Matrix Games Forums

Okay I've been reading and reading... Just trying to see just how deep this game goes and what is going on. I notice something in the AARs... There are no real major battles in Virginia, where a majority of the Great Battles of the Civil war took place. Do you think this is a problem that future patches will change? It seems a majority of conflict is between Kentucky-Tennessee and the Coastal regions

Not so much a problem, but ignoring a beautiful aspect of the Civil War. Plus another great place to have conflict! So close to two Capitols

I've seen plenty of epic battles in Virginia. The problem here is not with the game, but with the mistaken "common wisdom" of avoiding combat there, in the game, by the gamers. Admittedly, between two good players, there shouldn't be a lot of movement there, as it is tough going. The flip side of that coin, however, is that good players will constantly be probing for weaknesses here, since the stakes are indeed so high.

If I remember my history, there WERE no significant battles in Virginia between Bull Run and the Peninsular Campaign in '62.

in my current PBM game the vast majority of the action has been in virginia.  I think PBM is where this game really shines, as the AI tends to use the same strategy in every game

Given the lack of good Union commanders in 1861/1862, I don't want to keep butting my head and giving my opponent Strategic Victories if I can avoid it.

More I read, the more I am interested in this title. Sounds like it packs a lot of punch..

I definitely would not wanted to have sent my Union Masses into a Southern Cauldron, been better to get the time, Leader and momentum to just overwhelm the South

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

More I read, the more I am interested in this title.

It may lack the broad appeal of GG's World War II titles, but for slick design, atmosphere, and sheer ingeniousness I think it's best thing he's ever done.

As I indicate in another thread, I think the lack of activity in the East has a lot to do with the South not having any palpable rewards for moving North, while the risks and cost of such a move are obvious.

As the North -- there is little reward in moving on Richmond with the available leadership until at least '63. You will simply generate casualties and strategic losses. But there is great reward in capturing southern ports. Result -- no movement South in the first half of the game.

As the South -- there is no reward for pressing the action at all in the East. Only casualties that you have a harder and harder time replacing. Result -- no movement North.

So, both sides simply ship their best leaders and as much strength as they think they can get away with to the West.

At least the game seems to play out like this much of the time. I don't think the issue is with the players, rather, I think it reflects the percieved risk/reward ratio present in the game. Players are simply doing what they are rewarded to do. Don't get me wrong -- this one has made it to my "all-time favorite" list already. Just suggesting some optoins for improvement.

- P

tran, that is what I hear.. On the threads, and some here. Some seem to try fighting in the East, and I guess historically we all know it was fruitless, in the end.


I have seen rule suggestions to make East Fighting more viable..

I have seen several monumental battles in the East- do not ever let your guard down as the CSA  in the Northern Virginia Front or you will see Yankees in Richmond in 62- and that will be that. Careful up there.

I concur that lack of good Union leaders in '61 and '62 make a CSA strategic victory probable, thus discouraging major action in Virginia during that time. As one of my present opponents is teaching me, if everytime you attack or they counterattack the result is strategic victory for CSA you are giving them 20 PPs per turn. That is gonna hurt in 1864-65.

Historically the Federal experience was Manassas '61, Seven Days '62, Second Manassas '62 and Fredericksburg '62. Outcomes were all bad for the Federals.

The game makes historical repeats likely when you consider the combined attack ratings, command ratings and army control ratings of McDowell (2-0), McClellan (2-0), Pope (3-0?) and Burnside and compare them to Beauregard, Johnson, and Lee.

I was playing the South, and by mid-1863 had fought a 6th Manassas. You'd think the Yankees would learn.