Suggestions for improving the "Seeing the Elephant" scenario

[Jarkko]

No its not.... It just takes in too much region for the particular defined objectives. As stated above, it was initially designed around the Bull Run battle itself and not meant as a mini-campaign.

I still insist that the troops available in the official scenario are not historical. I would believe the July campaign has more accurate garrison positioning; where do all those garrisons disappear if the official scenario has a historical set-up?

The victory conditions for the official scenarios are far from historical if the intention (as the scenario is describe) is to focus on the march to Richmond. Yes, this can be rectified by adjusting the designed area, I agree with that, and that Bigus has IMO done very well in his suggestion above. However, that does not alter the troop positioning problems.


There is one easy fix of course. Take the changes Bigus have made regarding troop positions and play area, but remove the ahistorical fort/ships *and* lock the Union troops in Ft.Monroe. The scenario then automatically focuses solely around the Manassas-Harpers area.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

This is primarily due to the fact that it's not too high on the priority list since there has been a plethora of more important items to work on, especially the 2-theater Campaign scenarios themselves. Far more players play them than anything else.

I understand this, and it is wise to focus resources to scenarios more played. Still, new players, like me, most likely start with smaller scenarios, trying to get a grasp of the game. I've now introduced the game in hot-seat mode to two players. It would be great to have a small&playable scenario for that alas there isn't such (the Far West scenario is IMO great for learning the basic ropes, but it doesn't suit very well for introducing the game as it can take quite a while before combat happens). If the word "mod" is used, then the average new player will stay far and clear ("Oh, it needs a mod to be playable. No thanks mate.").

I freely admit my computer-savvines ends after being able to push the power-button on my PC, but I believe in all my ignorance that it can't be that time-consuming to get the "Seeing the Elephant" scneario working so that it would be accepted to be the official one instead of the piece of horror that now holds the official status.

Personally I *do* like the changes Bigus has made, and on the other hand I *do* understand the requirement for historical accuracy for official status. But I do *not* understand why his work seems to be dissed so vigorously, without any constructive feedback how to solve the issues Because I presume we all can agree that the current official scenario do have quite a few not-so-minor issues?


EDIT: And while I was slowly typing Gray has meanwhile provided exactly the sort of constructive feedback I would have expected (after reading these forums) to see Thanks, and sorry for my rant above

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jarkko]

I might suggest playing one of the single-theater campaigns such as the 1862 East or West Scenarios, also reworked by Bigus and subsequently "officialized" since they met the necessary requirements. These scenarios have all the necessary game functions including production and since they are only a single theater, they are relatively easy to learn to play.

Yes, they are, and I am doing that myself now There is a lot in this game I need to learn (like fleets and amphibious operations, I am *still* totally lost with them ). My next AAR will be about the 1862 west campaign, after that I'll check if I have the guts to dive into the ocean and naval business

However, as an introduction to the game (for a totally new player) they last too long. A nice, tidy and historically accurate scenario that can be completed in 30 minutes, where you learn how to form corps and/or divisions, how replacements work, what inactive/active means, how movement works and how combat works. And then do the scenario again, now on the opposite side if needed. You know, first impression and all that

[bigus]

The historical campaign files use some separate Include files during the creation of the scenarios themselves which have the militia units separately defined in them. Whoever initially created the Bull Run Scenario, could not/would not include this file as it contains militia units from all over the entire campaign map. Basically, these militia units (the ones only for the area depicted for the Bull Run scenario) need to be hand placed into the associated "1861 Bull Run" scenario Database file so that they will show up in the Bull Run scenario. Maybe bigus will note this and add this to his rework.

Note (for bigus): the necessary lines can be found in either of the following database files depending on side.

AACW_inc_CSA_Militia09c.xls or
AACW_inc_USA_Militia09c.xls

I know where to find them. I have known for some time Since I've used them in a few scenarios.
I'm a little confused here. At no time did I ask for this Scenario to be made official. If I did I would have asked and sent you the Xls file. This scenario I uploaded was a fix of the Existing BullRun scenario. I did not make it from scratch nor did I alter any of the starting positions for that scenario. I simply made minor changes for playability sake (ie: VP's).
Much like "locking" a unit to help the AI, I added Gunboats to prevent "Gamey" Tactics. If you want to use all your resources to downplay the work as a "Mod", then so be it.

[Jabberwock]

My comment was not intended personally or to "dis" bigus' work. As Gray noted, he's made many valuable contributions. I would like to see this officialized, once it meets the historical accuracy requirements.

My comment was intended to address the idea of interim or stop-gap measures. In some areas, it is better to get an immediate fix, and make it official quickly, even if there are side effects or accuracy issues. In others, where it wouldn't take much effort to do something better, I'll push for something better.

[tagwyn]

I agree. It should be re-done as an offical product by Pocus. t

[bigus]

IIRC you can not block rivers with the "block region"=2. This might have changed in recent patches.
Anyhow........
I still like to have Banks in the scenario. So I might reduce the transport capacity to near Zero. This way only a limited number of units can move by river/ocean. I can then remove the ships and forts.

[bigus]

Last one. Blocking rivers is still not possible.

Gunboats were removed........
Fort was removed.............
Transport Capacity reduced to 3 for each side.

This should allow you to move a small brigade by river/ocean at most.
Hardly enough to take Richmond but good enough to beef up Banks if you choose that route.

[ATTACH]4718[/ATTACH]

[Jarkko]

Last one. Blocking rivers is still not possible.

Gunboats were removed........
Fort was removed.............
Transport Capacity reduced to 3 for each side.

This should allow you to move a small brigade by river/ocean at most.
Hardly enough to take Richmond but good enough to beef up Banks if you choose that route.

[ATTACH]4718[/ATTACH]

Sounds interesting This I will have to test once I get home from work in a few hours

[Pocus]

You mean you can't block water regions as you do with land regions? This is unexpected!

[Jarkko]

You mean you can't block water regions as you do with land regions? This is unexpected!

I would presume Bigus, just like me, would love to see the US player to have the historical tools at use in the scenario focused on Battle of Manassas, intead of the strategy of:

1) Sit in Washington (and drink gin, as Ayeshteni suggested)

2) On last turn of the scenario make an amphibious assault to Richmond

3) Profit