Game: American Civil War, The

Thread: Re: components list

michaelwmcfall — 2008-10-16T16:41:50+00:00

When you count the pieces, be sure to count the artillery (cannon and two wheels), as three or you will be short on the 384 pieces for this game.

Thread: Amphibious Attacks, Reinforcements and Entrencements

gfrench — 2008-08-07T16:24:06+00:00

This is a SUGGESTED amendment to the Advanced Game rule for Reinforcements. The amendment has already been addressed in old TACW forums, and, as suggested by Glenn Drover, is one alternative for such a combined attack.

If an attacking force is made up of two different armies, one amphibious and the other land based, the Advanced Rule for Reinforcements would not apply. The two attacking forces must be fought as two separate battles, with the amphibious landing fought first.

Conversely, the Standard Game rule for Amphibious Movement could be amended as follows:

If an attacking force is made up of two different armies, one amphibious and the other land based, two separate battles must be fought, with the amphibious landing fought first.

###

SUGGESTED amendment/clarification to the Advanced Rule for Entrencments:

Entrenched units in cities being attacked via amphibious landing have the die roll for charge and fire attacks decreased by an additional -1. Thus the entrenchment modifier would be -2 in 1861 to 1863 and -3 in 1864 and 1865.

Thread: House Rule for Rail Usage

gfrench — 2008-08-06T16:52:32+00:00

Suggested House Rule for Rail Usage:

Rail movement through the “home” regions of the other player is permitted as long the rail links traversed are between connecting cities and surrounding regions currently occupied by the moving player. This includes rail movement through neutral regions.

Thread: Re: components list

phragged — 2008-04-18T17:36:25+00:00

Thanks for posting the list, I went from having an incomplete copy...because i can't add apparently, to a complete copy.

Thread: Re: components list

hoop — 2008-02-26T15:54:30+00:00

choc wrote:
Could someone post a components list for the game? I just purchased a used copy and see that the rules book doesn't list what is supposed to be in the package. Thanks!

Here ya go.....

Rules
Map (in 3 sections)
4 dice (2 red, 2 white)
1 play aid card
2 sprues of brown horses (48 horses total)
1 sprue black horses (24 horses)
2 sprues gray army*
2 sprues dark blue army*
1 sprue light blue army*
1 sprue red army*

*Each army sprue contains 20 infantry, 10 cavalry, 5 artillery, 5 leaders, 2 flagbearers (42 figures total)

Thread: components list

choc — 2008-02-19T19:03:52+00:00

Could someone post a components list for the game? I just purchased a used copy and see that the rules book doesn't list what is supposed to be in the package. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Eagle plans ACW 2 for 2006

Imperious leader — 2008-01-31T01:48:58+00:00

I was in the WSOP in 2005 and i saw them give away copies of that game to everybody in the convention hall. All you had to do was fill out your name and address on a card. Anne Duke was paid too much money for her name on that product and Eagle had no idea that nobody was gonna seriously play a game of gambling where you had no chance of actually winning any money. It was a totally bankrupt idea and a stupid one. People can log on to any site at that time and play for low blinds or even play with a professional.

When i got the game it was also too easy to beat... it was a very weak AI.

Not to mention all these stupid unplaytested games they made that were broken in various ways. All these mistakes led to their demise.

Thread: Re: ACW pdf manual

gamemaven — 2008-01-25T03:23:58+00:00

Here's an archived copy of the rules from the Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050217150937/eaglegames.com/pro...

Thread: Re: Eagle plans ACW 2 for 2006

Innovan — 2008-01-24T17:07:43+00:00

Between 2005 and 2008 as the TV sponsored Poker tournament money died out Eagle games ran into a cash shortage and closed their shop, selling all their remaining inventory to funagain.com as well as rights to republish some of their existing titles. There were no existing copies of ACW for sale that went to funagain, but ACW replacement horses are being still sold by funagain as made by Eagle Games

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/publisher/6521 Tropical Games was formed from those ashes and went on to publish Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery to much accord. Because they're publishing off-shore and there can be huge delays in getting a new title together, they haven't announced any new titles under work yet.

Thread: Re: Eagle plans ACW 2 for 2006

Slotracer — 2008-01-24T12:40:11+00:00

What ever happened to ACW 2????

