Antietam or Chancellorsville?

[Nikolaj]

I've been out of the loop for at least a couple of years, and had actually almost forgotten that I bought SoW: Gettysburg, back when it was released. Now that I've remembered, I want to play some more, and I notice that 4 expansions have been released since I last checked in.

Anyway, my time and money are limited, so I'll probably get just one of them for now, and I'd prefer one of the big ones: Antietam or Chancellorsville. I'd like some input from those forum members who have played these scenarios. I'm not a major civil war buff, so while I know of the battles, I have no idea about the specifics, so if one of the battles is more interesting for historical or similar reasons, please let me know.

I know the correct course of action would probably be to get both, and I probably will, eventually, but for now I have to choose just one, so please help me do that.

Thanks.

[35th Georgia]

Antietam has the lowest price but Chancellorsville offers more and would probably be more bang for the buck. I too had not played very much for awhile but now I have the bug bad and SOW has never let me down.

[Calvin809]

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/an ... d-map.html

The Civil War Trust has some great animated maps of battles that you can watch to help you decide. That's what I'm doing right now.

[Nikolaj]

Thanks for the replies guys, and thanks for that link, Calvin809, I'm definitely going to check out those videos.

I guess I'll mull it over a bit more, before deciding. Chancellorsville seems like it might be the better deal, but on the other hand, I still have fond memories of playing Sid Meier's Antietam.

[Saddletank]

I would say Antietam is the better deal, you get three extremely different maps while with Chancellorsville its all the same apart from the Salem's Church map (which is very very good). However I don't play the scenarios that come with the game, I just use the maps and OOBs for MP play, if you are a person who likes to play the scenarios I can't help you.

[Nikolaj]

Thanks, Saddletank. I'm a single player guy, although I suppose I might want to get into MP sometime in the future. However, I'm leaning towards Antietam at the moment, since I notice it has more scenarios, and I think I read somewhere that one of those is the full battle, which might be fun (albeit a bit lengthy.)

In general, though, I prefer the battles to not be too large. Division size is probably my preferred size, since anything larger than that tends to stress me out.

So I'm wondering about the sizes of the scenarios in the two expansions. Obviously, they'll both have a mix of different size battles, but since the armies were smaller at Antietam, I'm guessing the scenarios in general might be too. On the other hand, Antietam lasted only one day, and for all I know the fighting might be more localized, so maybe the average scenario is larger in size. Does anyone know? Just a rough idea would be nice.

[2ndAcr]

I would vote Chance over Ant only due to the larger OOB. Ant does have the Gap maps though. But I enjoy Corps sized fights and above. I like having lots of toys to play with. We do lot's of co-op against the AI so need 3+ div's usually.

But since you do not prefer large fights, Ant might be the one you want. I have not played a scenario that came with the game in quite awhile so cannot remember the actual size of the battles.

Chance has more big battles than small ones. You might command a div but are a cog in a big fight usually. Most are multi div battles.