Excellent write-up!
Though invited to the beta I just didn't have time to play the game. I am looking forward to it being offered on Steam, where I will buy it immediately.
Moderator: Fury Software
We must have a different definition of "tactical" and "operational". Units on a specific battlefield like Gettysburg, regiments/brigades trying to flank enemy regiments/brigades as part of the overall battle plan is tactical. Maneuvering divisions/corps of an army across the countryside of Maryland and Virginia to gain control of a key town or a major road junction to cut off supply, or interpose your army between the enemy and their supply source is operational.*Lava* wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:53 pmActually, although the war in the East was not a WWI continuous line of units, it pretty much behaved that way. The Union tried many times to attack Lee, but the Rebs were able to track the Yankees movement and concentrate against them on favorable ground. The Yankees would then commit to catastrophic frontal attacks with enormous losses.havoc1371 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:09 pm Sorry, but the argument made for the game being a good representation of the military operations falls short. Gettysburg battlefield would fit in one hex, yet the game has regiments, brigades, divisions and corps, all with the same limit of one per hex. So in essence, one regiment would "hold" the Gettysburg battlefield. The Eastern campaigns bogged down into a siege of Richmond/Petersburg late in the war, otherwise, most operations (campaigns) were fluid affairs, with divisions and corps marching to a point on a map where they would concentrate for a battle. Instead, the game in the East bogs down into a WW I style line running from the Shenandoah Valley to the Potomac River with very little maneuver other than swapping out units trying to punch a hole.
This is a time when the battlefield favored the defense and wave attacks in the open against rifles were suicidal. Even Lee, when he marched North and encountered his enemy at Gettysburg, found that attacking an enemy in favorable ground was sheer madness.
So the war in the East eventually took on a WWI style attrition warfare, with the Yankees lead by Grant, accepting high losses IOT to destroy the Army of North Virginia.
So yea, from a tactical POV I can understand being a bit disappointed that there isn't room to maneuver, but from an Operational POV, sounds like it portrays the war the way it was actually fought.
I agree.havoc1371 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:15 am
We must have a different definition of "tactical" and "operational". Units on a specific battlefield like Gettysburg, regiments/brigades trying to flank enemy regiments/brigades as part of the overall battle plan is tactical. Maneuvering divisions/corps of an army across the countryside of Maryland and Virginia to gain control of a key town or a major road junction to cut off supply, or interpose your army between the enemy and their supply source is operational.
What we have here is a solid front line where you mass units to pound at a section of the line, hoping to breakthrough, and advance one hex at a time. Sounds like WW I to me, which it did become, but the Eastern campaigns did not bog down into static lines of entrenchment until 1864, in front of Richmond and Petersburg. In the instances where they did dig in, it was a "tactical" decision, once the maneuvering stopped and a battlefield was chosen, like Malvern Hill, which could fit in one hex, as I stated in my previous post.
The game is still fun to play, and it seems balanced between players so far, but it still falls short in the part that is a representation of the operational conduct of the war.
Sadly I agree.Bylandt11 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:39 amI agree.havoc1371 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:15 am
We must have a different definition of "tactical" and "operational". Units on a specific battlefield like Gettysburg, regiments/brigades trying to flank enemy regiments/brigades as part of the overall battle plan is tactical. Maneuvering divisions/corps of an army across the countryside of Maryland and Virginia to gain control of a key town or a major road junction to cut off supply, or interpose your army between the enemy and their supply source is operational.
What we have here is a solid front line where you mass units to pound at a section of the line, hoping to breakthrough, and advance one hex at a time. Sounds like WW I to me, which it did become, but the Eastern campaigns did not bog down into static lines of entrenchment until 1864, in front of Richmond and Petersburg. In the instances where they did dig in, it was a "tactical" decision, once the maneuvering stopped and a battlefield was chosen, like Malvern Hill, which could fit in one hex, as I stated in my previous post.
The game is still fun to play, and it seems balanced between players so far, but it still falls short in the part that is a representation of the operational conduct of the war.
I'm a fan of the SC series, but this one fails to deliver. The engine is ill-suited to portray the ACW.
Is it fun to play? Much less so than the other titles. I got over 600 h of play in SC WW2. I am bored after 60 h with this. Each game I do the same thing, with only slight variations. Diplomacy is pointless. Research choices are obvious. The main problem: no real strategic choices to make, perhaps with the exception of how much the Union invests in amphibious operations. The rest is a slow grind across all fronts.