Thread: Re: The American Civil War - Volley and Maneuver

TracerBullet — 2007-12-11T05:09:18+00:00

I've always had a blast each time I played this. I even played in the demo tounament at the BPA:WBC a few years back and won (ok I had to only beat 2 people but hey, a win is a win).

Thread: Re: The American Civil War - Volley and Maneuver

WalkerRedEye — 2007-12-10T18:52:53+00:00

i actually like it although very rarely get to play it for reasons of space (tha's a big board!), time investment and lack of willing partners

there was a quick fix published on the forums about limiting cavalry purchases to a maximum of 2 units per purchase phase to represent scarcity of horseflesh and that is how i have always played it

Thread: Re: The American Civil War - Volley and Maneuver

Paschae — 2007-12-10T18:30:36+00:00

But the game is just not fun.... period... it sucks... i regret buying it.

Thread: The American Civil War - Volley and Maneuver

TracerBullet — 2007-12-10T15:20:37+00:00

The American Civil War
© 2001 Eagle Games, Inc.
2-4 Players
3+ Hours

The American Civil War, a game of…well…The American Civil War. Created by the relatively new game company, Eagle Games TACW is a game of grand strategy on a grand scale, at least as far as he game components go. The game-board itself is an impressive 40” x 36” and this size is indeed needed to hold the almost 400 plastic molded playing pieces consisting of infantry, cavalry, elite cavalry, artillery, and leaders. The board consists of three sections when placed together represent the eastern half of the United States. Each state, if it’s large enough, is divided into zones used for movement and cities used for production points and victory conditions.

For the most part the game plays well with both sides having a good chance for victory. The south may have an easier time though due to the fact they only have to capture 6 northern cities with Washington counting as 2 to win. The Union Player must completely crush the Confederacy by capturing all southern cities to claim victory.

Eagle Games brings an interesting premise to the table with the way they present to rules to their games. The rulebook is divided into three sections for basic, standard, and advanced rules. The basic rules offer the foundations for how the game is played, movement, purchasing units, an easy combat resolution etc. Each rule set above the basic rules make subtle changes and generally build upon each other to make the game more realistic and a better simulation of the Civil War. I would say to start playing the game using the standard rules unless you are totally new to wargames. The standard rules present the player with political events, a more involved combat system, rail movement, and overall a better gaming experience over the basic rules.

The standard rules’ combat system itself is also quite unique. Combat begins with both sides secretly deploying their forces on a battle board (which was not provided much to my and many gamers chagrin) that has a left and right flank and a center section in addition to a reserve and retreat area. From here the object of the battle becomes, for both players, the challenge of maneuvering troops to eliminate all enemy units in one of the flanks or the center while avoiding this happening to themselves. Each side conducts charge and counter charge attack and counter attack reinforcement and rallying utilizing artillery, infantry, cavalry, and leaders. After a battle is won the victorious forces pursue the loser and the damage can be staggering if cavalry did not screen the defeated army. This pursuit combat can often be the nail in the coffin for the loser as it can cause the total loss of an army. Pursuit combat seems too powerful in my opinion, but I have to admit accurate and a painful reminder to always keep some cavalry in reserve.

I do take issue with a part of the map design. It seems afoul when it comes to Maryland and Washington. The city of Washington is set within Maryland and Maryland is a border state. According to the rules in order to hold a boarder state and gain its production points you must keep a unit in each city within the boarder state. This of course then means the Union player must always keep one unit in Washington or risk not having the production points. Additionally the Union player must also always keep his army out of Washington due to Washington being set within Maryland. If the Union player keeps the army in Washington and the South attacks, the Union army would have no place to retreat to if need be and will be destroyed. While this is minor and the Union has only to keep its main force in Maryland to protect Washington it does seem odd that if Washington is assaulted there is nowhere to retreat too.

Unit placement may have been done better too. The rules state that units may be placed in any friendly region or city. This means in order to keep the Confederate states from rising up again after they are taken the Union player should keep one unit in every region of every state. Otherwise the South can just place new Units around captured cities and take them back. If someone finds a solution to this I’m not seeing please let me know.

