Strategic Command: American Civil War Announced

[devoncop]

Cheers Tripoli.

That is a really good rundown.

Are you able to randomise General stats in the options ? I think you could do that in the Ageod ACW game. It may mean that Burnside and Bragg become God like geniuses and Grant and Lee become total duffers but it would certainly add to the challenge you were talking about !

History Guy Gaming is doing a first run through of Strategic Command ACW at the moment that I have been watching so I will definitely look up his Grand Tactician coverage. He knows his onions as we say over here :)

My concern over whether the game is too much of a clickfest aka Total War in the realtime battles remains ( and even on the Campaign map) though I believe the speed can be turned right down.

[Rayfer]

I haven't written this one off yet but I am still not convinced it can have any sort of realistic Civil War style battles.  From the vids I've watched you have long front lines that duke it over multiple two week turns.  There can't be a 3 day Gettysburg or a one day Antietam, etc.  It seems more like a WWI/WW2 front line style of combat.  Am I wrong, have I mis-viewed the vids.  Convince me because much of the game is appealing.

[bobarossa]

I loved AGEOD's CW2 game as well as Forge of Freedom and Grigsby's CW game.  You guys really make me want to add this (Grand Tactician) to my collection of unplayed games!
I don't believe there is any way the Strategic Command engine can do a CW game.

[devoncop]

I haven't written this one off yet but I am still not convinced it can have any sort of realistic Civil War style battles.  From the vids I've watched you have long front lines that duke it over multiple two week turns.  There can't be a 3 day Gettysburg or a one day Antietam, etc.  It seems more like a WWI/WW2 front line style of combat.  Am I wrong, have I mis-viewed the vids.  Convince me because much of the game is appealing.

I will reserve judgement until after the 30th when I get my hands on the game but the playthroughs I have seen certainly dont resemble a WW1/WW2 slugfest with a single continuous front line. In the East betwen Washington and Richmond it is certainly less mobile but this was a reality in the ACW because of the geography.

The map is huge and troop levels are much much lower than in the WW1 or WW2 games so the battles in the West have a very different feel to those in the East with the involvement of multiple Indian tribes and highly mobile riverine forces leading to unique challenges. Like all SC games supply routes are critical so in that sense  the system seems well suited to this characteristic of the ACW.

The devs have said that you should look at an " Army" of being about six units commanded by Generals of very varying abilities so that would seem reasonable.

I will post my observations once I have bought it. Its not long since I read the  entire epic Shelby Foote series on the ACW so I really would love it to work but I also started out a sceptic.

[al_infierno]

^ Sounds very cool.  Still looking forward to this one!

[Tripoli]

I loved AGEOD's CW2 game as well as Forge of Freedom and Grigsby's CW game.  You guys really make me want to add this (Grand Tactician) to my collection of unplayed games!
I don't believe there is any way the Strategic Command engine can do a CW game.

I really liked Grigsby's CW game.  I thought his random leader generating system gave the best feel for the frustration of Lincoln.  The Ageod system left me a bit cold, although I may try to go back to it, as it seemed to have a pretty good overall "realism" feel. 

[bobarossa]

I think most of the CW games had a random leader stats system.  I vaguely recall one had a "slow reveal" method that kept you from seeing their full greatness/incompetitence until they had fought several battles.

[Senex]

The beta wraps tomorrow at 11am, and the game goes on sale at 3pm.  I was on the beta team, but because of Covid and other events I did not get to contribute my full measure of ignorance.  And you can get it on Steam, starting on July 14th.

[devoncop]

The manual is out via the Matrix forum for those interested :-)

[devoncop]

Okay so I bought this today and first impressions are very very positive.

The manual is very good but the stategy guide is a phenomenal piece of work covering  every decision that can be made in each of the events and the pros and cons of each way you can go as both the Union or the Confederate player as well as talking about recommended research choices depending on which general strategies you may decide on.

I have started two MP games, one as the Union, the other as the Rebs against two different very experienced beta testers so am expecting a hammering but its looking like great fun.

[WallysWorld]

I still have my 50% off anniversary coupon and it does still work so I'm debating whether to buy this game or not.

An interesting read here from a beta tester: Beta tester post

[Senex]

gog version is supposed to be out on 7/14, just like the Stream one.

[greengiant]

Anyone have anymore feedback for those who purchased it off Matrix/Slitherine? I've read some of the feedback over at Matrix and the only major complaint I've seen is that due to the size of the map, the current zoom levels the game allows are playing havoc with peoples ability to easily discern what is going on. I'm not going to second this opinion since I don't own the game, so I was hoping someone here could comment. If you're waiting on the Steam release, dropping some feedback here after you've given it a bash would be greatly appreciated.

