AACW2 wishlist

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bburns9]

Just for your information, the normal garrison units do not use any command points in AACW1. Specifically, the Garrison unit, with however many elements it might have, it varies, nor the Coastal Artillery, nor the Fort Battery. None of those 3 units have a command cost associated with them. Also, generally, they are fixed in place, until attacked.

Yes, I know most of the pre-established garrisons in places like Philadelphia, Annapolis, New York, etc. all are set with no cost. I was referring to (but obviously did not articulate well ) garrisons for captured cities where the player needs to recruit and deploy units for garrisons. I usually play the Union, so when I capture strategic cities like a Memphis, New Orleans, Nashville, etc. I like to garrison those with more than militia, but not necessarily a division sized force. For example sake, say two OH brigades of 2 line infantry and 1 6lb arty each. Each brigade has a command cost of 3 and a 1 star leader provides 2 CP's without enabling divisional command.

My thought was to provide some sort of garrison CP benefit to a stack (but that benefit would only apply in the region of the garrison) with an appropriate cost (like the cost to form a div). I.e. maybe the garrison feature allows a general to incorporate up to 7 elements vs. the 18 for a division.

I haven't looked for specific historical examples (I'll do that), but I believe the Union did garrison some larger cities with a good size force put under the command of a general, and the force was not a field division.

Anyway, I love the game as it is right now, this is just in the realm of have my cake and eat it too. I appreciate all of the work you and others have put into making the game better.

BB

[Berge20]

Quite new to the game, but is it possible with the engine to allow for stacks you order to move have a voluntary delay option?

Ie. I don't want to start marching day 1 toward my destination for whatever reason, so I order a delayed start by 5 days or whatever.

[It's a Trap]

Sadly no as of right now. The only way is for them to take a long route.

[Generalisimo]

Quite new to the game, but is it possible with the engine to allow for stacks you order to move have a voluntary delay option?

Ie. I don't want to start marching day 1 toward my destination for whatever reason, so I order a delayed start by 5 days or whatever.

Nope, you can't do that right now.

EDITED: hehe, mon calamari was quicker...

[It's a Trap]

Nope, you can't do that right now.

EDITED: hehe, mon calamari was quicker...

Of course. You can't know when its a trap if your slow. dur.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[enf91]

"Decay over time." In the current game engine, the entrenchments disappear immediately when the unit moves. This would imply the units filling in the entrenchments, which would take time, slowing movement.

[Colonel Dreux]

Perhaps this has been mentioned so I'll reiterate if it has:

A list of generals killed or captured at the very least. Knowing who you killed exactly is much more interesting than any actual body count. If Grant took a shell to the head, I want to know.

[W.Barksdale]

Lots of interesting ideas being tossed around! I have some too to add realism and historical feel!

1. Smaller and more numerous regions!
2. More Generals to command bde's.
3. Allow divisions to hold a certain number of bde's not just 18 elements.
3. Recruiting by regiment (as was done historically)
4. Customizable bde's (similar to the current division concept)
5. An historically accurate division cap!
6. A retooled&accurate naval system (no ironclads destroyed by wood ships)!
7. Lower ceiling on off\def values for Generals.
8. More traits on all generals!
9. Better modelling of deaths of Generals.
10.New traits (ex. leading from the front, +cohesion,+chance of officer death)
11.Revamped cavalry to ensure historically accurate & realistic action.
12.More detailed economic options & resources! (small arms, cannon, cotton, grain, etc)
13.Assigning & replacing cabinet members! Themselves with specific traits and polical clout
14.Weekly turns!
15.Better modelling of experience! (simply being in a fight not just destroying elements)
16.Get rid of all those regions on the map we can't\rarely use!
17.A bigger map of the United States ONLY!
18.Road connections and graphics that aren't just eye candy! (just found this out...just crazy!)
19. More time to play! (Don't think you can help me here :blink

[cptcav]

The prisoner exchange feature currently is useless in PBEM games. After all, what Union player in his right mind is going to allow the Confederate player to get additional troops.