My final problem is it seems Eagle Games may not have play tested the game very well. Gamers I played with and I saw the power behind the elite cavalry and our games degenerated into “build the most elite cavalry the fastest” contests. Fortunately Eagle Games’ website posted errata to restrict cavalry purchases to 2 per production phase, but I would have thought they could have caught that issue early on.

I think Eagle Games has a winner for one of its first games. They have defiantly broken new ground with game size and combat resolution. A few bugs needed to be worked out with errata but at least they did it. I truly do like this game.

Thread: ACW pdf manual

fsultana — 2007-12-05T08:59:09+00:00

Hi all,

Have tried desperately to find a pdf of the rules for this game on the net. Eagle games obviously offered one once - but all links turn up dead ends. Can anyone help?

Frank

Thread: Re: Comparison to like game by same company

asgelb — 2007-05-21T08:05:34+00:00

thanks!

Thread: Re: Comparison to like game by same company

WalkerRedEye — 2007-05-20T12:59:20+00:00

hmm i can try

napolean has a nice deck of random cards that make things intresting, it also has politics: you can try and influence neutral states to come on to your side or make unhappy states in an enimies empire rebel and otehr things

napolean supports up to 7 players (although you may feel a bit had if you end upwith spain or especially the ottamans) and has a war rule, you can not just march into an enemy empire and start carving bits off it you need to be properly at war and use political points (i think that is waht they are called, they power many of teh intresting options in the game) to garrison and integrate states

i ahve played both a few times though prefer american civil war primarily as it is easier to get an game organised, napolean is fun but it is ahrd for me these days to get enough peole in teh smae place at the same time to make it worthwhile

so i guess teh short answer is napolean is alot more involved there is more to consider than constant attrition and stratergy

it is possible to play the game (especially as england) without even fighting but dominating economically and supporting other members of teh grand alliance, why put good british redcoats in front of french troops when you can give asutria teh money to put austrians infront of them instead?

i suppose the reason acw is more easy to obtain than nie as napolean is more popular so people are less likely to give it up

walker red eye

Thread: Comparison to like game by same company

asgelb — 2007-05-20T08:23:01+00:00

Both this game and Napoleon in Europe were made by Eagle Games, now out of business. Both games are pre-WWI era games and, excuse me for my lack of older war history/tactics, but I recall both EARLY U.S. Civil War and Napoleonic War tactics were using "old" tactics in that it was the "line up and shoot each other down" method, rather than later newly adopted tactics of advanced flanking, surprise attacks, rear attacks etc..this didn't come about until late in the Civil War from what I've read.

I digress.

So both of these games probably share similar tactics, both are made by Eagle, both have a strategic board AND a tactical "battle map".

So why is the Napoleon game so hard to find and so expensive, while the Civil War game is easier to find and cheaper to acquire? Why is the Napoleon game rated so much higher? For two games that "seem" so much alike, I would think the two would be similar in rarity and price.

Can anyone elaborate?

Thanks!

Edit: oh yeah, both were made in 2001, too.

Thread: Re: Some Thoughts

dking232 — 2007-02-25T08:11:00+00:00

I posted a couple of ideas under the "Fitting a lot of units in small areas" topic, which will probably solve the problems noted here.

I really like this game, but my biggest problem with it is that it never goes beyond 1863. An agressive Southern player should be able to keep the North from ever putting together a sustained offensive. Just strike early and often.

So to fix this problem, I've written up two different rule sets: one uses the tactical features and a modified battle board; the other uses a CRT similar to VG's Civil War instead of the battle board. I prefer the version that uses just the CRT, which makes it play like a simplified version of VG's Civil War or War for the Union. -Dave-

Thread: Re: Fitting a lot of units in the small regions

dking232 — 2007-02-25T07:52:30+00:00

I have two other methods I use that cut down on the clutter and eliminate any confusion about which units are in which regions.

One is to take some of the strength markers from a game like TSS. Take four of each--two for the Union and two for the Confederates. Whenever you get a force of six or more pieces, remove it and place it to the side with a number. Take one piece and put it back on the board with a matching number under it.

The other is to use small poker chips, 3/4" to 1" diameter. You can find multicolored sets of these in some toy stores or hobby stores. Same idea as above except you use a colored plastic chip.

