fredericksburg" -- when the combined size of the two Eastern Armies passed a certain size, they were drawn into battle every turn, regardless of maorale, fatigue or orders. Was this problem patched?

[MisterX]

hey sittingduck could you please send me the game you already know my email.

[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.

[Capt. Queeg]

Anyone have any suggestions on how to get the game since Frank's site is down? Thanks.

[GameTester]

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

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Queeg

Anyone have any suggestions on how to get the game since Frank's site is down? Thanks.

Underdogs has it IIRC.