As prisoner exchanges were a common feature of war (the Israelis still do it) until the Union got smart about it, I would suggest that if one side offers a prisoner exchange and the other refuses (ignores it) that the refusing side suffers some sort of penalty for doing so (i.e. a 1 point reduction in morale). This would reflect the prevaling attitude about prisoner exchanges and the loved ones protesting the fact that their soldier is not coming home. A penalty wouldn't probably be enough to convince the Union player to exchange prisoners, but it would reflect a downside to not doing so. The penalty could even be based on how many times it is refused with a greater penalty the first time and a lesser penalty each time thereafter as the refusal is less unexpected each time.

Also, we know how many prisoners we hold based on the objectives page, but it does not reflect how many the other side holds of our own. I think this should also be reported. As it is right now, I track the battle reports and can determine the POW's my opponent holds; so, it is not exactly a secret. So, I do not know of any reason that it should not be reported.

Regards,
CptCav

[enf91]

The prisoner exchange feature currently is useless in PBEM games. After all, what Union player in his right mind is going to allow the Confederate player to get additional troops.

Let me flip that around. What Union player, in his right mind, is going to pass up 2 free morale points? Let the CSA player have a couple extra conscript cos. There's not much he can do with them, especially if the Union player has been playing correctly.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

AI should pay more attention to repairing its rail lines. (Sorry if previously mentioned, but in 1.14 I still don't see it.)

[enf91]

AI should pay more attention to repairing its rail lines. (Sorry if previously mentioned, but in 1.14 I still don't see it.)

Supply, too. The CSA AI still likes to dash for Pittsburgh, so I block it and watch its Shenandoah army starve.

[Colonel Dreux]

Lots of interesting ideas being tossed around! I have some too to add realism and historical feel!

1. Smaller and more numerous regions!
2. More Generals to command bde's.
3. Allow divisions to hold a certain number of bde's not just 18 elements.
3. Recruiting by regiment (as was done historically)
4. Customizable bde's (similar to the current division concept)
5. An historically accurate division cap!
6. A retooled&accurate naval system (no ironclads destroyed by wood ships)!
7. Lower ceiling on off\def values for Generals.
8. More traits on all generals!
9. Better modelling of deaths of Generals.
10.New traits (ex. leading from the front, +cohesion,+chance of officer death)
11.Revamped cavalry to ensure historically accurate & realistic action.
12.More detailed economic options & resources! (small arms, cannon, cotton, grain, etc)
13.Assigning & replacing cabinet members! Themselves with specific traits and polical clout
14.Weekly turns!
15.Better modelling of experience! (simply being in a fight not just destroying elements)
16.Get rid of all those regions on the map we can't\rarely use!
17.A bigger map of the United States ONLY!
18.Road connections and graphics that aren't just eye candy! (just found this out...just crazy!)
19. More time to play! (Don't think you can help me here :blink

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I strongly agree with your point about ironclads. They should have big time advantages over wooden ships. Confederate ironclads should probably made to be slightly inferior to Union ironclads, although not weak inferior enough to where they are beatable in one on one combat.

I quibble a bit on "chance of death" factors. I definitely think brigade (if brigades become more important) and division leaders should have a waited chance of being killed. Army leaders chances should be the lowest, bordering on the not possible and go up from there. I don't think individual generals should get special numbers though, or this should be changeable if it is implemented. The reality is they all had a similar chance of being mutilated or killed, and just because guys like Jackson and McPherson were killed doesn't need mean they should be given more of a chance of death in the game (except for a 'lead from the front' trait perhaps). Not sure you were saying this, but I think some one said something about this elsewhere, and it worried me a bit.

I'd also like to see the ability to mine harbors (I posted on this earlier in the thread I think, or at least build abatis in harbors and on rivers, and have the possibility of building submarines and torpedo boats. If I had been the South I would have sank ships in the Mississippi to keep the Federals from moving up or down the river. Why this wasn't done, I don't know. Perhaps they didn't move quickly enough to do it or wanted to keep the river open, but it would have been much better for them if they had kept the river free of Federal ships and their line of supply to Texas and Mexico open, in my opinion.