This is a simple clean way to keep the game moving along with no loss of visual appeal. -Dave-

Image

Lobo — 2007-01-19T19:16:48+00:00

Box Front

Thread: Re: The America Civil War

hannibal twin 8 — 2006-12-06T21:22:48+00:00

Thanks for the good reveiw.

Image

Yaboo — 2006-11-05T04:30:34+00:00

A shot of the huge map... nice art work.

Image

hockeyjedi — 2006-09-06T04:55:53+00:00

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-19T17:05:39+00:00

The handyman boxes filled

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-19T17:04:47+00:00

ACW: rule book

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-19T16:57:43+00:00

Back of box

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-15T21:56:55+00:00

Horses

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-15T21:56:05+00:00

Mexicans

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-15T21:51:26+00:00

Unionists

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2006-03-15T21:43:57+00:00

Confederates

Thread: My exp on it

guicard — 2005-09-16T11:19:43+00:00

It's a nice game; this is my experience...
What i like:
The map - It's nice and well concepted for tactical purposes... beware of the borders!!!
The tactical battle - allows some kind of strategies.
What i don't like:
The optional rule of "intervention" and the other strange things... should be avoided.
The amphibious assault rule... 5 is too much, compromise game's balance (but if reduced the amph assault became a non sense action).
The north and south different cavalry production cost: It's too much in favour for the south player. (Tactical note: This is in my opinion the right way for south player: to buy cavalry as much as possible for:
1) his movement factor - allows 1 cav force to support two fronts if well placed on map;
2) the first strike in the tactical battle (the north player have to collect two or three times the south player forces to avoid, in the tactical battle splitting, to be overwelmed);
3) the north player is forced toan aggressive game as soon as possible.
South player have to sacrifice infantry pieces to block north movements (this is essential!).
In the end... nice time spent with, but once in both sides is sufficent!
By to all dice addicted!!

Thread: The America Civil War

BagpipeDan — 2005-07-31T21:43:19+00:00

I will not be discussing the basic rules in this review because I have not played them, nor will I, because they are... basic. All the cities are worth the same, there's nothing special about railroads or navies or Europe, and there is nothing more than random combat.

On to the real game...

The Map: Beautiful. That's one thing I will always say about Eagle Games, they have nice maps. Size: huge. Well designed: no. One third of the map (it comes in three oversized pieces) is devoted to absolutely nothing. It has Texas and Mexico. And nothing else. Sure, it does have rail points and European Intervention there, but that could have been handled somewhere else. The spaces, and I cannot emphasize this enough, are way too small. There are ways around this, like forming your men around one infantry guy to "represent" the army in a space, or to move the army into the Atlantic or out west, or to bunch them up, or use the very helpful "City Army Holder" boards which BGGFiles gives us, and that's all good. But with such a big board it is almost criminal that I have to resort to that, PLUS the fact that I LIKE a good looking game, and massing my units up is disorganized, mindless blobs around one infantry or putting whole armies in the Atlantic to clear up space dashes any aesthetic appeal this game might give me. And don't get me started on the Canadian territories, which fly across all theological boundries from God-awful to pure Satan. How I just imagine large spaces in Kentucky instead of those monstrous hangouts the British get.

By the by: I have played both the historical and balanced game, and I will say even though the historical game went monstrously, I enjoyed it much more, and will only discuss that version (because it offers the most in terms of game-play).

Setup: The setup is actually not too bad. Place units in cities depending on what the rulebook says. Simple. Maybe 10 minutes, tops, from grabbing the game to setting it up (assuming you already have a monstrous playing area ready).

Gameplay: The game starts in June, 1861. The Rebs go, the Union goes, the date marker moves the month up. Again and again that happens, and then the interesting part takes place. Naval battles can be fought, Political initiatives are undertaken, and production occurs. Yay. I will discuss these in turn.

Movement: your standard movement rules apply here. Infantry and artillery moves one space, cavalry can move two. When you land on enemy movements you have a battle. Cities count as an entire space, and the states are broken up hapahzardly into various, nearly indistinguishable spaces. Map problems are as I discussed above. The real trick is managing your rail movement, though. Both players have a certain number of rail points (North 7, South 4) at the beginning, and there is a system of railroads all over the country. A certain number of pieces starting in a city connected to the rail line can be moved anywhere along the rail as long as they don't run into enemy pieces or cities owned by the enemy. Cavalry cost two rail points, infantry and artillery cost one, leaders cost none. These units can stop anywhere along the tracks, and do not have to go to another city. This can make certain cities very important, especially to the south, as "railroad hubs" which connect multiple parts of the country to each other. This makes certain cities very important, and provides a nice strategic element to the game.

