Scourge of War Boards

i am a big fan of this series i also love the civil war but i cant help but think this type of game would be perfect for the american revolution have you guys ever thought of that for a future game or only civil war?

The basic game engine and system are quite versatile by design. For future games we have kicked around more Civil War, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic War, and pure Fantasy Wars. In the long term, it is not such a question as which ones, but in which order.

-Jim

Honestly, I'd love to see y'all tackle some of the Western theater of the War Between The States. I'd love to see a game based on the Battle of Franklin Tennessee(which was twice the size of Gettysburg)or Chickamauga, Georgia. A lot of exciting battles took place in the west, that mainstream overlooks. Always focused on the Virginia area.

37th_Tennessee wrote:

Honestly, I'd love to see y'all tackle some of the Western theater of the War Between The States. I'd love to see a game based on the Battle of Franklin Tennessee(which was twice the size of Gettysburg)or Chickamauga, Georgia. A lot of exciting battles took place in the west, that mainstream overlooks. Always focused on the Virginia area.

It's focused on the war in Virginia because it can be said that's where the war was won or lost. The Mississippi was crucial to Union war efforts, but Richmond was the Holy Grail. Capture Richmond, and that's it-case closed. And Franklin, while much bigger, is also much simpler than Gettysburg. It was a massive Fredericksburg from the Confederate perspective.

Armchair General wrote:

37th_Tennessee wrote:

Honestly, I'd love to see y'all tackle some of the Western theater of the War Between The States. I'd love to see a game based on the Battle of Franklin Tennessee(which was twice the size of Gettysburg)or Chickamauga, Georgia. A lot of exciting battles took place in the west, that mainstream overlooks. Always focused on the Virginia area.

It's focused on the war in Virginia because it can be said that's where the war was won or lost. The Mississippi was crucial to Union war efforts, but Richmond was the Holy Grail. Capture Richmond, and that's it-case closed. And Franklin, while much bigger, is also much simpler than Gettysburg. It was a massive Fredericksburg from the Confederate perspective.

Well, in actuality, it was not quite that simple. President Lincoln even understood that the capture of Richmond would not end the war as long as the ANV was still an active army in the eastern theater...as did Grant. It was the ultimate defeat of the ANV that signal the (near) end of the war, not the capitulation of Richmnond. :cheer:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

37th_Tennessee wrote:

Honestly, I'd love to see y'all tackle some of the Western theater of the War Between The States. I'd love to see a game based on the Battle of Franklin Tennessee(which was twice the size of Gettysburg)or Chickamauga, Georgia. A lot of exciting battles took place in the west, that mainstream overlooks. Always focused on the Virginia area.

It's focused on the war in Virginia because it can be said that's where the war was won or lost. The Mississippi was crucial to Union war efforts, but Richmond was the Holy Grail. Capture Richmond, and that's it-case closed. And Franklin, while much bigger, is also much simpler than Gettysburg. It was a massive Fredericksburg from the Confederate perspective.

Well, in actuality, it was not quite that simple. President Lincoln even understood that the capture of Richmond would not end the war as long as the ANV was still an active army in the eastern theater...as did Grant. It was the ultimate defeat of the ANV that signal the (near) end of the war, not the capitulation of Richmnond. :cheer:

That is true, but the ANV was regulated to defending Richmond. It always had to be mindful of where the next Union assault would come from based at the heart of Richmond. While the capture of the city may not have meant the absolute defeat of the Confederacy, it would have (and was) a pretty good signal to the end.

Jim wrote:

The basic game engine and system are quite versatile by design. For future games we have kicked around more Civil War, Revolutionary War, Napoleonic War, and pure Fantasy Wars. In the long term, it is not such a question as which ones, but in which order.

-Jim

Think "campaign game". B)

Just think if we could get a real AWI game, with 1:1 scale, that would be cool,

It can be done, as the war has so many small battles.

Just think about doing Guilford courthuse with all 6500 soldiers and milita.
I think AWI would be a natural second step after ACW, as the terrain is the same, same fences, same fields, trees ect.

No need to make new terrein features, only model the combat and uniforms

It would be ALOT easier then say takle the Napoleonic period with litteraly thousands of uniforms

Before we switch to Nap, we'll have to switch the engine to use 3D models, then we'll be able to show all those uniforms.

norb wrote:

Before we switch to Nap, we'll have to switch the engine to use 3D models, then we'll be able to show all those uniforms.

Hmm full 3D models... Norb please dont tease!!!! There hasnt been a decent Napoleonic strategy game for ages and lets face it TW isnt going to deliver it, the only thing on the horizon possibly is the Hiswar project (but that's just been canned by Battlefront and gone independent) - speaking as a european (English - cant be British now thanks to Tony Blair!) I would love to see the european wars of the late 18th and 19th century covered but as per earlier posts there is plenty to go at in the ACW yet! Revolutionary period and of course mexican/American or spanish/American wars.