[devoncop]

Anyone have anymore feedback for those who purchased it off Matrix/Slitherine? I've read some of the feedback over at Matrix and the only major complaint I've seen is that due to the size of the map, the current zoom levels the game allows are playing havoc with peoples ability to easily discern what is going on. I'm not going to second this opinion since I don't own the game, so I was hoping someone here could comment. If you're waiting on the Steam release, dropping some feedback here after you've given it a bash would be greatly appreciated.

Hi

I have been playing multiple MP games since full release ( though I wasnt in the beta so went in pretty blind other than watching some Lets Plays).

The consensus is this is a pretty good strategic/ operational game, rich in historical flavour and events to negotiate for both sides but it can't represent the individual  tactical battles like Bull Run or Gettysburg. This is fair enough given the aims of the game but folks wanting individual armies hitting each other on a specific battlefield (especially in the East) are going to be disappointed.

By late 1861 the Eastern theatre becomes all a bit WW1 looking from the Shenandoah Valley to Washington/Ricmond.

In Arkansas,Kentucky,Missouri etc the feel is much more authentic with small commands trying to cover huge fronts and I think this works really well.

At the moment however MP is not balanced as US amphibious landings are very easy with Marines and an HQ and can usually one shot any unimproved Confederate forts. Every port taken like Jacksonville or New Orleans or Savannah stops completely any flow of resources through that port and the south finds its economy crippled. Yes this happened historically, but not in late 61 or early 62 which is when such operations are feasible.

They are looking at MP data now to see if the Union needs to be nerfed a bit but despite all the above I would still recommend the game for fans of the era or Strategic Command system.

Hope that helps a bit, and remember...its just my opinion, others may disagree  :)

[Boggit]

I've been playing it off and on over the last week or so. So far I'm in late summer 1863 and here are my thoughts:

On the plus side

1. It's a fun game
2. The naval and riverine battles are engaging
3. Easy to learn, especially if you know the Strategic Command system
4. Lots of chrome elements and decisions
5. Some nice new features like routs, ambushes etc, (cavalry and scouts are vital)
6. Lovely map
7. Good supply system
8. The AI is still a challenge for single players

On the minus side

1. The land combat doesn't feel very ACW, but more like WW1 without the trenches. The single unit per hex doesn't allow for the concentration of forces you'd expect for the ACW, and things become very attritional. There are no climactic battles like Malvern Hill, Gettysburg, Shiloh etc. You might get units attacked multiple times for annihilation or rout, but overall you see long frontlines fighting it out often losing a few points in a turn. Now it probably does balance out in terms of strategic losses, but it doesn't feel right for the period as too generic.

2. You can put marines on transports, but subsequently after movement to a port cannot then change mode to amphibious. This led me sending marines down to New Orleans by transports thinking I could then pay the amphibious cost and let them assault. It doesn't work like that, you have to launch as long range amphibious and only use transport with space available to disembark. (I know it's nitpicking, but all the same it would make sense to allow it on a port hex).

3. I struggled until mid 1863 to make any progress against the confederacy save in the far west. I had captured Memphis by early 1863, (and Richmond by mid 1863, which I then lost!) but the attritional combat and long front lines slow advances to a crawl. No quick succession of battles leading to rapid advances here. That said, apart from in the West I was on the defensive much of the time from 1861-62 to avoid being overwhelmed, which wasn't really the general case for the Union at that time (Think the Peninsula Campaign, Shiloh, 2nd Manassas etc).

4. The confederate troops seem to be everywhere. I always seemed to be behind the curve on research, despite investing heavily into it. This meant that the Confederates were using level 2 infantry weapons and army corps well before I could catch up. Given that I put the naval blockade effectively into place early on I was surprised they had the MPP to do all this and still have lots of troops in the field. Perhaps this is in the design as the game is a tough challenge? It could also be that the AI is very good indeed, as I was only seeing what was going on from the Union perspective.

Summary:

All in all the good outweighs the bad. I like the game, but it doesn't feel quite right for the period in respect of the land combat. Like I say, strategically the casualties probably balance out but there is no real sense of dramatic battles being fought out as was the case from 1861-63. For the 1864-65 period I'm sure that the game system is far more reflective of the attritional battles outside Petersburg and Richmond. Would I recommend it? Yes, but with the above caveats as it still is a fun game.