Future of this game

[dpt24]

I have very mixed feelings about this game. I just bought it a few days ago and have finished 4 battles (Blackburns Ford, Bull Run, Mill Spring, Wilson Creek) with my only win coming at Wilson Creek as the Union in the single attack column scenario. Civil War Generals 2 is the main reason I play war-games today, and my copy won't work on modern computers, thus I bought this game.

I enjoy this game for the most part, but I think in the quest for "realism" they may have gone over the line and prevented the game from being enjoyable. For the record, I've played Flashpoint Campaigns, Combat Mission Black Sea, and various AGEOD games, so I have experienced activation rules and non-player controlled firing. I find having to change the formation of both the brigade and regiments to be annoying, especially since changing brigade formation often wipes out your movement points, and can be a real problem if half your brigade is in combat and the other half is still marching to the field. I also dislike the activation and mis-interpretation rules. I get that those are to make the game more "realistic" and I think one of the rules might be fine, but I absolutely hated playing with the division activation failure after the turn. I think pre-turn division failure or regiments mis-interpreting the rules could work, but not both.

The biggest example of what I found frustrating was the attempt to move across Stone Bridge at Bull Run. Yes, Stone Bridge in real life was a challenge, but the inability of my forces to get across in the game was ridiculous. Flanking across the river was possible, but it involved units going out of command, multiple regiment and brigade changes, and then my regiments bottled up at the bridge when moving in march formation so that most of them never got to the main battle at Henry Hill. Realistic? Maybe. An enjoyable game experience? NO!

The biggest problem with the game is lack of battles. I hope you (the developers) did not spend too much time or too many resources on Mill Spring and Williamsburg! I understand that it may not be economically feasible to do what CWG2 did, and have most of the battles of the war in one game, but if you are only going to have 4 battlefields, maybe do Bull Run, Wilson Creek (which I appreciated playing), Shiloh, and Seven Pines instead? As the game grows, and more add ons are made available, hopefully a full campaign mode is released. I like the alternate scenarios, but I have to agree with the above poster, for 50 bucks I'd at least want Shiloh and Seven Pines on top of Bull Run and Wilson. I also must say that the main reason I did not buy the game until the last week was because of the lack of battles; I finally bought it mostly because it's the best option in full battle (no Scourge of War) Civil War game at the moment.

Speaking of more battles, I do wonder how this system will work on the larger battles. I find it hard to imagine playing Gettysburg with regimental and battalion control. It might be worth play-testing those battles with brigades instead of regiments. I also think this game engine would be great for an American Revolution tactical game, and I think that's an untapped market, with only HexWar and Tiller there.

However, there were a lot of things I liked about the game. For the most part, I was impressed with the AI. They seemed to hold a lot of troops in reserve, but it seemed to work out okay for the AI. The smoke feature is really interesting, and I liked the fact units fire at a distance, rather than having to move them into each other to attack (RE: Civil War Generals 2.) I really have enjoyed this game, and will most likely buy the expansions, but I think reducing the frustration and creating more battles that people care about will be the fastest way to grow the player base and get more buyers.

[kennonlightfoot]

dpt24, I think some of you problems are just unfamiliarity with the game system. Unfortunately, it doesn't come with much explanation of what is happening. For example, the possible loss of all movement if you change the Brigade's orders. Just never make the orders change until after you have moved as many of it's regiments as you can at least partially and need the new order to close with the enemy. Then give the order and finish your move.

Actually I think this game system will shine when it is applied to the larger battles. One of the problems with previous games' attempt to handle battles like Gettysburg is the all knowing 70 Foot General. This system throw uncertainty into the mix.

But you are right, it needs a lot more battles covered to justify the cost. But I am afraid that is the curse of playing a game type that isn't in general demand. As someone said earlier, having so few people working on the game is a problem but Civil War games don't have the demand that was cause the big game companies to even give them a passing thought.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I bought your game during the slow season, but have a hard time coming back to it. After paying $50, don't you think I want to come back to it? I thought you had a team working on this game, not one or two guys part time. The one/two guy games have a bad track record and there are a good number here at Matrix that are dead.

If you can't release a new (free) scenario or utility of some sort to get out in the limelight again, it doesn't look good for you or me. [:(]

I hear you. Come January we'll be returning to this game -- much later than we'd hoped and planned, but the reasons for delay have all been legitimate. Most of that work will not be visible to the outside world (read: working on BAB#2), but there will indeed be at least one new scenario sometime in the next two or so months.

[Gil R.]

dpt24,
Thank you for all your thoughts.

I agree -- not surprisingly -- with kwhitehead, that some of what you wrote may be more related to the learning curve than the game's mechanics, but of course some of it is also a matter of taste. And I agree with him that this game system should work quite well for larger battles.

