Brother against brother

[spelk]

I had a stab at the Mills Creek scenario on Lt Col difficulty, and boy it was a dis-organised learning experiment. It seemed like i just couldn't get the right units in place, before the Rebs were all over me. I tried to take and hold that hillock, near The Sag, that Robear (from GamersWithJobs said he had an enemy unit popping back and forth on. It seemed like the key set of heights to take and hold, if I could. So that was my simple aim. I never seemed to have enough lines at the front, and my arty always seemed to be hampered by the "hot gates" style landscape.

Anyway, I struggled onwards with it all, and here is the lie of the land at the end of the game. I got a win, but only 1 star. I lost a unit to routing (all the way off the map!!).



The AI seemed to do a decent job of rotating fresh troops in and taking battered troops out for a rest, all under the cover of the dreaded fog of war. Holding that area didn't seem to give me any intel beyond the edge of it. Also, I couldn't get my cav round either side, for rebs blocking the movement with their Zones of Control.

The scores on the doors



The shameful Morale graph



The vicarious Casualty graph



And finally, just because I'm so proud of them, the 10th Indiana Infantry unit that simply held the line whilst all the other troops where on their way. They eventually routed, but they held for so long and they clocked up the most inflicted casualties, they need to be recognised for their efforts!  They were stationed at the crux of the road and the hillock. In Hold orders, with lots of urging.



Game crashed two times, so the smoke was reset in between autosaves. Enjoyed it immensely, but I'm going to have to spend hours in the manual to become a lot better and mass movement, and keeping Brigades together properly.

A problem with the chits view is that you can't tell which units are generals. In the sprites view the coloured emblem is circular for generals, but the chits everyones colours are rectangle.

[panzerde]

lol - just over 2 hours later. I think we have a challenger to me ladies and gentlemen  :))

You're absolutely right. I'm completely hopeless. I had an excuse for going ahead and purchasing it within minutes of posting.  :-[

[undercovergeek]

lol - just over 2 hours later. I think we have a challenger to me ladies and gentlemen  :))

I had an excuse for going ahead and purchasing it within minutes of posting.  :-[

"Mrs Panzer, Mrs Panzer!!! ive just got to buy this ACW game on the net because theres this Scottish guy who thinks he can buy more games than i do, okaaaayyyyyy?!"

[JudgeDredd]

Let battle commence  :D

[panzerde]

Finished the tutorial as USA with a victory at Captain difficulty. I really like the game mechanics. Smoke effects are a nice addition at this scale and something the JTS ACW/NC games could benefit from.

Graphically the maps are great. I really wish they'd clean up the unit graphics, both the miniatures style and counters. PC wargame developers need to spend some time looking at the counters in newer board games and take some inspiration from them. Its a damn shame because so much else about this game seems really on.

The UI is a bit clumsy in spots but does a pretty good job of making information available when you need it. I would rather see the map center on combat rather than the zoom out to max view during combat resolution. It isn't always easy to see where the combat in question is, particularly when the results pop up and cover the bottom half of the map. Leave my zoom level alone and just center on the unit being impacted, ok?

This is a much more groggy game than I first thought it was. I'm eager to try a larger engagement like First Manassas. The emphasis on command & control makes for a very period feel when maneuvering units and bringing them into contact. I like the brigade order system - and I think there are similar tiers of orders at division and corps levels? The morale system is also very good. The AIs attacks on my position were sensible. It made a good attempt at flanking with fresh troops when it received reinforcements.

So far I'm pretty impressed, even if the unit graphics themselves make me weep.

[Gil R.]

Some quick comments responding to the past 24 hours or so:

All,
I should note that the manual may be 200 pages, but only 80 are devoted to explaining the game, while the rest has OOB's and long summaries of the battles.  So while the game is complex, it is not 200-pages complex.

Spelk,
It was good to see you playing session.  I hope you move on to other, large, more dynamic battles soon!

Mikeck,
"Scourge of War: Belmont" is one of the funnier ideas I've seen recently.

panzerde,
No one is reporting a crash in the Matrix forum, so let me ask -- did the crashes occur because you clicked on the screen or alt-tabbed to another program while the AI was thinking?  Doing that can cause trouble, so when it's the computer's turn one needs to wait for it.  If there is another sort of crash please do report it in the game's Support area, so our programmer can investigate.

JudgeDredd,
I'm glad you bought the game.  And luckily it's Sunday, which means that I'll have "Mad Men," "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall" to wean me off this thread's "Will he or won't he?" drama. :)

[mikeck]

"MikeCK,
"Scourge of War: Belmont" is one of the funnier ideas I've seen recently."

It's yours...I just want 20% of any profits!

[JudgeDredd]

....
JudgeDredd,
I'm glad you bought the game.  And luckily it's Sunday, which means that I'll have "Mad Men," "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall" to wean me off this thread's "Will he or won't he?" drama. :)

Bugger. Sorry Gil for my misleading post but I haven't bought yet. My "let battle commence" post was about Panzerde attempting to steal my reputation for not holding out for very long.  :-[

Having said that - it is still on my radar. I'm waiting on some more impressions and also my Ken Burns series.

