AGEOD's Civil war

[Tamas]

From a gaming perspective WWI is much more interesting since the war is more balanced and many events could have conceivably gone another way (Such as Italy, Turkey, The US staying neutral or entering the war).

  Greece and Romania, as well.  WW I is such an awesome situation for gaming.

[Ed Anger]

I want to command General Lyon and banish the Confederates from my fair state.

Lyon makes for an adequate army commander in the west or east after he gets promoted up. He is wasted in the Trans-Mississippi after he is promotable, especially once Curtis arrives.

[Razgovory]

Lyon is my hero for driving treason out of this state.  Sadly he was killed in the noble fight else he would have been recognized as an able commander by Lincoln and won the war by '63.

[jimmy olsen]

Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.

  Berkut's rigorous testing through one and a half years of the game of this proves it to be true.

There is no need to waste weeks of my time proving what was obvious. I learned that lesson with all the other ACW games.

They are all going to be broken as long as the developers "balance" the game around the Southern SP experience.

The war did last 4 bloody years, and could have been won by the South at a couple of points. Why wouldn't there be some balancing?

[Jaron]

The South never stood a chance to win.

[jimmy olsen]

The South never stood a chance to win.

If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.

If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.

[Jaron]

The British would have never done that.

[Tamas]

The South never stood a chance to win.

If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.

If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.

No way.  The vast difference in manpower and industry doomed the Slavers' cause to failure right from the start.

[Razgovory]

The South never stood a chance to win.

If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.

If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.

Was that recorded in the minutes of Parliament?  Even if Lee completely destroyed the Union army in the East they were still going to lose in the west.

[PDH]

Tim is why the confederates get such a boost in these games - really, really, they had a chance! I swear!

Tim, McClellan supported continuation of the war in 1864 as well...and it was going to be over by spring of 1865.

[The Minsky Moment]

The South never stood a chance to win.

If they managed to hang on to Atlanta until the election, Lincoln could have lost.

If Lee's Maryland campaign was successful, the Brits would have recognized the Confederacy.

No way.  The vast difference in manpower and industry doomed the Slavers' cause to failure right from the start.

That I can't agree with.  Northern victory depending on fully mobilizing and exploiting the manpower and industrial advantages, and committing to a long, bloody struggle to force the vast southern territories into submission.  In the context of the US political system and heritage, that required extraordinary political leadership to pull off.  Fortunately for the Union, they enjoyed such leadership. 

[Drakken]

Raz, just play the south. Game is meant to be played by Southern fanbois, and is quite fun.

  Berkut's rigorous testing through one and a half years of the game of this proves it to be true.

There is no need to waste weeks of my time proving what was obvious. I learned that lesson with all the other ACW games.

They are all going to be broken as long as the developers "balance" the game around the Southern SP experience.

Why make a game in which one side, the North, is playable only to maul the South like ping-pong rebels in EU3, with the South stand absolutely no chance to win or even survive by 1865? Where is the fun in that?

That doesn't sound like a good ACW game at all. Unless you picture a new No Greater Glory, which would be kick-ass. I'm all ears.

Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony, but still the South had politically and military attainable objectives in the ACW : survive as long as possible to provide for some sort of compromise and dwindle the North's political willingness to crush the rebellion by making it as bloody and harsh as possible for them.

Lee's ANV wandering within miles of Washington DC in 1863 and in good strength certainly would have been politically uncomfortable for the North, and even potentially humiliating. If the South had won all its battles rather than some, the North would have reached for a political compromise sooner or later, as the North's war effort and willingness to fight was far from total except in Lincoln and Salmon P. Chase's minds.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony

They should be given much better stats than Frederick and Maurice, who would have been piss-poor civil war generals given their deaths and serious bodily decomposition as of that period.  Not to mention the difficulty a French-speaking Prussian monarch would have commanding the loyalty of unruly, republican English-speaking volunteers and conscripts.

[Berkut]

Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony

They should be given much better stats than Frederick and Maurice, who would have been piss-poor civil war generals given their deaths and serious bodily composition as of that period.

Still better than any Union general excepting Lyons and Grant though.

[Ed Anger]

Yeah, maybe the leadership is a little bit overrated and I don't like to see Lee or Jackson, which were comparatively mediocre commanders in the grand spectrum of legendary military commanders, be given the same stats as Frederick the Great and Maurice of Saxony

They should be given much better stats than Frederick and Maurice, who would have been piss-poor civil war generals given their deaths and serious bodily decomposition as of that period.  Not to mention the difficulty a French-speaking Prussian monarch would have commanding the loyalty of unruly, republican English-speaking volunteers and conscripts.

I want to have your smart-assed babies.