We will definitely produce more battles, and much bigger battles, with at least one being released around the middle of the year (and, if all goes perfectly, another in time for Christmas, though don't hold me to that!). Those games, of course, will be sold separately and not given away, though. (I mention this so that no one is under the impression that buying BAB#1 means an endless stream of free new battles.)

As for the battles we plan, Shiloh is most certainly on the list, and even was going to be in BAB#2 or BAB#3 until we rethought our business plan for the series. As for Seven Pines, I do not currently plan to make that an official BAB battle mainly because, along with Antietam and Fredericksburg, the nature of the battle itself makes it very difficult to simulate as a game. HOWEVER, if we do the Seven Days Battles as currently planned then I will try to have one of the maps include the Seven Pines area, so that modders can make that battle. Or perhaps we'll do it as a cheap expansion, if I do figure out how to get it to work reasonably well.

Finally, I should add that should you or anyone want to assist in testing BAB#2 you should message me. We will not be adding any new testers for a while, but it would be good for me to have a list of anyone who might wish to be involved, and we especially value having testers with different perspectives.

[Rosseau]

Good idea not do Gettysburg for the sake of Gettysburg and picking battles that will work well with your system. I also must remember the little extras that were added, and really enjoyed the PDF articles on the more obscure battles.

[Ironclad]

I think the BAB system, especially when fully refined, will be perfect for Gettysburg and I look forward to that and the other battles for release before then.

[kennonlightfoot]

Games like BAB which are Brigade/Regiment based work best on larger battles. Small battles like most of the scenarios in BAB #1 don't have enough units in them. The route or loss of just 2 or 3 regiments can decide the battle simply because they make up such a large percentage of the available force. This makes who wins or loses an almost random thing rather than a skill based result.

Larger battles involving a number of divisions allow the players enough flexibility to control the game and have different outcomes. Battles the size of First Manassas are probably the smallest size scenario that the game is good for. When you drop down to the scale of something like Blackburn Ford scenario you are just pushing pieces around to see if the die rolls favor you. There isn't sufficient force or time to do anything other than the same head on clash every game. I have found most of the scenarios involving less than a Corps fun little historical exercise but after played a couple of times so you know how the flow of the play goes they are put aside and never played again.

The most critical problem that all other games have had with simulating the larger battles like Antietam, Gettysburg, Second Bull Run, etc. has been the 70 Foot General. The games allow the player to coordinate movement on a scale that would have astounded Civil War era generals. Not even battles in the 20th Century with radios to help could match the coordination we achieve on our miniature battlefields. BAB brings in the capacity to limit that coordination and introduce some random events that should make the game work much better than past computer games on these type battles. Only board games with their extensive activation rules have been able to do this before.

[Rosseau]

I stand corrected. Maybe Antietam then? [;)]

[Gil R.]

I dread doing Antietam the most, because the combination of battlefield terrain and history make it the most difficult to get right. Which I blame mainly on McClellan, who held back his forces in ways that neither the A.I. nor human player ever would.

[shoelessbivouac]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I dread doing Antietam the most, because the combination of battlefield terrain and history make it the most difficult to get right. Which I blame mainly on McClellan, who held back his forces in ways that neither the A.I. nor human player ever would.

Aside from the depressions, ridges, flying corncobs, and the creek, itself - which likely offered far more ford / crossing opportunities than what McClellan or Burnside (who was determined to 'take that bridge') could account for, I wouldn't dismiss this battle - nor give up on simulating General McClellan's slow activation release of his corps, designed to attack in echelon from right to left across the battlefield. Of course, without putting in place historical constraints on the AI Union commander, there simply would be no game to simulate, as Lee's army would be crushed no matter how many replays.

The fact that Lee's army survived Antietam, even as Lee (with Jackson's able assist) pulled off almost as equally near miraculous a tactical victory over Hooker at Chancellorsville, makes a BAB version of The Battle of Antietam a must-have, hence, must-do BAB program design endeavor.

Yes, on the face of it it may appear to be a most daunting, maybe even impossible task for a BAB designer / programmer to pull off, but all the more reason to challenge 'the impossible'; and perhaps all the greater reward(s) for pulling this one off. If nothing else, place it on BAB's bucket list.

[kennonlightfoot]

I suspect the current release rules in BAB would easily handle McClellan's slow release of Corps for the attack. Probably handle it much better than HPS's release system which is very inflexible but the battle still plays relatively well under it. The most difficult things to over come in Antietam is the smartest move by the Union commander is to not attack until most of his releases have occurred. Second Bull Run will have the same problem. Only an idiot, i.e. Pope, would attack Jackson before most of his army arrived or leave the area of Henry House Hill once he knows Longstreet is on the field and flanking him. Placement of VP hexes can prevent the Union from hiding in the rear.