That's another thing, supplies should be coming up to Texas vis a vis Mexico, French or sans French.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ghostlight]

Re: doubling number of regions and weekly turns. It takes 100+ hours for me to play the game through already. Imo, doubling the amount of time it takes to play is not going to add any enjoyment to the game. There's really no end of how far you can take this. Why not daily turns? 1 mile hexes instead of regions? Any war game involves a high level of abstraction, there's no way to eliminate that. Right now I think it's a good trade off between playability and realism, still with a definite tilt towards people who like 'heavy' gaming.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

Totally fiction. The only way this would have happened in the Civil War is if the French had indeed decided to intervene, which is already reflected in the current version of the game.

Fiction? Where do you think a lot of the European supplies came from that the CSA purchased from Europeans? That's what I'm talking about. They took them to Mexico and then came up through Texas, crossed the Mississippi at Vicksburg and went on from there.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

Quote us a source then.

Most of the outside supplies that came into the South from foreign countries were smuggled in via gun running smuggling operations and didn't amount to much otherwise the south would not have had near the trouble supplying their various armies. The game already depicts this alternate way of gaining resources.

What I read from your suggestion was the implication that a supply line should be traceable to Mexico. If that's not what you meant than please clarify it.

Ah, you're right I think. I think I should have stated the possibility of a supply line to Mexico. I just read a source saying no such supply line existed.

However, I've been reading up on the Vicksburg campaign and part of the apparent rational behind taking Vicksburg was Abraham Lincoln's worry and others, that the Confederacy would be able to supply itself via a supply line to Mexico (with Vicksburg being the key link along the Mississippi).

My apologies for assuming such a supply line ipso facto existed.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

An excerpt from "Confederate Military History Vol. 11"

True, true... but some people apparently thought it was possible. I mean colonial Mexico traded from Mexico City all the way up to Nachitoches, LA and Santa Fe, NM going back to the 17th century. It was only a trickle, but it was something.

[It's a Trap]

In the current game VP are decided to see who won. However a game going all 115 turns the CSA really stands no chance unless the CSA gained like a 1k lead by begining of 63'. The USA steamroller can sometimes even overcome that lead (cause the CSA will need to spend them just to maintain their forces). I'd like to see the CSA awarded some VPs for just being alive that late or at least see Northern cities lose their VP value.

[dduff442]

The AI is at least okay relative to other games, but there's certainly room for improvement. Some sort of strategic layer allowing the AI to pick different approaches according to the context would be nice. Dev diaries showcasing interesting or novel ai behaviours would be a big selling point.

The battle engine could be expanded to allow for more leader stats than plain old 'attack -- defense'. If the existing stats were broken down and a few more added it would give the commanders a lot more individuality. (I'll expand on this later)

Keep the number of scripted units in scenarios to a minimum. In the current GC, you start the april scenario and begin buying up units noting where to send them all, but then a ton of scripted brigades pop up all over the map in the succeeding turns so you no longer have any idea where they're all meant to go. Players can handle complexity they generate themselves but masses of units popping out of nowhere are overwhelming.

A political model for state-federal tensions and differences would really deepen the historical realism of the game, especially for the Confederacy.

There are a few 'gamey' elements to version one, such as the Cotton Embargo option. In reality, this was nothing short of economic suicide and it's debatable whether it encouraged or discouraged foreign recognition of the Confederacy.

Transport is one area where the current game shines. It helps the military end of the game massively, but nonetheless has zero realism value on the economic side. Both sides can and must massively expand their transport capacity. In reality, the south had almost no capacity to do this and there's no way even the north could treble or quadruple its rolling stock in a year. Tredegar Iron Works produced a grand total of 70 locomotives between 1850 and 1860 (according to Wikipedia at least). It's conversion to cannon production eliminated even this very modest production capacity.

I'd suggest the following model for transportation: A political option is created for players to choose the amount of rail capacity that can be requisitioned each turn. At maximum requisition capacity, rail transport is available immediately but production of general supply is seriously impacted, attrition of rolling stock increased, ship production times increased and national morale eroded turn-by-turn as the civilian economy breaks down.

A intermediate setting would enable a certain amount of RC to be reserved for the *following* turn (i.e. an amount and departure region or state specified), at much less damage to the economy as rail managers have more freedom in controlling movements. Damage to the economy would be proportional to the RC reserved but less than for option 1.

A minimal rail setting would allow a more restricted amount of RC be reserved 1 turn in advance at no damage to the economy.

