AACW2 wishlist

[Big Ideas]

I think the map should have five mile hexes and the turns be one day each.

At these scales you could design a ACW game at everyone would want to play and one that would stand out ahead of all opposition companies. Regions are fine on occasions but heaps of games like HOI3, all Total War games, and your own new projects all have regions. An uber ACW game with hexes would be a new generation surpassing all current ACW games and not get lost in the crowd.

I don't know if your current game engine can handle the number of hexes, but you are going to need to redesign the map- even if you stick with regions- anyways so you should go with five mile hexes.

That's my request

BI

[KCDennis]

I'll certainly second the call for a battle report that provides a clearer picture of what happened, and what forces joined the battle at which point.
The pie in the sky option takes it a step further and generates a brief (one paragraph ) written report in the style of the day:
My Corps advanced on the enemy's position. General Longstreet's division on the right made fine progress, but General Johnston in the center found the enemy's position at the top of a ridge and heavily supported by artillery too tough to assail, and was forced to withdraw. Unsupported on his left, General Longstreet withdrew to his starting position.

I readily admit I have no idea whether this is feasible, but it would add to the feel of the game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Big Ideas]

I realize it would be a huge mountain of work to do. Maybe the map wouldn't have to go all the way to Chicago- there might be some edge regions are off-map locations. But five mile hexes would allow most units to move 3 hexes a day without force marches- giving a massive scope of movement possibilities. With an accurate map showing river, canal, rail, and roads, etc. it would be a wonder to behold. Imagine the excitement of reading the back of the box, "Wow, five mile hexes and one day turns, I have to buy this!" You will have a sell out product.

[enf91]

Flip side: "A whole war one day at a time??? Geez, this will take forever!"

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

Some are new and some was already proposed but needed to be placed in this thread.



"Naval retreat" for fleets :

I think the game need a new abilty for the fleet with the Transport units (as well as ships with any transport capacity like corvettes) : if in a port or in a town/fort under siege which garrison is assaulted and defeated, the fleet should automatically embarque the remaining garrison troops (if enough transport capacity) before trying to escape from the port/town/fort as it do usually for itself. Of course, that escaping fleet will have the same chance of beeing bombarded from the earth if the neighbouring ennemy did activate the Order "Bombard passing ships".
That way, cities and forts with a port are less traps for the garrison which prepared their retreat by giving a special fleet to the garrison. It is then less hard to have 15 days turns (the naval evacuation of a fortress don't have to wait 15 days, it is made automatically if needed).


Transport capacity improving the forces' reactivity :

If a player choose to give an amount of "global" transport capacity (railway or fluvial) to a force, whatever that force is moving with or not, it should get a bonus for catching ennemy unit and for evasion or retreat.


Sailors/Pontonnier unit :

change the sailors design and rename it Genie or Pontonnier like in NCP : it's sensless to use sailors/marines for building provisionnal bridges or help the troops by any means to move across rivers.


Ranger ability :

The ranger ability explained in the manual : who have it ? there is no icons on the texas rangers, partisans and indian units ?


"Strong occupant" ability :

More the general that have the "martial law" ability have stars, more the range of its effect should be wide. If general Lyon reach 3 stars, its ability should concerned the whole State where he is (as long as he is the one with the best preseance in that state), because he will apply that kind of policy in a bigger territory than a single star general.


Changing Loyality :

In the Great Book, it need better explanation why it is interesting to remove Habeas Corpus (what is the list of the advantages if you reach the minimum of 10%(?) loyalty ?) or to intall Martial Law (what is the list of the advantages if you reach the minimum of 30% loyalty ?).
I still don't know the real interest/influence of this 2 policy in the game.


To split in region the rail transport capacity :

As it was already proposed above in this thread and also here : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13534


Limitation of the number of troops/fleets in Forts/cities :

As it was already said about here : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14353



Hidden ship's holds for oceanic/fluvial fleets :

As it was already said about here : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=13766


GNU/linux support :

I know it's not yet "rentable" if we consider the current (but growing) number of Linux user. But at least, maybe it's not so difficult to make AGE run with Wine or with VirtualBox. As far as i understood, the main problem is about using MS DirectX tech', so what about "moving" sometime AGE on OpenGL or so...



Well, i should stop new proposals in this thread now. I have to keep some for AACW3,

[Franciscus]

Imagine the excitement of reading the back of the box, "Wow, five mile hexes and one day turns, I have to buy this!" You will have a sell out product.

Couple it with a tactical engine that would allow us to fight each battle a la Take Command and we would get a game for the generations - I would start it and maybe one of my future grandsons would finish it - in his old age, of course

[Generalisimo]

Couple it with a tactical engine that would allow us to fight each battle a la Take Command and we would get a game for the generations - I would start it and maybe one of my future grandsons would finish it - in his old age, of course

[Big Ideas]

Couple it with a tactical engine that would allow us to fight each battle a la Take Command and we would get a game for the generations - I would start it and maybe one of my future grandsons would finish it - in his old age, of course

And when your son is handing down the game to your grandson he'll say,"Dad lost Richmond in 1861."
"Again!"