The battles themselves are a little random, actually, and from what I've read not quite historically accurate at all. I will try to find the link. The idea is for smaller battles (6 or fewer men on either side) it's a skirmish and you fight in one large line with an open space in the center. Cannons can shoot (at a lower hit rate) across the center, but the grunts and cavalry have to wade through the fire. You can either fire with your men, which is difficult to hit with (8+ on 2d6) or you can charge and from there it's a 50/50 shot with a chance of both of the buggers dying. Cavalry do better at charges, and infantry can always protect the weak artillery. Cavalry can do two things. When men are hit theyhave a 50% chance of dying or retreating (cavalry have a 33% chance of dying). Leaders provide bonuses or can rally retreating men. When one side retreats the other side gets a chance to pursue. If there is a cavalry unit in "reserve" he can cover the retreat so only other cavalry can pursue, and they must kill any covering cavalry before picking on the infantry and artillery.

A large battle (6+ on both sides) is pretty fun, actually. You can see the setup on the downloadable battle map (which you should get) and basically it's the same battle line with three flanks. If any of the flanks fall you lose the battle and automativally retreat. Men can be held in reserve to boost a flank, and men can be moved from flank to flank. These battles are very rare, though, because it is hardly ever in the South's best interest to force a large battle. Usually this willonly happen when the North is attacking a very important (and thus a very well defended) southern city.

Naval Battles: Men can also be moved via the navy, which usually the North does to the South, which provokes a naval battle. Both players roll 2d6 and add their naval rating. Higher number wins all and the loser (depending on how much the winner won by) might lose naval points and men if they are transporting any. In the Naval Battle phase, the combat works out the same way, only without the risk of losing men. It is also possible under the advanced rules to avoid a naval battle if you are moving amphibiously.

Political Initiatives: This is where all the fun stuff happens. Emancipation can be declared by the North after inning a battle where 8 enemy units are killed, and the south any time. The South may lose some states due to that, but their European Intervention level shoots up drastically. Conscription can be declared with the risk of rioters, one point of European intervention can be bought for 10 PP, and European Intervention can be attempted by the southern player. 2d6 are rolled, and if the Southern player gets 3 or more over whatever the number is, France and England come to give them a hand, and that can be a mess for the North. 1 or 2 over gives the south 15 PP worth of aid, which can also be useful, but the south really needs to pull for that intervention.

Production: There is a chart of what everything is worth. Things are generally cheaper for the south, especially cavalry, with the exception of artillery, Rail Stock, and Naval Strength. This gives the North a large logistical advantage over the south, usually, while the south has a better logistical advantage in terms of being able to hit and run well, with their larger percentage of cavalrymen. The south must also add one to the cost of everything as the turns go on, to represent the north's increasingly nifty factories and crap.

Overall: A very amusing and fun game. I rated it a 4 because of how rarely I would want to play it (too much time and a little to random) but it can be a nice relaxing game if you don't care too much for historical accuracy or a really tense and thrilling gaming experience. And basically it is just that, a nice little game that lasts a long time and can provide some serious spurts of fun battling between careful planning and balancing of troop movement. The only major problem with this game is that if you play with the advanced rules where the North needs to win a major battle between July-October 1864 to have Lincoln re-elected and win, the South just keeps their armies down a maximum of 5 men, and then the North needs to scramble to own 7 Southern Cities. I can say I did not have this problem, but I understand it's there.

In the long run I wish I had not spent $40 on this game, as it is not exciting enough to keep my interests up, and I do not think I could recommend this game to anyone. The only niche this game could fill is the nice relaxing game to pass the time, or the game to play one turn a night on.

Thread: Re: Eagle plans ACW 2 for 2006

Drewcooter — 2005-06-20T17:34:03+00:00

I owned ACW a while back and found it to be a rules and map mess that I traded away and have not looked back.

