Far western map boxes

[andatiep]

Something else comes to my mind about Mexico and map boxes :

Remote map Boxes could be completely impossible to attack if there is too much distances. I understand it for the ways crossing the Rockies, but the way south should be easier. It should simulate the fact that the road to California via Tucson is (and was) THE road if players want to fight for California.
For now, if the USA player set an average garrison of one division in California, the only way for the CSA is to turn around to Oregon to attack it, because Oregon is the shorter boxe to Califormia which allow the player not not loose all its cohesion to attack California. This is quiet absurd way to invade California, isn't it ? But i did it twice in PBEM because it's the safest for the CSA...

If Mexico enter in the war, then a second road more south but with the same delay of march should be available.

This should finally avoid the players to block the very long roads for the rest of the game with just garrisoning 2 divisions at one side of it.

So i would set the "short" distance (i mean a minimum of always 2 turns away if good weather and good cohesion, and (much) more if not) :
- From the South West (Tucson) to California, to implement it :
* in the file .../ACW/GameDAta/Regions/1095South West.rgn, replace the line : "JumpLink0 = 1094|27" by "JumpLink0 = 1094|22"
* in the file .../ACW/GameDAta/Regions/1094California.rgn, replace the line : "JumpLink0 = 1095|27" by "JumpLink0 = 1095|22"

- From North Mexico to California :
* in the file .../ACW/GameDAta/Regions/1509North Mexico.rgn, add the line : JumpLink4 = 1094|22
* in the file .../Regions/1094California.rgn , add the line : JumpLink3 = 1509|22


Nest to this, in theory, a link should exist ("long" distance) between Upper Canada and Great Plains.

[wsatterwhite]

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before but the issue to me is that there probably needs to be two boxes used to represent California. As it is, the box that exists now represents Northern California and I think accurately portrays the fact that a trip from Tuscon to San Francisco would be pretty long. However, you are right in that Tuscon should be the most viable option for a CSA player to enter California, but that route would have to go through a separate Southern California box (1-2 turns from Southwest to Southern California then 1 more turn from Southern California to Northern California).

As it is, I'm not sure simply shortening the distance from Tuscon to San Francisco would be very historical- if San Francisco is the only location in California worth attacking in the game, it should be difficult for the CSA to attack San Francisco from Tuscon and (in game terms at least) the most viable route to attack just San Francisco probably should be through Oregon.

Another thing to consider is that if a Union player devotes a division worth of troops to garrison California because they know that's enough to ward off any attack (I assume this in on top of the garrison already there), then the mere threat of said attack- even if it is difficult to actually pull off- has done its job because those troops could really be better off used elsewhere.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

If someone wants to proceed with a MOD that correctly analyses ALL of the OMB JumpLinks and considers the proportionality of the distances in relation to the other OMB boxes, similar to what you are already doing for a few of them. I would be more than willing to package them as an "Optional" QuickFix for the "official" v1.16 that player/gamers could USE OR NOT USE at their choice. This could be convenient for you for your PBEM house rules set ups, especially for those PBEMers that might be uncomfortable with messing with their game files.

I also think and understand that it's now more simple for everybody if PBEM players just publish their MODed House rules with the described way to implements the ideas so that players can use it or not "à la carte".

Thank you again.

[andatiep]

I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned before but the issue to me is that there probably needs to be two boxes used to represent California. As it is, the box that exists now represents Northern California and I think accurately portrays the fact that a trip from Tuscon to San Francisco would be pretty long. However, you are right in that Tuscon should be the most viable option for a CSA player to enter California, but that route would have to go through a separate Southern California box (1-2 turns from Southwest to Southern California then 1 more turn from Southern California to Northern California).

As it is, I'm not sure simply shortening the distance from Tuscon to San Francisco would be very historical- if San Francisco is the only location in California worth attacking in the game, it should be difficult for the CSA to attack San Francisco from Tuscon and (in game terms at least) the most viable route to attack just San Francisco probably should be through Oregon.

If not already, this will be welcomed in the AACW2 wishlist thread

But for now, my provisional solution seems to me the more close to the "reality".

Another thing to consider is that if a Union player devotes a division worth of troops to garrison California because they know that's enough to ward off any attack (I assume this in on top of the garrison already there), then the mere threat of said attack- even if it is difficult to actually pull off- has done its job because those troops could really be better off used elsewhere.

Not really. There is a small division there but it's locked anyway during all the game if not attacked, so you can't use it in a better way elsewhere anyway.

[wsatterwhite]

If not already, this will be welcomed in the AACW2 wishlist thread

But for now, my provisional solution seems to me the more close to the "reality".

To a degree but I think it's a situation where there probably is no real "good" solution within the current framework. I think the creators simply decided that it shouldn't be viable for the CSA to attack San Francisco without putting a lot of effort into it. I'm not sure that's not the most realistic approach to the situation- if San Francisco is going to be the only location in California represented, it probably should be next to impossible for a CSA player to get troops there without the Union player completely dropping the ball. Marching overland 800-900 miles over sparsely populated and harsh terrain (thus little chance of living off the land) should be next to impossible- any military force that survives such a direct approach probably should end up in terrible shape. If anything, the Oregon-California route is probably too "easy".