Quick question if you're still about - are any of these battles featured in the Ken Burns series?

[Grim.Reaper]

....
JudgeDredd,
I'm glad you bought the game.  And luckily it's Sunday, which means that I'll have "Mad Men," "Game of Thrones" and "Wolf Hall" to wean me off this thread's "Will he or won't he?" drama. :)

Having said that - it is still on my radar. I'm waiting on some more impressions and also my Ken Burns series.

Quick question if you're still about - are any of these battles featured in the Ken Burns series?

All this talk on the Ken Burn's series made me go out and purchase the series as well:)

[Toonces]

First Manassas is, but I don't think the other battles are featured in his series.  I was drinking Captain Morgan's while I was watching it, though, so, you know...   

[Gil R.]

Mikeck,
What profits?  If WCS calls one of its games "Scourge of War"-anything we'll be sued, and rightly so.  Unless it's a parody.  (One of the subjects that came up in the far-ranging conversation at our BAB launch party yesterday (see here:  http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3845056) was that one can make a game based on someone else's if it is clearly a parody, but if it's a thinly-veiled immitation then the courts will side against you.  (Mind you, I already knew this, but Eric was explaining the law to others who don't have to worry about such things.)

JudgeDredd,
Oh, I see.  Then the drama continues!  In answer to your question, I don't remember, but I doubt that Burns says much about any of the battles other than Manassas.  (All this talk of the Ken Burns documentary has been reminding me of how when we first began working on BAB I thought I would rewatch it to help with my research, but after 2-3 episodes realized it was pretty much useless for a tactical game, since his treatment of tactics is superficial, and topics like weapons, quality of commanders below the rank of army or corps commander, etc. barely come up.  Not a knock on the series, which is great -- it just was aimed at a larger audience than game- and scenario-designers.)  But with that said, I have stumbled upon a wealth of great stuff pertaining to specific battles on YouTube, especially from reenactors.  So you might want to poke around there.  If you find anything of interest, please do let us know.

Grim.Reaper,
Thanks to this interest in his series that BAB is causing I am now of the opinion that if ever I meet Ken Burns I am going to insist that he buy me a drink.

[panzerde]

Gil - I just played Blackburn's Ford, and I have to say - you've got a winner here. What I just played was a very faithful recreation of ACW fighting, and the outcome made complete sense in terms of the tactics I used and the historical outcome of the battle. 

After ordering my green Union troops forward in a hasty attack Longstreet and Early's Rebs shot them up and routed them just as happened in reality. Meanwhile the Regular cavalry I placed on my right to defend my flank very ably held off most of a Reb brigade until the my 4th Brigade could come up and relieve them.

Not surprisingly, artillery has been the big killer in both scenarios I've played so far. Charging infantry in not to be despised for sheer mayhem caused either, but very logically ends up disordered.

I'm impressed. As I said, I could go for improved unit art and could wish for some better sound effects, but this is a very good, very playable ACW tactical game. It has a great board game feel, too.

Finally, a lot has been said about the maps, but I really have to salute you on these again. I'm pretty familiar with the 1st Manassas battlefield and this map is just stunning.

O0

[Rayfer]

panzerde...you're not helping me resist buying this one...stop!  :(

[-budd-]

wish you guys would just be quiet  already..blahblah...greatmaps, blahblah...plays great....blahblahblah. Enough already. But just in case your gonna post more how about some bigger battles,  Pictures and impressions please. ::)

[mikeck]

Mikeck,
What profits?  If WCS calls one of its games "Scourge of War"-anything we'll be sued, and rightly so.  Unless it's a parody.  (One of the subjects that came up in the far-ranging conversation at our BAB launch party yesterday (see here:  http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3845056) was that one can make a game based on someone else's if it is clearly a parody, but if it's a thinly-veiled immitation then the courts will side against you.  (Mind you, I already knew this, but Eric was explaining the law to others who don't have to worry about such things.)

JudgeDredd,
Oh, I see.  Then the drama continues!  In answer to your question, I don't remember, but I doubt that Burns says much about any of the battles other than Manassas.  (All this talk of the Ken Burns documentary has been reminding me of how when we first began working on BAB I thought I would rewatch it to help with my research, but after 2-3 episodes realized it was pretty much useless for a tactical game, since his treatment of tactics is superficial, and topics like weapons, quality of commanders below the rank of army or corps commander, etc. barely come up.  Not a knock on the series, which is great -- it just was aimed at a larger audience than game- and scenario-designers.)  But with that said, I have stumbled upon a wealth of great stuff pertaining to specific battles on YouTube, especially from reenactors.  So you might want to poke around there.  If you find anything of interest, please do let us know.

Grim.Reaper,
Thanks to this interest in his series that BAB is causing I am now of the opinion that if ever I meet Ken Burns I am going to insist that he buy me a drink.

Gil, I was joking bud.

On another note, will this ever come out in steam? Ide love to have "workshop" access to download future scenarios and such