Don't wait until 2006, buy "A House Divided" today. I can't imagine that even with improvements that ACW II will even come close to the quality of AHD.

Odd move for Eagle, I would think they would make other "New" games a priority. It seems that their quality has improved with their last several designs; Glenn keep moving forward , don't look back.

Thread: Eagle plans ACW 2 for 2006

Innovan — 2005-06-20T03:44:48+00:00

Eagle Games now has on their front page "The American Civil War II Early 2006"

Given that their production line stretches to China I'll bet 5GG that they slip to Summer 2006 at the earliest (hardly an Eagle specific issue --everyone who does China production slips.)

No word yet on the changes for the new version.

Thread: Re:Compare to Napoleon in Europe??

Drewcooter — 2005-03-15T18:29:12+00:00

Paschae (#71308),

IMHO NIE is a vastly superior game:

(1) Clearer Rules.

(2) Better Map, more useable space. Including spaces where you units can actually fit.

(3) Better historic set ups.

ACW to me is more of a game kit than an actual game.

Thread: Battles with fewer dice

Sunray11 — 2005-03-09T20:12:08+00:00

I've just added a file called TACWlessrolls.doc, which is an aid for solitaire play, or for anyone who wants to cut down on the die-rolling involved in the tactical battle system. An error crept in to the charts when I converted file types: where at the top it says "= N" it should have the symbol for "greater than or equal to".

Thread: Re:Compare to Napoleon in Europe??

Sunray11 — 2004-12-17T20:14:42+00:00

Paschae (#71308),

Very similar production values, almost identical movement and combat systems. ACW is aimed at two players, NIE caters to multiple players (but can be played with two). I like them both.

Thread: Compare to Napoleon in Europe??

Paschae — 2004-12-16T15:35:46+00:00

Could anyone do this for me please?

Thread: Fitting a lot of units in the small regions

ics_gfrench — 2004-06-29T01:55:12+00:00

I read a review [not here] in which the player wanted to like the game but found the problem of the putting numerous units in small regions too much of a negative.

Of course you can use the flag units in substitute for a multiple unit army configuration, but another technique adds excellent playability as well. Agree to arrange the units in some standard fashion such as infantry first in a line, followed by calvary, then artillery. You can even put the calvary and artillery just behind the infanty. The trick is to have the first infantry unit in the line to actually be in the city or region in which the army is located. This makes it easy to keep up with with which region or city you are in as the multiple piece army moves.

I am an "old" gamer [56 years old] with about 35 war games in my cabinet. This game and Napoleon in Europe now top my list of preferred games for relaxation and pleasure after a stressful week.

Thread: Re:Fun, but typical ending each time

turf — 2004-01-05T20:14:02+00:00

lagoonguy (#24040),

I actually won the game as the North during the Christmas holidays. The South player moved a huge army north, and took Indianapolis, but I just surrounded him on the next production phase and wiped it out. I was then free to move south with little opposition. We both agreed that the south should remain defensive in order to win. After his devastating loss, I was able to wrap the game up by mid-1863, thereby avoiding the aforementioned rule requiring the North to force a major battle in 1864. But this seems to only show how the south, played defensively, could stymie the north and win by this loophole.
Still an amazing game, regardless of who wins. And it is EASY to learn and play, with few exceptions to rules. I would recommend the purchase of this game.

Thread: Re:Fun, but typical ending each time

lagoonguy — 2003-12-19T07:34:02+00:00

turf (#22080),
That's interesting... I saw the game tonight at Gamekeeper at the mall and snagged it... i DIDNT buy it though... I own and remember how incredible and detailed "The Civil War" was, by Victory Games. That is the best game I've ever played. Huge learning curve and it's a game you'll want to setup on a table you can let it sit for weeks at a time. Looking at this new game, I saw the attractive plastic figures and wondered if the game would be good. I don't want a complex game like the Victory Games CW game (that's a pro level and EXCELLENT!) but reading your review is interesting. Hopefully you didn't blow the whole game out of the water... shouldn't it be much more difficult for the south to win? (unless european intervention is a big factor)

Thread: Fun, but typical ending each time

turf — 2003-11-13T15:31:36+00:00

I have owned this game for over a year now, and I have played it enough to know I really enjoy it. There seems to be one problem, and that is the inability of the North to actually win the game. I don't have the rules in front of me right now, but I believe that during the months of July - October of 1864, the North must engage the South in a major battle, i.e. six units per side at least. With so many spaces on the board, it seems that each game the South is able to dodge and weave enough to avoid such altercations. If the number of units during a production phase will cause the South player to exceed six units, he will just spend any money he has on Naval Power. Am I just out to lunch here, or have I found a loophole in the game? Please respond with your neato comments.