The boards have been full of debates about game balance as well as 'historicity' (I still don't know what that means!) vs player freedom. I'm all for the latter myself. Historical restrictions should be modeled within the game system rather than through individual 'kludge' rules. For commercial reasons, I'm certain it would be wise to get around the whole issue by covering things like deep raids, use of skirmishers etc as game options. That would put an end to the endless debates and satisfy both sides.

I can see the sense in the leader activation rules but think they've been over-employed to provide game-balance. A simple and realistic rule would be to increase a general's political value each turn he remains inactive. This is basically what got Buell and McClellan fired.

Instead of blanket restrictions on corps and division formation and on unit selection and quality, I'd favour more political options. An option to create cadres from the available regulars or to keep them together (with a political cost for switching) would be nice. The Union could start with the latter option and the Confederacy the former.

Another option might allow influence over allocation of trained officers, permitting choice between forming more corps/division/army HQs and increasing the experience-level of newly-formed units.

AACW really is a fine game. I've played a lot of war games and never found one better. (I know you get this a lot -- people will start thinking you write these posts yourselves) Please (oh please) don't go down the 3D 'bells and whistles' (i.e. gimmick) route. In my experience, these add nothing to the immersion. I know reviewers like things like these, but I doubt strategy gamers in particular have any faith in reviewers any more -- they're commenting on the products of their major customers (advertisers) and are seldom helpful. The current hand-drawn maps are much better.

[andatiep]

some suggestions
(sorry for the way i wrote, i have brooken my right hand that week and i'm tired to use the only one left...)


Retrenchment :
There is too much "tricky micro-managment" with the trench.
I personnally even use the brigadier-general or other support unit like supply alone just to keep my trenches and their level.
It's also a waste of time to manage a region with a lot's of forces arriving and to merge them with the forces who were already here to keep/grow the trenches so that they can also have the same level.
I suggest to mostly disconnect the existence of trenches in a region from the fact that there is a unit in it.
The best would be to use the regional icon's family of the pillage, frozen or blocaded ports, under siege, and to add a new one with the level of trenches in the whole region (including inside the towns), the best and same level would apply automatically to all the forces that are or just arrive in the region.
That levels of trench with that new icon would appear and increase with the same rules as before but :
- it need at least a force which activate a new kind of Order, like "Prepare trenches"
- it will not anymore desappear as soon as there is no more FRIENDLY forces to keep it because a single enemy cavalry passing there just defeated the little milicia unit which keeped that trenches "alive".
It will only decrease slowly (one level per turn for exemple, or better : depending on the meteo) if there is no more forces to activate the order "Prepare trenches" in the region


"Sound of the guns" :
considering the scale of the map and the 15 days long turn, i would suggest :
- the range of the corps allowed to march to the "Sound of the guns" should be two regions instead of one
- the corps on which we decided to spend their weight in train or naval transport for the next turn (whatever they move or not) should succeed at 95% any march to the "Sound of the guns" that occurs around (with "standard" 3-4 general's strategic values).
- there should be a special Order for Corps to be able to choose to NOT march to any "Sound of the guns" and battle that occurs around


Combinaison of Orders :
i experienced many chaotical succession of orders. The chronology/priority of the orders and the explaination why they are not applied should be more clear in the bulletin.


EDIT : i forgot, and of courses a GNU/Linux Ubuntu support for the game

[Generalisimo]

"Sound of the guns" :
considering the scale of the map and the 15 days long turn, i would suggest :
- the range of the corps allowed to march to the "Sound of the guns" should be two regions instead of one
- the corps on which we decided to spend their weight in train or naval transport for the next turn (whatever they move or not) should succeed at 95% any march to the "Sound of the guns" that occurs around (with "standard" 3-4 general's strategic values).
- there should be a special Order for Corps to be able to choose to NOT march to any "Sound of the guns" and battle that occurs around

Well, with the current setup for MtSotG (Oh my God! what a name, I will just say MSG next time for easier reference :neener there are a lot of (valid) complains with all the abstractions that needed to be simulated in order to represent the MSG properly in this map and with this rules.
Increasing the radious to 2 regions will just make the matter worse... and will let no space to add more "restraining rules", like for example, no teletransportation of forces back and forth fighting in many regions on the same turn.
The idea to NOT let a corp follow the MSG rule could be good IMHO... but, will the AI be able to cope with that?... it's complicated really to make the AI plan that in advance and the benefits of such a move...
It will just be another "bonus" to the player, something that he can micromanages better than the AI... of course, on PBEM games that could be another history...

