File under things I just discovered while poking around a CW2 thread at the Matrix forums: you can use the ‘redeploy’ option for leaders or stacks of leaders to relocate them anywhere with a rail connection in a single turn. (Not mentioned in the manual or tutorials, to my knowledge, and the tooltip is unhelpful.) That would’ve been nice to know earlier.
CraigM
2924
Definitely not in the tutorial.
However the tutorial is pretty good. Much better than Rise of Prussia’s. I feel like I have a solid grasp of the core concepts. Obviously there are some (lots) of things to learn, but it seems manageable now.
For sure, and playing the first dozen or so turns really crystallizes things. Obviously, I started as the Union, too: I feel like a certain amount of blundering is thematically appropriate there.
CraigM
2926
Ha! My entire plan when I start a proper (small) campaign will be ‘what can I do to fire Mcdowell and promote Grant’. Because that 2-2-2 is just ugly.
If I can figure that out, but bungle the rest, I’ll consider it a success. Learn in steps.
Don’t can McDowell too early. He’s a sight better than Banks, Halleck, Butler, and your other early-game army commander options whose names are not ‘Grant’.
CraigM
2928
So I did the 5 turn Bull Run campaign, to get my feet wet. I won a minor victory, though I failed the objective (I got two divisions to Richmond, but did not break the defense).
Thing is so much of what I learned did not apply. There was no creating corps or divisions, not formally at least, so all forces were fighting sub par. And the campaign is the first battle. If it goes poorly then all hope of victory goes too.
But I did a few things, but mostly won by making sure my forces from two regions coordinated. By setting the first forces to arrive (by a day) to passive I made sure that when the main army arrived it would attack together.
That said the campaign was a bit blah. By basically being a straightforward march to Richmond it meant there was little opportunity for diversion.
Still a win is a win. It seems my thought to try the shortest campaigns may not be the best. I don’t want a full 117 turn game, but something with recruitment and proper army composition.
The New Mexico campaign (Sibley’s thing) has some of that, although I don’t think it has command structure. You might also try one of the late-war ones.
CraigM
2930
Yeah, I’m just looking for something that feels more like earned victory. Other than making a few good choices on the initial engagement I didn’t feel I did much to earn the victory. And with the 5 turn limit, and Richmond 3 turns away with no obstacles, there simply wasn’t enough time to allow for the kind of planning and maneuvers. Engage then book it.
Heck, I don’t know that Richmond is achievable if you ignore everything and book it there! You still have to breach.
Spock
2931
CW2 looks spiffier than the first iteration, which I enjoyed. I’m just not sure the gameplay would be different enough to justify a new purchase.
I have been enjoying the heck out of Order of Battle: WW2 (U.S. Pacific). The Coral Sea scenario was a treat. I’ve wargamed Coral Sea many times, in many different games, and this was as fun as any of the more hardcore games I’ve played. (E.g., the Victory Games War in the Pacific Coral Sea scenario; WITP and WITP/AE for PC by Matrix.) It was great fun searching for the enemy invasion fleet and especially the enemy carriers. It was even more fun sinking CVL Shoho with my torpedo bombers. Shoho was the only carrier sunk in my version of Coral Sea, so Japan didn’t get the tactical victory she got in RL – but Japan did get the same strategic loss, failing to take Port Moresby.
Also, I like the plentiful secondary goals you get in this game, some of which are sometimes incompatible with one another, requiring you to make choices. I’d really like to see a more detailed War in the Pacific implementation – a dozen or so battles for each year, not just a dozen for the whole war. I guess I could make my own mod to do that, if I had a few months of spare time. :)
vyshka
2932
Anyone tried out the new unity version of Fields of Glory?
November, 1862: the defenders of Richmond surrender, and the whole of the Confederacy follows soon after.
If they hadn’t surrendered, I likely would have captured Nashville in the next few turns, defended/retaken St. Louis (A.S. Johnston was a bit of a pain up that way), and, in the next few months, made landings on the Gulf Coast somewhere.
Not to derail the thread, but how do these Civil War games compare to Revolution under Siege?
CraigM
2935
Quite closely I’d imagine. Both AGEOD games, which pass a lot of similarity.
spelk
2936
The WDS guys have now got an official website (still in beta)
"A global co-operative dedicated to building the games we want to play.
We’re focused on John Tiller’s Panzer Battles game system currently and have some pretty grandiose plans for the future!"
Check out this post at Grogheads:
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17695.0
Or this at Real and Simulated Wars:
For more info…
Awesome stuff. The Panzer Battles are really nice games, with a great system overall, and what WDS has on tap looks exciting.
I’m interested in doing a Civil War II AAR in the same style as the Command Ops AARs I’ve done in the past, but I looked at my shelf, and it turns out I don’t have a single Civil War book, besides a chapter about the Shenandoah in Intelligence In War. Anyone have recommendations? I’m looking for something single-volume that doesn’t focus exclusively on the East—the Mississippi River theater holds a lot of interest for me.
My favorite general history of the Civil War is James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom
Ooh, and 900 pages, too. I like the sound of that.
I’m going through the Civil War: A Narrative audiobooks and loving them so far (I think I would rather read them than listen to them, but I don’t have the time):
https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Perryville-Vintage/dp/0394746236/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472434587&sr=1-3&keywords=The+Civil+War%3A+A+Narrative
But I am far from an expert on the ACW, so maybe there are better options out there.
Granath
2942
I agree. McPherson’s Battle Cry books are an exceptional look at the events leading up to and in the war. Shelby Foote’s series is a splendid look at the individual soldier but it tends to apologize too much for the South, especially rampant Southern aggression prior to the war. Foote’s focus is on the battles and the people involved rather than the events leading up to and surrounding the war but I find that perspective too narrow.