[enf91]

Well, it is called "AGE-old" *ahem* AGEod...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[enf91]

Now, now, hang on: Lincoln et al LIVED that in 4 years, so a computer simulation would be able to run 2 or 3 turns before the human got tired/drawn away, so playing it would take "only" 16 months-2 years.

[bigus]

I'd like to see the end of huge amounts of elements being eliminated by pursuit.

Typically pursuit to the death was rare until the last year of the war.

[Captain_Orso]

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.

The CSA gets conscripts from the prisoners I release!?!?! Why is this not stated anywhere?

[W.Barksdale]

Ranger ability :

The ranger ability explained in the manual : who have it ? there is no icons on the texas rangers, partisans and indian units ?

In AACW it is called the 'Supply Ranger' ability. Native units have it, however, from what has been explained to me it only works in certain areas and only for natives. Given that these units consume only 1 or 2 supply units the ability is pretty much useless. In any case I am still yet to see the ability working correctly in any region whatsoever. Or perhaps, due to rounding the supply consumption reduciton doesn't even show up. It would make much more sense for it to apply to the whole stack and in any region which hasn't been pillaged.

"Strong occupant" ability :

More the general that have the "martial law" ability have stars, more the range of its effect should be wide. If general Lyon reach 3 stars, its ability should concerned the whole State where he is (as long as he is the one with the best preseance in that state), because he will apply that kind of policy in a bigger territory than a single star general.

Great idea! Should be applied to the other similiar abilities too: Occupant, Hated Occupant, Good Population adminisrator.

[Captain_Orso]

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.

I think that the historical issue with Mexico not trading with the CSA is obvious if you know the relationship Mexico had with the USA before the Civil War broke out, especially with the southern states.

Maybe you could have an option in which the CSA return Texas, California and rest of the land in between, which the USA robbed ... eh, bought from Mexico after the Mexican-American conquest ... er, War, in return for trade with Mexico. Of course the CSA would be obliged to assist Mexico in re-obtaining such territory the government of the USA refused to return voluntarily. And maybe pigs can fly.

[Spharv2]

Maybe you could have an option in which the CSA return Texas...

I think Texas might have an issue with this plan.

[andatiep]

it need a regionalized Generals' desactivation...

The current situation :
The gameplay have to much micro-management when players deal with the generals'activation/desactivation. Once we got many generals, in order to avoid the
desactivation penalities, we put a lots of generals on the main forces which need to be offensive and doing that we mutiplicate the chances to have at least one activated. Then we can give that one the command and separate the other with better rank from the main force and use it as activated.
So the interesting concept of desactivation is less efficient and add micro-management because players naturally try to limit it with this trick.

What could be done :
- If the highest ranked general of a region is desactivated, then all the other generals in the same region should be automatically also desactivated. It sounds also logical in the reality. When the regional commander is passive, so are its local subordinates. The generals in other regions can have more easyly initiatives if they are far from a passive leader.
- The same way, if the highest ranked general of a region is activated, then all the other generals in the same region should be also automatically activated (if not, the trick above up could still be done...).
- the free redeploiement of generals should off courses automatically desactivate the "teleported" generals to avoid "reactivation" of remote forces that way.

[increasing range for "martial law" ability] Should be applied to the other similiar abilities too: Occupant, Hated Occupant, Good Population adminisrator.

Yes ! good and logical too...

[caranorn]

I like the idea of regional activation, but this proposal as it is might be too strong. What I'd propose instead is the following:

Have activation occur by ranks and seniority. That is, check activation of the highest ranked most senior officer first, followed by the second most senior of that rank etc. Then have the chance of activation of any leader in a region where the most senior leader is already inactive reduced by a certain percentage, probably more as the difference in rank between most senior to the activating leader is greater (most senior in region is an incative 4-star, current leader trying to activate is a 1-star, very low probability of success, on the other hand if both were of same rank, just differeing seniority than the negative modifier to activation would be minimal)...

Not sure that could be implemented, would certainly be slower than the current system (which I assume is simple by number of unit/model file and which does not check any otehr leaders in region)...

[andatiep]

I like the idea of regional activation, but this proposal as it is might be too strong. What I'd propose instead is the following:

Have activation occur by ranks and seniority. That is, check activation of the highest ranked most senior officer first, followed by the second most senior of that rank etc. Then have the chance of activation of any leader in a region where the most senior leader is already inactive reduced by a certain percentage, probably more as the difference in rank between most senior to the activating leader is greater (most senior in region is an incative 4-star, current leader trying to activate is a 1-star, very low probability of success, on the other hand if both were of same rank, just differeing seniority than the negative modifier to activation would be minimal)...

Not sure that could be implemented, would certainly be slower than the current system (which I assume is simple by number of unit/model file and which does not check any otehr leaders in region)...

It's maybe "strong" but at least it is efficient, because currently it's easy to turn around the penalities of desactivation with the above trick.
I had also thought about something like you said but it don't solve the problem, we still can make a concentration of many generals, just to get at least one activated, even among the lesser ranked and senior officer.
The most simple solution (hopefully also for developpers) would be that a region is all activated or all desactivated... then no cheat, that's a pity for
the forces in the region but that's the purpose of the desactivation concept. If some don't like the desactivation rule, by the way, there is still the option not to play with so it's not so strong in a way...

