AGEOD Forums

Damned near about the ONLY gaming I have been doing for the past three months has been with games based on the American Civil War.

Sadly, not AACW - I am kind of waiting for the patches to stabilize a bit more.

This past Saturday I just learned how to play GMT's 'For The People'. What an awesome game that is.

A copy of VG's TCW was obtained via e-Bay and has been seeing a lot of table time, and I am Vassaling it.

One can be certain that when the Napoleonic Game comes out, I will suddenly go Napoleonic...so, what is the best Napoleonic Strategic Boardgame out there?

BoA got me hooked a bit on the AWI, so I guess when BoA Gold comes out, I will also need to find a copy of both Wilderness War and We the People.

Napoleonic Boardgames? Empires in Arms, hands down. But to be really fun, You need 7 People with bags of time and a really large table that can be used for the sole purpose of playing the game over several weeks/months.

If You're lacking time and/or people and are into pushing counters over a hex-grid board, War and Peace is worth looking into it, too. It covers the same period of time as the above with relatively simpler rules, can be played with two players, is even fun playing solitaire (to some extend, at least) and has a simple but very well working diplomatic system for minor and not human played major nations to boot.

Both were published by Avalon Hill in my boardgaming days, which, I must caution You, lie back about 15 years in the past. But both should be still around somewhere even today...

Regards, Henry

Henry D. wrote:Napoleonic Boardgames? Empires in Arms, hands down. But to be really fun, You need 7 People with bags of time and a really large table that can be used for the sole purpose of playing the game over several weeks/months.

Indeed. *sigh*

I've only gotten to play it once, but I remember it as one of my fondest boardgaming memories (and I have quite a few of those)

EiA, for me is the best wargame ever, being a napoleonic fan could be a good reason, but battles are terribly fun, diplomacy between 7 humans is fantastic... that is why i hope that napoleons campaigns with its future expansion with diplomacy could me play a fantastic game like empires in arms, but with a superb militar engine...

I only got to play about 2/3 of a GC in EiA, meaning the turkish and prussian players dropped out at about 1812, but later I got to play several peninsular campaigns against a hardcore afrancesado, luckily winning the majority of them. My fondness for that war and for Arthur Wellesley mostly stems from that experience (and from reading/watching Cornwells Sharpe Chronicles and the BBC TV-series based on them ). I've always been a lobster at heart (or would that be "aanglosado"? ) and, ever since discovering Cornwell, a "sweep" to boot...

Aaaah, those were the times... *sighs*

Regards, Henry

I do own the ADG version of Empire in Arms.

It's never been played.

I have read of complaints re: the rock/scissors/papers chit battle type interplay.

Does it work as a 4-player game? I can get that many together at least.

Wilhammer wrote:I do own the ADG version of Empire in Arms.

It's never been played.

I have read of complaints re: the rock/scissors/papers chit battle type interplay.

Does it work as a 4-player game? I can get that many together at least.

As I said, it has been a long time since my last game, so my memory is a bit blurred...

Four players (France, Britain, Russia, Austria?) should work, too.
Complaints about the battle systems are, to some extend, valid. But still, overall, I know nothing better in the genre. There also are, as mentioned above, some nice scenarios that take not quite as long as the GC and are fun to play with fewer people, but lack the fun of diplomatic interaction...

Regards, Henry

AACW has done the same thing to me in regards to catching up on my American Civil War history. I think I have learned more in the last couple weeks than I ever did in school/college simply because the stuff they teach you there is rather tame, censored and biased to one point of view. It was really interesting getting a southern perspective on it.

Speaking of Southern Perspective you might like this site.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csa.htm

Mangudai wrote:Speaking of Southern Perspective you might like this site.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csa.htm

Thanks for the read! Only got through some of it but it is not surprising the south didn't win considering the fact that nobody seemed to have a clue as to what needed to be done and each state effectively against each other and wanting to turn states into their own countries.

What's probably most surprising hearing the southern side (from the link above and others) is that they managed to maintain a struggle for as long as they did with the lack of orginization and conflict within itself.

Try "Age of Napoleon", Renaud Verlaque's strategic level Napoleonic game. The components are sheer eye candy, and the game plays quickly enough where it is a realistic prospect for a couple of gamers with a weekend open.

The main claim against AoN is that the game can swing on the luck of the draw (there is a card component) and the player can have a lot of hard campaigning undone by the play of a diplomatic event...frustrating, but perhaps not unrealistic.

BTW, Renaud has designed a ACW game using the same basic system as AoN,
"Price of Freedom". Looks like a good alternative to those wanting something as digestable as "A House Divided" but with a more depth and flavor.

As to grand strategic board games allow me to recommed GMT games and:

For the People : the ACW
The Napoleonic Wars
For the People American revolution
Here I Stand - the Reformation
Thirty Years War
Wilderness War - The French and Indian wars

They are all quite good.