American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Gentlemen. <salute>
Knowing, of course, all the games played in the club are PBEM, do you feel that turn based games are more authentic than real-time?

_________________
Colonel Jason "Skeedaddle" Campbell
The Mahoning 4th Brigade
3rd Division
2nd Corp
AoT
"Let's fill up our canteens, boys. Some of us will be in hell before nightfall and we'll need the water"

Although I play real-time battles occasionally I prefer turn-based. This preference probably stems from a wargaming beginning in miniatures, then boardgames and only later turn-based PC games before real-time became available.
I always feel in real-time that I am competing against the light-speed of a computer with my horse and buggy 'mouse' skills. That does give the AI a chance though.

Real-time games over the internet are also a problem for me due to time-zone differences (and my inability to devote hours not moving away from the computer). That being said, I think the fairly new 'War of Rights' [https://warofrights.com/] looks light a lot of fun.

I've not found turn-based to be any less realistic than real-time and turn-based can often be more realistic: it depends upon the game and the rules of same.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I have to say that real-time to me is much more "authentic". You don't have minutes or hours or days to make your decision: you have to adjust your strategy on the fly.
Due to return rates, you have time to ponder your strategy and adjust accordingly.
It's a long time argument: real-time or turn based.
War Of Rights is looking good as is Grand Tactician.

_________________
Colonel Jason "Skeedaddle" Campbell
The Mahoning 4th Brigade
3rd Division
2nd Corp
AoT
"Let's fill up our canteens, boys. Some of us will be in hell before nightfall and we'll need the water"

I'm keen to purchase Grand Tactician - just waiting for the full version.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I don't know, all I ever played are board games and now computer turn based games. I have tried Scourge Of War it was Ok but didn't hold my interest like The JTS games.

_________________

Gen Lynn Newell
UA COS

Real Time Games for smaller scenarios are more realistic I believe, but here is the problem: as the scenarios get larger and more complex, RTS Games start to turn into click fests and now it is not a matter of realism, but rather one of how well (or how quickly) you can scroll the map and click your mouse. IMHO, A RTS game (of larger and more complex scenarios) must have a "Pause" capability so you can assess and give orders. Once you do that though, you have essentially morphed the RTS game into a "Turn Based environment". Since I grew up with Board Games and turn Based Computer games, I'll stick with them. An interesting approach that some systems use (and I like as well) is the "I-Go; You Go; We Go" approach where both sides gives their orders in a "Turn Based Fashion", but then the computer executes both moves simultaneously. Works well at the tactical level, but never seen it tried at the Operational Level

Josef Seidl, COL, CSA
Commanding Stuart's Cavalry (4th Div / I Corps)
ANV

_________________
Josef Seidl, MGEN, CSA
6th BDE/2nd Div/I Corps
ARMY of Northern Virginia

Col. Seidl,

There actually were a lot of I-Go; U-Go games in the early days of pc gaming.
As you mentioned there were several tactical games, then there was the V for Victory series which was brigade/division level as I recall.
Several naval games both surface and carrier actions and one of my favorite Eastern Front games, the original War in Russia which had Corps/Army units as the maneuver element.

_________________
Gen. Ken Miller



The McKeesport Union Guard

3/1/II
AotP

Great question! I was always a fan of Sid Meier's Gettysburg (RTS) and also played a golden oldie called SSI Colonial Conquest. It was a world map with Ger., Fra., USA, GB, Rus. and Jap. as the world colonial powers. Each country made their moves and the final turn was played out at one time. Several battles occurred for one country as many powers tried to take the same land. This had naval and land units. The best part was that you never knew what would happen as 6 player were all making their stored moved and the execution was done at the same time.

Ken Whitehead tried to program something like this but it hasn't taken off yet. I was thinking of helping him develop it and upgrade graphics; as his concept is really good.

I like the turn based game a lot but RTS is more realistic for trying to command or lead an army. (Chess vs wrestling => strategy vs. quick decisive decisions?)

The WOR's is more of a first person game (RTS) and the Grand Tactician is the extreme Tactical commanding version. Do you want to be Lincoln, Grant, Reg. officer or the soldier? It depends on which level you want to partake at. I do like strategy games (board/I-Go, U-GO) but like the action of RTS games and the control of a large tactical game too. All have their benefits.

If I had to pick, I would LOVE to play Sid Meier's Gettysburg h-2-h vs Club members. Those would be fun!

_________________
Union War Dog!
MG. Derek Hampel
Cmdr. Second Div., XV Corps
Army of the Tennessee

RTS games always seem to be a battle of clicking and moving the mouse faster than your opponent. Or you turn the gameplay speed so slow that you could go crazy watching your men march across a large map for hours.

_________________
LtC Thomas "Tex" McSwain
Kansas Raiders

Take something between it. Not fitting our background but the game "Command Ops 2" is interesting as it breaks with turns & hexes but is still no RTS like C&C.
It is in my opinion the future of wargaming.
You can try the core engine for free:
https://store.lnlpublishing.com/command-ops-2-series

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."