[andatiep]

Since all the generals are now promotable (which is great) there is now much more and sooner 2 or 3 star generals and since the list of provided generals each year is hudge, there is micro-management problems to deal with and also too much choices which allow to avoid easyly the "bad guys" and play only with the "good" generals.

I would suggest this changes (but i think i already saw such proposal somewhere in the forums) :

- One star generals should only be able to care "self-maded" brigades with maximum 4 or 5 units.

- Only 2 or 3 stars generals can care division (18 units max)

- Only 3 stars generals can care Corps and Army HQ

- also, the system of buying a "divisionary ability" for each general which need it (and to wait that this general is activated to be able to do it) have very few game interest but is very consumming time. Let's make it as simple as creating a corps... clic and merge...

[enf91]

Hey, this is the OP. I just wanted to thank all you guys who posted ideas here. I remember when I first posted this and it seemed no one noticed it was here; now it's over 110 posts. It's even been stickied. Thanks again! I'm sure Pocus has this page bookmarked .

[Aurelin]

Coastal islands like Gary Grigbsy's War Between the States has. Ship island made a nice point to gather for the New Orleans campaign.

[enf91]

There already are the islands near Cape Hatteras and the Florida Keys. Union players can use Fort Pickens, though it might alert the CSA to a southern invasion. What islands did you have in mind?

[andatiep]

Building forces
- If it became possible to "build" our own brigades unit per unit as proposed in this thread, it would be good to do it as simple as merging Division in its current "box". That Brigade "box" could cost only 2 command points (as the 4 of the Division "box") and could welcome up to 5-6 units. That way it really need generals to create brigades and eventually all this little one stars generals you get in the game would have a real serious job in this game, i mean not only following better ranked generals to improve a force command capacity.
- Players also need to see the Statistical screen of the unit in the great book before buying forces. For now, if what you want don't already exist on the map, you should buy and then discover what you really bought. To add here a short "historical" description of each kind of unit and the way they were used in purpose during the war (and so in the game) would be nice too.


Battle report screen
About the Battle report screen, i add here a request i already saw in the forums (but i'm too lasy to research for the original posters asking for it) :
The battle reports of AACW2 should not display the troops in the region which don't participate directly to the battle (garrison troops which just watch the show from inside the towns, or forces which are already retreating from a previous battle, etc.). Or maybe better : just display it with the mention "troops in the region which was not involved in this battle").

I'll certainly second the call for a battle report that provides a clearer picture of what happened, and what forces joined the battle at which point. The pie in the sky option takes it a step further and generates a brief (one paragraph ) written report in the style of the day: "My Corps advanced on the enemy's position. General Longstreet's division on the right made fine progress, but General Johnston in the center found the enemy's position at the top of a ridge and heavily supported by artillery too tough to assail, and was forced to withdraw. Unsupported on his left, General Longstreet withdrew to his starting position." I readily admit I have no idea whether this is feasible, but it would add to the feel of the game.

I think what tactically happened during a battle can't be reported because this is not the scale of the game. But such report on the strategic level would also add to the feel of the game. Somehow you get this view with the events reports, but it need a "filter by force" to have a better view of the little story of just one force (so that we can see the comments about only its marches, its battles, its retreats, etc. at the stratégic level)


Transport capacity improving the forces' reactivity :
It make me think about something more : If we give a force a fluvial transport capacity during a turn (whatever it move with it or not) it should be able to retreat from a battle in a neighbouring river region...
This contribute to reduce the bad effects of the 15 days turn (or 7) : for now we can hardly escape back a force in a headbridge or retreat a force separated from a friendly region by a big river which need transport capacity. Since we can order a force to use a transport capacity on the way to go, why the same force would not use the same tools on the way back during the turn resolution.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

I think that the historical issue with Mexico not trading with the CSA is obvious if you know the relationship Mexico had with the USA before the Civil War broke out, especially with the southern states.

Maybe you could have an option in which the CSA return Texas, California and rest of the land in between, which the USA robbed ... eh, bought from Mexico after the Mexican-American conquest ... er, War, in return for trade with Mexico. Of course the CSA would be obliged to assist Mexico in re-obtaining such territory the government of the USA refused to return voluntarily. And maybe pigs can fly.

That's true. Some Confederates wanted to forcefully take northern Mexico. Others disagreed of course and thought the CSA should negotiate better relations with Mexico for trade or whatever else purposes. Good point though.

[Colonel Dreux]

Couple it with a tactical engine that would allow us to fight each battle a la Take Command and we would get a game for the generations - I would start it and maybe one of my future grandsons would finish it - in his old age, of course

This would be my dream Civil War game.

[enf91]

Or make it a la Port Royale and give the player the option of playing the battle or simulating it. For those of you who don't know what it is, it's an RPG: your character's a trader in the 17th century Caribbean. Fighting, trading, wars, missions, Letters of Marque, but no grand strategy.