Not really. There is a small division there but it's locked anyway during all the game if not attacked, so you can't use it in a better way elsewhere anyway.

Gotcha, I thought you were referring to extra troops and not just the locked garrison that starts there . I only play against the AI but as the CSA I've noticed the Union AI will almost always bring additional troops (and good generals like Grant and Lyon ) into those western boxes.

[andatiep]

To a degree but I think it's a situation where there probably is no real "good" solution within the current framework. I think the creators simply decided that it shouldn't be viable for the CSA to attack San Francisco without putting a lot of effort into it. I'm not sure that's not the most realistic approach to the situation- if San Francisco is going to be the only location in California represented, it probably should be next to impossible for a CSA player to get troops there without the Union player completely dropping the ball. Marching overland 800-900 miles over sparsely populated and harsh terrain (thus little chance of living off the land) should be next to impossible- any military force that survives such a direct approach probably should end up in terrible shape. If anything, the Oregon-California route is probably too "easy".

Maybe, i should admit i don't know enough on the historical and geographical situation in the Big West of North America. I just would like that a CSA invasion of the golden mines of Califormia could be a faisable option for the players, even if it means to bring with their force 15 chariots units to go there, because it's sometimes 1/2 of the incomes the USA get which are from this region and it's a interesting strategical choice, especially if there is a Foreign Intervention.

[wsatterwhite]

Do wagons help much with cohesion on multi-turn moves? I've honestly never tried many long-distance operations (in my games I usually treat most of the Trans-Mississppi theatre as a dead zone) that venture too far away from depots to know. If they do, the most realistic approach to any California attack would be to just bring along a lot of wagons. While such an expedition should definitely be possible, it should be a a high-risk/high-reward move needing a lot of planning and preparation to pull off.

[TheDoctorKing]

I think that a CSA invasion of California would have been nearly impossible. A small force could have traveled there (as Fremont did during the Mexican-American War) but the difficulty of moving supplies over those mountains and deserts would have made any attempt to move a large force way way beyond the CSA's logistical capabilities. Jefferson Davis imagined the southern route was the most easily traversed - that's why he pushed so hard for the Gadsen Purchase - but in fact that is a very nasty desert. Today dozens of immigrants die every year trying to walk across that very area. I couldn't imagine trying to move tens of thousands of soldiers across there. They would all die of thirst. It's like 400 miles from the Rio Grande valley to the Colorado, and almost nothing in between.

The route via "Oregon" must actually mean via Utah and Nevada, the route followed by the Union Pacific/Central Pacific. That is a little easier but I would hesitate to walk across Nevada today. It's very hot and dusty. And cross the Sierras in the wrong time of year and you end up eating each other - remember the Donner party. The northern route, from Utah through Idaho to Oregon proper, is even worse, because it snows a lot more in the Cascades than in the Sierras. It should be pretty much impossible to move from Rockies to Oregon between October and June. And once you arrive in Oregon, you still have 600 miles of wilderness and the Siskyou mountains (not quite as impressive as the Cascades but still snow-covered peaks) before you reach the settled areas of California, where the gold comes from.

I'd almost say that nothing with a "wheeled" movement rate could traverse these off-map links. Or at least it should be mighty darn slow and the organization should be zip when it gets where it's going.

The historical CSA invasion of the west saw the main CSA army, a force of less than 2,000 - three or four regiments in game terms - stopped in the Rio Grande Valley. A very small force, equivalent of one of the Texas Ranger companies in the game, went on to what is now Arizona where they were unable to make any headway against Apache Indians and pro-Union militias and ultimately retreated to Texas.

[Cromagnonman]

Certainly adjustments are in order to the western boxes. The most glaring problem is Laramie, Wyoming. The real Laramie is a short 130miles north of Denver, and is actually a better waypoint on the emigrant trails west to Oregon & Cali. However, in the game, it more accurately reflects Fort Ridgely in Minnesota, the location of the Dakota war of 1862. Correcting this error could also be used to correct the absence of Minnesota state from the game, and allow the recruitment of a few regiments.

Meanwhile, due to their importance on the emigrant trails, Forts Laramie and Hall should replace Denver as regions important enough to be included on the in-game route to the West Coast. Even then, the way units pull supply suggests that there should be enough regions in between to necessitate traveling with supply wagons. If you look at travel times required on these westward trails, the equivalent from Council Bluffs to Oregon or California was about 8-12 turns, depending on weather.

As for a southern route from Texas to Tuscon to California, the Butterfield Overland Mail route was 820 miles from ~Dallas to Tuscon, and another 1,020 miles to San Francisco. Including a few settlements and empty regions in between might be appropriate to match the more-traveled northern routes. Of note, the Pony Express, which used the central/northern route, took half as long and its route was 700 miles shorter. Reports seem to indicate that the southern route was much less hospitable. The California column of 2400 took 4 months to cross Arizona and New Mexico, traveling in small groups to limit their plundering effect, and moving between pre-laid depots. It would obviously be a difficult route for larger formations.

I know that these are a lot of changes for a theater that was historically insignificant. For instance, it might require a couple dozen new regions, and several settlements. However, the effect of these additions should make westward movement much more challenging, and keep the Far West as insignificant as it was historically.