Combinaison of Orders :
i experienced many chaotical succession of orders. The chronology/priority of the orders and the explaination why they are not applied should be more clear in the bulletin.

Can you explain a bit more? maybe you found a bug?... who knows...

EDIT : i forgot, and of courses a GNU/Linux Ubuntu support for the game

Sacrilege!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

Okay, i'll try to explain a bit more about what i wanted to say about combinaison of orders, plus other proposals.

I agree that for the "marching to the sound of the guns", 2 regions will just make the matter worse. So i will keep only the 2 last proposals :
- the corps on which we decided to spend their weight in train or naval transport for the next turn (whatever they move or not) should succeed at 95% any march to the "Sound of the guns" that occurs around (with "standard" 3-4 general's strategic values).
- there should be a special Order for Corps to be able to choose to NOT march to any "Sound of the guns" and battle that occurs around


Combinaison of Orders :
since there is a lot of changes since the begining of the game, i think there is also changes to do with the orders' buttons.

- It really need a chronology in the order. it would be nice to have a board with 3 colonns of the current orders : in the first colonne we will click order(s) that will apply in the current region where is the unit. In the second colonns we will choose order(s) for all the region the unit will cross by. And in the third colonne the order(s) that will apply in the region the unit finish its move.
That way, for example, it will be possible to order a unit in the same turn not to attack in the region were it is but in a region were it will be few days later. Such things that you need a lot.
This possible planifications would also contribute to solve problems linked with the 15 days long turns.

- Most of the decisions to give up a fight are automatized now (withdraw automatically if more than 20% losses, etc.), so why to keep pre-orders like "soft attack" or "soft defense". Let's make it maybe more simple here in order to have more place for a 3 colonne chronological board or other orders.


Conscripts :
ALL the units (alone or inside brigades) should be level conscript when they are just constructed and should stay like this till :

- Their first fight, the units which "see the elephant" are automatically not anymore conscripts

- There is a general in command with the ability "Training conscript". Maybe a little more generals should have it, especially for the South.
That way, it push to fight a bit to really train the troops and it keep the historical fact that some motivated generals could transform their conscripts in regular infantery without fights.


Milicia :

- ALL locked garrison milicia should stay always milicia : because most of the time we don't care that this remoted garrison became trained regular infantery and because they use very soon the expensive regular infantery replacement instead of using the cheap and numerous milician replacement.

- The milicia should be transform in conscript infantery to a lower speed, or better "only on demand" : we could place a general to the milicia force with the same general's ability like "Training conscript" which could also transform 1 milicia per turn into conscript infantery. For now we have no time and very few situations to use the gratis milicia replacement and the general's ability "miliciaman".


Forming Brigades :
I also think player should be able to create in detail its own brigades, element by element, and be better informed in the Great Book of the advantages of each combinaison (why light infantery is needed in a brigade/division ? example of answer : it can replace the evasion values of the cavalry if you don't have enough ressources for cavalry (which BTW need more food)... etc.)


The events reports :

- it would be nice to be able to follow the story of only one force during the last 15 days. So to add a new filter of the events wich organize and display only the events about one force.

- an event filter per sector/state/theatre could be good also, to see what did happen during the last 15 days only in a sector of the map.



Sorry again for the way i may wrote "strait" sentences maybe unpolite with bad english : i got a broken hand and the left one is also worse in english...

Sacrilege!

No problem, sir... actually, that's no more a sacrilege for many Librists : that image can symbolize "using windows from a linux system" ...and that's what i'm doing, using windows only as a "game engine" and keeping all the rest safe from it.

[DaemoneIsos]

For AACW2, I would like to see an option for human players to provide a skill / experience "balancer", analogous to what is offered against Athena. For players of unequal experience against human opponents, it might be nice to offer an option of a handicap.

I don't know how this might be best implemented: strength of troops? National Morale adjutment? Resource volume? I certainly don't want to make it too complex, just some global adjustment that would allow two players to come together on an exciting and balanced match.

Any thoughts on the cleanest way to do this?

-D