Being an avid PC strategy gamer, I've been looking for a really good Civil War game for some time now, but alas, my search thus far has been kind of, well, just so-so.
I played John TIller's 'Campaign Atlanta', and although I generally enjoyed it I can see now that the HPS Civil War series has some issues. First and foremost the AI leaves a lot to be desired and is rather easy to beat most of the time (which is probably why the HPS pundits promote their games via the Play by E-Mail aspect). Speaking of PBEM, one problem with that is the bigger battle scenarios like Kennesaw Mountain can take months to PBEM. Also, the graphics are very, very dated and the games play a bit quirky on modern OS's like Win7. In all fairness though I loved playing all those great battles around Atlanta (Peachtree Creek, The Battle of Atlanta, Ezra Church, and Jonesboro), and the music New Orleans musician Thomas Hook did for the games is fantastic.
I've also tried AEGOD's 'American Civil War', and although there is a much I like about this grand strategy game (the breadth and scope is amazing and leader units and maps are beautiful), it is extremely complex, even for seasoned gamers. As someone else so aptly noted, the game doesn't have a learning curve, it has a learning cliff! Although I haven't quite given up on this one yet, it has been very frustrating trying to get my arms around it.
One of my recent finds is the hexwar.com games. What these Brits did was take a lot of the old great SPI boardgames from the 70's and put them online. Of course many Civil War titles are included like First Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Shiloh, and the Wilderness. One advantage these games have over the HPS titles is that they are brigade level rather than regiment level, so of course would be quicker and easier to play. Although I'm not crazy about subscription play, I may try this one, if for no other reason than getting to play the Battle of the Wilderness (wish they had Spotsylvania).
There is another one that caught my attention called 'Take Command: Second Manassas'. The reviews on Amazon have been very favorable, the game is only a few years old, and it looks like it would appeal to the casual real-time strategy people more than the hard core Grognards.
Anyway, if anyone has any other suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
I've tried gaming, but if there's a level below novice, then that's where I'm at. We have a member, "Joe Meyer" who's into serious gaming, but he hasn't posted in a long time. I'd bet he could help you find some. He gave me some basic direction when I thought about gaming, but you can't fix ugly
Try this forum thread: http://www.americancivilwarforum.com/american-civil- war-game-club-680015.html
I don't have time to game anymore, but I was more into FPS. I have done a few RTS games and though I find them interesting, I suck at them.(SUPCOM, Company of Heroes, a couple other ones)
I never played Sid Meier's Gettysburg,an ancient RTS that came out in the late 90s, that probably was the main Civil War based PC game released. My son said it wasn't a bad game but not great. He was into the Civilization games, and Gettysburg used the game engine from one of them.
Yes, I'm familiar with the two Sid Meirer games. I did the Antietam demo a few years back and generally liked it, though it was very short. I'd read somewhere though that these games don't play well on Win7. BTW, of course it's the 'correct' thing to say that you don't have time for games.
Having time for games...! That's one of the best draws for the American Civil war Game Club (ACWGC)! The PBEM method allows you to play all of the simulations sanctioned by the club at your own pace and schedule. And its very true that some of the longer battles and extended campaigns will occupy a good, long period of time when you are playing against a human opponent. That's what these old Battleground and newer HPS Simulations were made for, PBEM with a human opponent. The AI features are for basic training in game mechanics and can in no way provide the challenge of competition that you will find in a PBEM match.
Of course if you're looking for a sustained quick fix in your play, then the ACWGC probably isn't for you. But I can tell you from the time that I joined and began play back in the Fall of '07 that I've enjoyed every single minute of it. Right now I have three separate contests on my game card which keeps me pretty well occupied within my free time. I can usually get in anywhere from 8 to 10 moves per week. The point is I'm able to savor my own moves and look forward to what my opponent might be doing next! Each time I check my e-mails for the day, I know that I could very well have another turn coming in from my opponents. Opening it, watching it play out on the battlefield, and then fashioning my response is the heart of the enjoyment.
Moreover, most of these simulations are so well-constructed that you cannot help be educated not only on how these battles happened as the did, but on how they might have turned out completely differently. For a history buff like myself, that's a completely added bonus!
I haven't posted in quite a while, but I do still subscribe and visit, and am more than happy to respond to anyone about the ACWGC at any time!
No offense man, but although I like team games (like Battlefield '42), head-to-head play against a single opponent is just not my cup of tea. Although I agree with you that in most simulations, most AI's are still not up to the level of a human, I think head-to-head games are more about over-inflated egos and bragging rights than they are about having fun.
I think AGEOD's ACW is very clunky and unintuitive, and this is coming from someone who is no stranger to complex games (allow me to present my credentials: I've won a full campaign of Gary Grigsby's "Uncommon Valor". As one person on Amazon noted, if you have no life then AGEOD's ACW is the game for you. I think supply, especially, needs to be simplified. So often in that game bad things happen and the player is left scratching his head as to why?
Also, I'm sorry, but if you've played one HPS game you've played them all. They need a new game engine almost as much as they need a graphics overhaul. Also, I think promoting PBEM is a poor excuse for a weak AI.