Thread: Re:Some Thoughts

turf — 2003-09-22T21:54:37+00:00

qrux (#2607),
Sorry to hear the board is not big enough where it counts. We ran into the same problems, although we have a partial solution to your plight.
As far as the "unused West" goes, we use that area to battle on. Just be sure to remember where the Rail Stock and European Intervention markers are located. We also play Napoleon in Europe, but find that a battle board for the Civil War would not be large enough when you arrive at large confrontations. We just use the Wild West expanse.
As far as using flag dudes to indicate large armies, using the portraits located on the sides of the boards have served us well, and since the naval battles are all abstract anyway, (and the numbers typically don't change all that much), we just keep them written down. That gives some more room out in the Atlantic Ocean for big armies.
I hope these ideas will help your gaming experience.
A Question of My Own: We really enjoy the game, although we have yet to play it to its fruition, as the North is usually unable to force a major battle in 1964 with the South only keeping 5 units together anywhere. Am I missing something in the rules here, or is it that simple?
:0

Thread: Some Thoughts

qrux — 2002-06-17T18:11:35+00:00

I wanted to like this game. It has a beautiful map, great pieces and I find the topic interesting. Unfortunately, I find the game has some significant problems that center around what I found most appealing (map and units).

There is no point in discussing the basic game as (for lack of a better word) is dumb - it is neither historical or interesting as a game. The standard game has a good set of rules and would work well as a war game if it weren't for the map/pieces. The problem is that the map, though it measures 3x4 feet, is too small to accomodate the the plastic pieces. These units are larger than those found in Axis & Allies or Risk 2210 yet the spaces on the map are smaller than in those two games. It can be extremely difficult to see exactly where a large group of units actually is sitting. There are 'flag men' used to replace these large groups on the map but no boxes/spaces to place the armies into or identify them. In addition to that there is no battle map included (I have read that Eagle has one for download at their site and that BBG has one here); the map should have been included as in every battle there is a difference between the reserve, left flank, right flank and center positions.

This could all be rectified by reprinting the map. Eliminate everything on the western board (which is rarely usuable) and expand the other two boards to cover the same 3x4 area. After repeated play I still find myself and others misjudging the location of units; this is not acceptable.

I cannot believe that this was not a significant problem during playtesting as everyone I have played with has encountered the same problems.

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-02-04T15:41:01+00:00

Dan and I (Rick) decided to get together on a weeknight to try the new big box wargame from Eagle Games – The American Civil War.

Eagle is the new kid on the block, as far as game publishers are concerned. They create big box games – along the lines of Milton Bradley’s Gamemaster series, such as Axis and Allies. These games have big boards, tons of miniature plastic pieces and relatively simple rules (for a wargame, anyway – they are more involved than your typical German game).

We decided to play the balanced game. I took the North and Dan took control of the South. After a turn or two of maneuvering, Dan went on the offensive, attacking at two locations on our front line. For the next few turns the attacks went back and forth, with my valiant Union soldiers making some very brave retreats and Dan’s Confederates gaining ground.

We decided to call it after the end of the first year. As this was a learning game, we got a few things wrong (we didn’t do pursuits after the first few battles and we didn’t do any naval actions).

We did have a few criticisms – as has been said before, the map board sure does look nice, but a lot of the space is wasted. The board could have been reconfigured to make the regions larger and to put a battle board on the board itself (we used the battle board downloaded from BoardgameGeek). Secondly, it is quite a bit of a dice-fest. I haven’t rolled this many dice since my last game of Frag. Lastly, it is long. We took two hours for the first year (though we were learning) - I can see this being a six hour game.

Nonetheless, it was fun and that’s the most important thing. I look forward to trying it again.