Forcing a player to attack when it is obvious attacking early is stupid (both the attacks on the Rebel left in Antietam and Second Bull Run) is much more difficult. But the addition of a Victory Hex that accumulated VP for time held would easily handle this problem.

[shoelessbivouac]

Forcing a player to attack when it is obvious attacking early is stupid (both the attacks on the Rebel left in Antietam and Second Bull Run) is much more difficult. But the addition of a Victory Hex that accumulated VP for time held would easily handle this problem.

+1.

Of course, Hooker ("Fighting Joe") being the far more impetuous - but certainly not stupid - or, say, the increasingly impatient, and somewhat near-sighted, rushing headlong Sumner (II Corps) into only gawd-knows what, or even the exceedingly deliberate and methodical-to-a-fault Burnside, should probably work to require some kind of mandatory early morning Union assault - whether on Lee's left or right.

What is especially intriguing about an Antietam simulation is just how near-run a thing it was, given such command opposites as McClellan and Lee.

Given the near-run nature of the historic outcome of the battle, a "historical scenario" simulation will doubtless strive to account for command stupidity, stodginess, stubbornness, impetuousness, etc. - on both sides, while implementing necessary play balancing features (and constraints) essential to making it a challenging game for both sides. Or the ever resourceful, collective minds of BAB will come up with whatever works!

What-if scenarios could entertain,

1) Additional scouting to identify other possible creek crossings.
2) Reverse McClellan's right to left attack-in-echelon strategy - requiring Burnside to attack first with Hooker being released last.
2) Nix the Union 'gift', outlining SO #191, four days earlier - and permit Lee and McClellan more maneuvering space on a BAB map board of unprecedentedly magnificent proportions. (Although this would probably prove more playable as an operational level contest.)
3) A "Lee Holds Fast" September 18th battle to the death, randomizing possible overnight reinforcements, which could include elite elements of the Navy Seals and Confederate prototypes of Stealth bomber air support ....

[BigDuke66]

I still haven't bought it but the future for this game or better the series lays in the fact to get some things improved beyond that what other games provide regarding the engine, obviously the HPS/JTS games are THE competitor here.
FOW would be a point that I like to see expanded, we had a thread for it here:
tm.asp?m=3857291
and I agree that it has to be improved.

Playing the HPS/JTS games I see that the lack of proper FOW takes depth out of a game, in these games for example the range from where I can differ between infantry & cavalry is much too big, the details on the unit are too precises like knowing that the unit has somewhere from 500-600 men instead of giving such numbers a wider range maybe even depending on the distance to that unit, also the spotting distance is often too big.
All these things just give to much certainty instead of the usual lack of information and with that an uncertainty that officers had to deal with and prepare for.

In case of FOW the approach is rather simple, less is more.
Of course easy talk but surely hard to implement.
What I want to point out is that BAB has some interesting points & concepts and if only some obstacles(like FOW) are pushed out of the way, I not only surely buy it but I would also see a bright future for the series, not only in the era of the CW but also in the Napoleonic era.
I hope Matrix realizes the potential that lies in this.

[Deathdancer]

Any of you guys feel this game has the makings of an AOR replacement further down the line?

I am so close to buying this, but even with my loyalty coupon, it still seems a bit on the expensive side. But if I was buying in to a future AOR, that would be a different story.

[BigDuke66]

AOR?

[Deathdancer]

Age of Rifles by Norm Kroger

[zakblood]

still play it tbh, even after testing it do death, and saying that, i'm a WW2 fan tbh, so it's not my normal area either, but i've also loved Roman times as well for battles and my war game fixes, so not totally lost in a Civil war time either[;)]

[richfed]

Is this game ever going to fulfill its promise of doing the entire war? I wish I had read this forum before laying out my $50. I like to support small developers who make historical strategy games - and I do - but years after its release, still nothing.

Very disappointed with my purchase, thus far.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: richfed

Is this game ever going to fulfill its promise of doing the entire war? I wish I had read this forum before laying out my $50. I like to support small developers who make historical strategy games - and I do - but years after its release, still nothing.

Very disappointed with my purchase, thus far.

I was hoping to see other battles. Since, I have been practicing selective buying for a while now, I just don't put out money unless I can be assured of a game with life in it. Look at their plans and where it is. No, word from anyone. This games lofty ideas may be dead. The choice of small battles without a quick offering of a major battle may have done this one in.

[zakblood]

i can't say what i don't know or do for that matter, but one thing is for sure, it's not dead yet and they will have some more information to be shared as soon as it's ready to be released to the open public