American Civil War, Blue n Gray Game

[RiverRaider 1097]

Dan have you ever considered creating a North vs South War game from the American Civil War. If it is not to controversial this would be a hit here in the states anyway? The format you have in place would work great! ? )

[COOLguy]

No way would it be controversial! I love those games! We should do it sometime, but I think after the WWII.

[Stratego (dev)]

i am open to anything, this era i am not very familiar with, but if u can write an intro about what kind of types of units u think of and what battles and which exact "era" date interval we are talking about. thanks!

[RiverRaider 1097]

No doubt looking forward to playing WWII it is worth the wait I'm sure! And for reasons I know not it is hard to find a Civil War game. Excited that Dan would consider it one day. This way it gives me time to get the info to him ...Thanks Guys )

[COOLguy]

this era i am not very familiar with,

What? Just think Napoleonic era only better. We Americans were already using rifled weapons and repeating shots - not to mention ironclad ships!

[HokanPL]

I prefer alternative world with alternative timeline (my Red Alert Strategy / Age of Alerts project, then maybe Age of Tiberium )

[Stratego (dev)]

this era i am not very familiar with,

What? Just think Napoleonic era only better. We Americans were already using rifled weapons and repeating shots - not to mention ironclad ships!

ok, i "know" the era, i ment i dont know the details: what exact type or armaments used, what formations, what units, what uniforms, what tactics, what battles fought.

[RiverRaider 1097]

Wow this could get complex, I suggest both armies being equal in strength and industry for game sake ) although the north won, the south was more suited for the occasion. I mean we are basically talking about shoe salesman( north) fighting natural born hunters( south) the north had the brawn south had the experience ? Especially at the start

[COOLguy]

Yes. And the South had Lee and Jackson.
There were very few battles where the North did not have twice as many men and usually way better equipment, but they still lost most of the battles.

As far as units, we can start them just equal, but we will definitely need the battles. (which is one of the things that Daniel mentioned).

[Dgkfadomo777]

North had more tech like revolvers and repeating rifles, but south soldiers were more experienced

[DoomCarrot]

Why would that be controversial? We have crusaders and muslims in some age of strategy campaigns... And I'm honestly kind of sick of the whole "I'm offended thing," not to be mean but butthurt people don't have to play if they don't like it.

And yes, the north had almost all of America's factories, as well as the majority of its population. The South had farms, experience, and honestly they were far more fierce fighters 1. Because they were basically fighting for their own home and territory, and 2. They were fighting for their freedom and existance as a culture. Also, they had incredible generals, possibly some of the best in American history, wheras the North had some that were arguably the worst, until the end of the war once only the good generals remained.

Basically, the very short story with all factors combined: The South had more supplies, more resolve, and more experience, but the North had more manpower and production ability. So the South basically kicked butt until the North finally just out-manufactured them.

PS. While typing this I thought "Age of Generals" would be a very good title. Sounds civil warish

[COOLguy]

Why would that be controversial?

Mention "Sherman" in Georgia and you'll figure it out.

[RiverRaider 1097]

The night they drove old Dixie down by "The Band" killer song )

[DoomCarrot]

Why would that be controversial?

Mention "Sherman" in Georgia and you'll figure it out.

I'll remember not to do that

[Stratego (dev)]

with modding it would be piece of cake to create.
anyone interested in making it?

[Soviet_volkc]

to me

[Soviet_volkc]

Army

[Soviet_volkc]

Army

[godOfKings]

good idea, these could b map editor units, and a campaign can b made with maps in chronological order of all the battles fought during the civil war

[Stratego (dev)]

Army

Ok email me if u want make this alternative

[Gral.Sturnn]

We cam add them in AOWW? Also if this is real it should have napoleonic wars 2, they go by the same setting and weaponry

[Midonik]

Well
There is quite difference between those wars. Civil war had - railways, common industry, Gatling guns...But it can be merged if the tech tree is done right.

[Field marshal Mick]

This is something I would love to be a part of. I knowledge of the subject that would help make this game accurate and a interest in learning the technical aspects of creating it. Having played AoS and the ww2 version I have some ideas that would make the gameplay easy to pick up but challenging so you can not put it down.
The American Civil War was transitional as in it was fought with new weapons and old fashioned tactics. It started with men standing in formation and by the end they were digging trenches. I have read that the rest of the world was shocked by the terrible nature of what has been called the first modern war.

[Field marshal Mick]

I have been studying up on learning how to code so I can take this project on. Here are some thoughts on how the units could be like.
Most land battles were fought with 3 basic kinds units that would make it simple to do. 1)infantry 2)mounted 3) and field artillery.
Infantry were the main participants with 2 roles
Line soldiers who stood in formation and skirmishers who probed and harassed the enemy. Mounted units were made up of calvary who had were not not very affective in the battlefield because of accuracy of firearms. They did scouting, and raids and pursuit of retreating soldiers . Mounted infantry that dismounted and fought on foot and dragoons that did both. Artillery had the field battery and horse artillery that could move quickly and bring fire where it was needed . I would give all units the ability to have two different types of attack. The foot soldiers will be ranged with firearms and a Mellee bayonet charge. Cavalry would have sword or pistol which would be short range(2 ). Mounted infantry that would dismount and shoot a carbine or a not so affective melee attack while mounted. Artillery would have a choice of shot, or shell depending on what they have and also canister or grapeshot. Those were the major roles of battle. There were other tactics like small raids , sieges on cities and,naval battles but not as common as the main battles between two groups of men who faced each other in formation with the hopes that the enemy would break ranks and retreat. The game would have the two sides on an equal standing. Then you could get into elite units for upgrades like zouves and heavy calvary units, guerrilla warfare and the naval battles between ironsides. The fighting in the western region was different than what was happening in the east. So there will be different kinds of strategies to make a variety of challenges to be offered. What would be the main attraction of this game is the many campaigns and battles that can be represented with accurate maps and troop placement.

[Gral.Sturnn]

This could potentially be expanded to the 18th century, sounds really awesome!

[Field marshal Mick]

I was thinking that also ,but the civil war was a big turning point in warfare.

[Shark guy 35]

No one gas posted here in years, but this would be a cool idea.