Civil War General II

Obviously this thread has less impact on nations that do not ally themselves with the KWA; But I really think that this is a good war game regardless. The main campaign has over 100+ missions; a vast majoirity of which you'll never see because you'll never fuck up that bad. The sheer volume has okay-bad decisions transitioning to lol you dun goofed the entire confederate supply lines is funny and keeps itself in check with your choices.

I think it's a great little war game but if anyone disagrees I'll happily play any war games you counter with (plus I'll seem more prestigious that way lol) but if you like CWG II; this is the thread for you.

 

It is one of my favorite strategies and its a really underrated game, and despite being from Europe I really like the Civil War setting.

 

Oh yeah, the music is WICKED. Could you get past the mission (I forget the name) that's basically impossible if you keep winning battles as the Union? You know the one I'm talking about, the one where you have to defend a town under confederate attack; the confederates have more of everything than you do, have a more robust reinforcement schedule, and have like 3x artillery. Sure, you start in a better defensive position, but just standing there and taking it really isn't a good strategy.

 

Im not sure about every battle but there were few where losing does not mean the end of the game just next on being harder, which is great since some battles cant be won. For the battle you mentioned I managed to pull a draw and that barely since if the battle lasted a turn of two more my army would have been destroyed. The thing is that enemy will always attack you no matter where you are, so you can abandon you victory point locations and take good defensive position. For example in the first battle of Bull Run while playing as Union I didnt attack rebels but created my own defensive line on the edge of a forest near my reinforcement point which was easy for me to defend, and I got reinforcement much faster then the enemy.

 

Very underrated title. It actually got me into wargaming along with the West/East Front series.

Huge in scope, lots of battles. Well designed gameplay, but not too complex for anyone, really. Also, you could make your own maps.

I was an absolute American Civil War nut when playing this game and that only added to the atmosphere (previously mentioned music, for example, was outstanding; and you also had little reenactments). Purchasing firearms and resting up your boys at night right next to the enemy... you just don't get that sort of aesthetic in most "modern" wargames. The game had some great artwork, too, especially that cover. I remember Grant's campaign in the West was the best out of the lot. Huge, chaotic battles in forests with riverboats running up and down some coastlines firing away. Night skirmishes and brutal sieges that carried on forever. I kind of miss that game. I sold it to a store for $0.50 (no joke) and regretted it immediately and ever since.

 

You should regret it - no offense but .50$ is not even enough for a coka cola lol. But yeah, the CWG series was always proudest when including re-enactors in mini-cutscences. CWG-II wasn't too good on this, but CWG-! had so much fluff it was UNREAL. Every animation was replaced by a re-enactor. It was kinda insane but interesting at the same time. Not to mention the complex gameplay layered on top- Grants campaign in the West was great; but that game included a hypothetical campaign in which Sherman is chosen as the General of the army of the Potomac, and murders his way across the whole confederacy. To reiterate, they included great scenarious that could have almost happened, then included batshit crazy scenarious just for powergamers. Game was awesome.

 

If you fight hard enough for a random location it will become a victory point and the more you fight the more valuable it becomes, and you can always use your cavalry to outmaneuver enemy units and capture victory points without a fight. As for that battle, I fought fighting retreat and always using the terrain for defensive advantage and tried to be outside of range of their artillery. At the end of the battle all of my units were beaten to a pulp but I owned several big victory points so for some reason I got a draw.

 

I would be interested in seeing you LP this game; while I know and understand the terms you are presenting I am still curious about how you would play/rape the game?

And I never had enough calvary to do shit, they always pussied out and ran away

 

Different maps need different strategies, everything depends on available forces, terrain and reinforcements. The most important thing is not to beat enemy units to a pulp but force them to surrender. Its easy to make them retreat but not that easy to surround them so I use every unit in my disposal even commander squad that cant fight but can prevent enemy from retreating.

And cavalry is great and are best to use in several ways, stall the enemy so you can take better position, capture of remote victory locations and harassing their reinforcements.

 

Is that too gamey for calvary though? Force them to surrender though, you're talking about a decisive victory right? Or just denying them all the VP locations?

 

I mean forcing to surrender individual enemy units. If a brigade/battalion is surrounded and you force it to fall back it will surrender if it doesnt have anywhere to move. Which not only does completely removes the unit from the battle but you get lots of supplies to buy your gear between missions. As said due cavalrys mobility they can be a great asset to you, but due the fact that they have less soldiers then infantry units they should be avoided being used as pure fighting units unless you have no other choice. Still rushing them forward, parking them on a bridge and you can stall superior enemy force for one turn, which can mean difference between victory and defeat. Basically everything depends on the scenario, one tactic will be great for one mission but useless in the other.

 

Cavalry were frequently the first soldier to get into a battle, IIRC. They basically go and get a foothold somewhere on the map and wait for your main infantry to show up. Think "paratroopers", and you got some idea. Gettysburg, for probably the best example. It was always in your interest to bum rush that southern hill and hold it with cavalry until you could move some cannon and infantry up.

 

Yeah but in CWG most positions were established. I don't think any map actually started before the intial skirmishing, except for the big battles where you actually played it.

 

Dammit now you have me installing this again

 

Yeah the big battles were what I was referencing. Gettysburg started with all the troops coming in from opposite ends of the map -- following the main road at a steady trickle -- and the opposing forces slowly just built up where you wanted them.

 

What's the deal with the CWGII Enhanced fanpatch? Found whole installation manuals for it but no change log or even text blurp on why I even should bother.

 

Not sure but I think its only used to allow modding of total conversions.

There are quite few battles which can be described as "meeting engagements" where both armies start as the edge of the maps and without set lines. Still even in battles where both armies are already in positions cavalry can be a great asset.

 

Nothing gameplay wise then? Won't bother then. Thx!