The fact that the ACW was strategically and politically less dynamic than WW2 is not the devs fault. But an engine that includes operational or tactical elements would have had a much better chance of keeping the ACW interesting.
I couldn't disagree more. I can date myself too and state that I started playing hex and counter wargames in 1972, when I was 13...so do the math.DavidG3276 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 8:46 pm I am really dating myself but I started with AH's Tactics game and even played their Civil War game. This game is not "fun" to play. The map scaling is far larger than other games in the SC line which makes it easy to miss things and hard to implement a grand strategy. Consequently, it takes a lot longer to achieve anything. I appreciate that the war took several years but the game shouldn't make you feel that it takes that long to finish a game. The defense even on the lowest AI level is absurdly balanced in its favor. I will try a few more games and see if any updates improve the game but otherwise I plan to uninstall it.
Hi DavidDavidG3276 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 8:51 pm Are you normally this rude to others? Have you considered that you have already invested so much time as a tester that you are too close to the game to recognize that others may have a different perspective? When I see AI units which are completely surrounded and not close to a HQ unit and yet still fully regenerate strength points each turn even at the lowest AI level, then I think that most players would agree with me that the AI's defense has a significant advantage. When I see it necessary to have four or more units to ensure the wipe-out of a surrounded AI unit with no connection to a HQ unit then I think that most players would agree with me that the AI's defense has a significant advantage. Thanks to that, this game becomes an exercise in frustration for me.
Pointing out flaws in a game (whether you agree with their opinion or not) is constructive. Insulting others is not. The fact that you play tested it means you have a deeper understanding of the system and the game, so how about sharing knowledge instead of disparaging those who are finding the game difficult?OldCrowBalthazor wrote: ↑Tue Jul 19, 2022 2:48 amI couldn't disagree more. I can date myself too and state that I started playing hex and counter wargames in 1972, when I was 13...so do the math.DavidG3276 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 8:46 pm I am really dating myself but I started with AH's Tactics game and even played their Civil War game. This game is not "fun" to play. The map scaling is far larger than other games in the SC line which makes it easy to miss things and hard to implement a grand strategy. Consequently, it takes a lot longer to achieve anything. I appreciate that the war took several years but the game shouldn't make you feel that it takes that long to finish a game. The defense even on the lowest AI level is absurdly balanced in its favor. I will try a few more games and see if any updates improve the game but otherwise I plan to uninstall it.
Unfortunately the title of this thread uses the word 'Operational' when in fact it is a Grand Strategic game.
This in my opinion is a superb strategic level game and is excellent in multiplayer. Otherwise, my opinion mirrors the OPs statement at the opening of this thread.
Can't really understand how a beginning or intermediate level AI could be unbalanced in the AI's favor, having tested SP for two months in beta. As a matter of fact numerous tweaks were necessary to make it preform better. Even now there are folks with pretty good knowledge of SC game mechanics wanting the AI strengthened in some areas.
Well, there will always be naysayers and nincompoops that feel they have to publicly air their grievances about a product. I don't really get that though. There are a lot of games here in the Matrix/Slitherine ecosystem that I have bought and decided later I either didn't like or it failed my expectations. I don't go out and publicly diss those games.
I just move on and play something else.
Maybe you should too.
Yes, please do, and if playing the AI you can always turn off Fog of War temporarily via Options in order to take the screenshot.DavidG3276 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:00 pm I was not referring to "five pointers" but units which could regenerate to ten points. The next time I run into the situation then I'll attempt to provide screenshots to you.
I was asked to lower the temperature on this otherwise excellent thread started by JWW, but I feel I should give an explanation of why I responded thus to after reading this one particular commenter.havoc1371 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 2:55 pm
Pointing out flaws in a game (whether you agree with their opinion or not) is constructive. Insulting others is not. The fact that you play tested it means you have a deeper understanding of the system and the game, so how about sharing knowledge instead of disparaging those who are finding the game difficult?
You probably won't have a "next time" since the game is so bad.DavidG3276 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:00 pm I was not referring to "five pointers" but units which could regenerate to ten points. The next time I run into the situation then I'll attempt to provide screenshots to you.
Because advancements in weaponry far outstripped advancements in tactics (especially at the beginning of the ACW), the defender (no matter what side that was) always had the advantage. Attacking an enemy armed with rifles in the open (especially cavalry) was pretty much suicide.