Gosh, I'm on this message board hardly a day and I'm already getting in to flame wars. lol I don't think I'm going to read any more replies.
Will you guys please speak English.
Seriously, I just can't get into gaming, though I'd like to, and the dizzying array of acronyms and computer-speak that seems to go along with gaming like the cloud of dust that follows PigPen in Peanuts, is one of the things that keep me away.
I wish there were games to gradually teach sub-novices like me how to play, a game that starts with the assumption that the extent of my computer knowledge ends with turning it on. Every game I've ever come across, with the possible exception of Pong, assumes a user has some degree of comfort with gaming. For someone like me, a good Civil War game along the lines of what you guys are talking about, would have a tiered level of play, the lowest being the sub-novice with simple graphics and minimal tool bars, icons and pull-downs. The game could then have gradually increasing levels of complexity and graphics so I could move along at my own pace. Even two separate game downloads, one for the sub-novice and the other for people who already have a clue about gaming, would be great. Not likely to happen. The sub-novice market is very small anymore, and as the generation that cut its teeth on computers and Play Station/Xbox becomes older, it'll become essentially nonexistent.
Oh well, that's my lament on gaming. I came along too late I guess.
It would be nice to think that maybe someone would release a CW based game during the sesquicentennial, but putting together a game takes from 2-5 years and costs a fair amount of money. From a game creator's perspective, there is no guarantee for a quick return on a CW based strategy game. Their money is usually made within the first few weeks of a game's release.
And one made on a shoestring would probably suck.
I live in a house of gamers....my oldest two sons (both grown) are avid gamers, as are the two grandchildren I've raised (one joined the army last year, one still lives with us). Kinda funny as each has totally different tastes.
Ajhall, most games have single-player mode where you learn how to play the game at your own pace before you go to the internet. Actually, I guess that I have enjoyed single-player mode on most games I've played more than online play, it so happens that many of the games I've played did not have a great online gameplay. (I've been out of it for probably five years and I'm sure now all games are designed for online gameplay and the single-player is secondary)
FPS - first person shooter, a game where you aim and shoot at other characters. Some of these games you are alone but now usually you are with a team.
RTS - real time strategy, where you build/control a whole army. Your resources and decisions control your effectiveness (i.e., your army would move slower and not fight as well if they were hungry, without sleep, or have been traveling a long distance without rest) Online play of RTS requires quick reflexes and lightning fast decision making...neither of which I am good at anymore...I now have some OCD characteristics that make me want to be a little too perfect and makes me suck at these games online.
RPG - role playing game, based on Dungeons and Dragons, you choose from a list of attributes and create a character that best suits the attributes you've chosen. Sometimes you play alone, sometimes in a team. The longer you play the better your character gets.
MarsRobert, the battlefield series was awesome. I think that Battlefield Vietnam was my favorite game of all times, plus I played a desert-based mod that used BV. (can't remember the name offhand) Didn't play Battlefield2 that much, just didn't have the time when it came out. I don't suppose I will buy Battlefield3, unless maybe I hit the lottery between now and then and take an early retirement.
Besides BV, I guess my other favorite games over the past 10 years were Far Cry (FPS), Crysis (FPS), and Company of Heroes (RTS). Most people didn't like Crysis...mainly because their computer wouldn't play it. There was no processor/gaming card combination on the market at the time that would allow decent gameplay at high settings. Five years later, it is still my game of choice for testing processors, motherboards, and video cards. The online gameplay of both Far Cry and Crysis sucked, IMO. I guess I also liked Oblivion (RPG), another game that required a very powerful computer, much more than you'd find at Walmart or even Circuit City at the time. I guess I don't care that much for RPG computer games, probably surprising as I played D&D and AD&D back in the day.
Games today take less computer resources than a few years ago, though most still prefer a gaming-styled computer. (fairly powerful processor, more than the minimum memory, 3D graphics card designed for gaming) Gaming computers are actually my thing, much of the PC hardware I reviewed over the past decade was designed for the gamer.
I personally loved (and still do) a really old title "No Greater Glory". For those unfamiliar with it, the game was on the grand strategic level (most states comprised only 2 regions on the map, each game turn represented months, etc).
There were only boxy pixilated non moving graphics, but it was stellar in depth without overwhelming complexity:
- Politics showed the difficulty in balancing the demands of your allies and opponents domestically and the talent of the politicians available to you
- The economy reflects the enormous cost of war, with inflation a danger, and supplies needing to be produced and moved up to the frontlines.
- Your generals exert political influence to demand independent commands and you have to satisfy them or risk political damage that hurts your recruiting troops
Really there are scores of positives in the game; i wish someone would take up the banner and redo it with modern graphics and processing power
I've been playing Take Command 2nd Manasass for 4 or 5 years now on Windows XP. I have a lot of fun with it and will continue to do so. It's great for Regimental to Army level command and play. I usually prefer being a Corp commander where I can maneuver and fight my Divisions.
When I want to go SUPER strategical I crack open the Aegod American Civil War, it is a workout!
how can I get the game
how do I get the game
Hello, you might like Line of Muskets @ Tower Games.com. Pretty cool really. Not many people play it.