User avatar
Coldsteel
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:52 am
Location: Saint Louis, Mo

Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:13 pm

Great, thank you sir.

I would think with everyone on here throwing idea's around, and putting their heads together, some good idea's would come from it.

charlesonmission
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:23 am

I wonder if they would ever consider some sort of pre-order or donations to get them going and show support. I know some indie bands do this.

lodilefty wrote:It's a wishlist.

AFAIK, no announcement....

Having said that, there are occasionally ideas here that can actually be implemented in AACW :D

User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:27 pm

With all the great work being done by everyone to wrap up version 1.16 does the desire for AACW 2 become less so? This plays like a whole new game, IMHO. Bravo to all involved :winner:

I assume AACW was a big financial success for AGEOD, but I wonder whether they can repeat or exceed that success with a sequel? For me, this is the best civil war game money can buy, made better by the work of all of you and our tireless coordinators.

Patience has indeed been a virtue, gentlemen.

My point is, we can wish, but would it be in the best long-term interest of AGEOD/Paradox?

Besides, careful what we wish for...AACW 2 might include real-time :sourcil:
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
caranorn
Posts: 1308
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:18 pm

I would not say that the recent patches mean there is no need (use?) for AACW-II. There are some aspects of the historic conflict that cannot be represented in the game right now (the volunteer system is one example)...

In any case we know AACW-II won't be for 2012. Once we've seen how NCP-II works with the Clausewitz engine we'll see what engine AACW-II might be on. Hopefully not realtime (5 years of continuous warfare in the ACW compared to 10 years of sometimes intense conflict broken up by periods of calm during Napoleon's reign(s), so no need to change the time scale and system)...

One thing I predict. If NCP-II is a success there will be an AACW-II simply because it will net Paradox a lot of money...
Marc aka Caran...

User avatar
rattler01
Captain
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am
Location: Phx, AZ

Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:02 pm

lodilefty wrote:2. Easy to change right now!. We can count "subunuits" (aka Regiments) in the area as the trigger. (heh, while looking at the vent, it is bugged anyway. It counts the units in the area OK, but is fulfilled if at any time in the game the 12 unit count is met. IMHO, needs to count only after the warning is given!)

3. AFAIK, VP are given element by element, not as a unit, so size matters. NM awards are not clear to me....

4. Tricky. I think it's because on ships, the Corps Commander is no longer in command. We could easily designate a few leaders as "Amphibious Experts" and give them dual Land-Naval command. Dunno if it would keep the Corps status until I can test it....


Just wondering if #4 is possible?
"To fallen comrades. And Winged Warriors; past, present, and future. One team, one fight. Winged Warriors."

User avatar
rattler01
Captain
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:34 am
Location: Phx, AZ

Leader changes

Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:16 am

The idea here is to remove a lot of the randomness and luck of leaders getting promoted and moving in the political spectrum it. What I envision is a more flexible system that would allow you to get whoever you want promoted, although the cost in NM and VP would discourage it greatly. The stats and traits is to encourage thoughtful consideration of OOBs. Will you have a historically highly effective one in Virginia or a more a balance between east and west? The death change would make the death of a corps or Army leader less game changing, but not allow you to pick your best leader. I think the spawn location would add a better flare historically.


1. Leaders and Promotions
-----1. Seniority- based off of time in service, previous command experience, etc. Only effects VP losses
----------1. Increases by 1 per turn, 2 if in charge of a brigade, 3 if in charge of division, 4 if in charge of corps. Numbers will not stack.
----------2. Large scale will be needed
-----2. Politics – based of political influence. Only effects NM losses
----------1. Increases if stack leader has a higher political value. Not sure on a scale
----------2. Will go up or down when you win or loss, applies to stack leader, maybe division leaders
----------3. Will change for battles involving Army HQ, strategic, and objective cities
-----3. Experience – 1-100 scale when 100 you can promote
----------1. Increases the same as seniority
----------2. +5 if in a battle
----------3. +10 if a unit leader in battle
----------4. +20 if in combat as stack leader if ## elements are involved (50+?)
----------5. Resets when promoted
-----4. Stats effect on combat
----------1. Division/ Brigade commanders
----------------1. Strategic: Increase to spreading damage equally among line elements
----------------2. Attack/Defend: Increase to units effectiveness (+1 equals 10%?, may need to use curve on increase)
----------2. Corps commanders stats effect units
----------------1. Strategic: only from seniority leader of region, effects multi-stack cooperation
----------------2. Attack/Defense: Increase to division leaders bonus (should be slight) in there stack
----------3. Army Commanders
----------------1. Same as Corps commanders when in combat
----------------2. Same as currently where values effect Corps values
-----5. Leader Traits
----------1. As Unit leaders, all stats effect elements within units (unless stated)
----------2. As Corp leader, effects all elements in stack
----------3. As Army Leader, same as Corps and effects all elements in Army (may need to be reduced in other stacks, unless we want Lee's Army to all be fast movers)
6. Deaths
-----1. Should a death occur the next senior person of the lower should be allowed to promote.
-----2. If a 1 star is killed another general should spawn. (There are still many generals on both sides that are not currently in the game, that can make up this pool)
7. A leader should spawn with the brigade that he was historically in, unless it is not in play than it would be D.C.)
"To fallen comrades. And Winged Warriors; past, present, and future. One team, one fight. Winged Warriors."

User avatar
chainsaw
Sergeant
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:46 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact: Website

Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:52 pm

Come on...you seriously are complaining that you can't play the full game that you got for FREE!?!
The game is probably $10 on GamerGate. Support this company and buy their product Omnius
................
=========
[SIZE="4"][color="Orange"] Go Hokies![/color][/size]
=========

User avatar
chainsaw
Sergeant
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:46 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact: Website

Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:57 pm

gchristie wrote:I assume AACW was a big financial success for AGEOD, but I wonder whether they can repeat or exceed that success with a sequel? For me, this is the best civil war game money can buy, made better by the work of all of you and our tireless coordinators. :



Good question - was it a success? I hope so. I would be happy to ante up some cash to show a commitment to purchasing version 2.0 of the game.
................

=========

[SIZE="4"][color="Orange"] Go Hokies![/color][/size]

=========

khbynum
Major
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:32 pm

Weekly turns and appropriately more regions to give the game a more operational flavor.

Increase the resolution of the information interface border (ie make it finer and smaller) rather than just the map when setting the game to a higher resolution. I'd like to take advantage of my big monitor to see more of the map, but the border resolution stays the same and takes up too much room, offsetting the gain. I hope that makes sense.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3490
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:01 pm

khbynum wrote:Weekly turns and appropriately more regions to give the game a more operational flavor.

Increase the resolution of the information interface border (ie make it finer and smaller) rather than just the map when setting the game to a higher resolution. I'd like to take advantage of my big monitor to see more of the map, but the border resolution stays the same and takes up too much room, offsetting the gain. I hope that makes sense.


No, no, no. Do not make the same mistake Paradox made with HOI3.
AACW is beautiful, but time consuming. Do not complicate it by adding more regions and more turns. Think about the pace of PBEM's, that would slow it down.

User avatar
FENRIS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
Location: Marseille (France)

Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:14 pm

Simply make the game (map, units) more beautiful (if it's possible) and a little change in the production way (like RUS)
ameliorate the IA with the naval warfare.
For 1861, make more realistic the mobilization and no more big raid without sense.

:thumbsup:

I agree with Ace :no more complicate the game with more turns.
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807

"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)

" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I]
[/I]

User avatar
Ubercat
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:57 pm

Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:58 pm

I'll post this here as it seems a hair more appropriate than the last place I posted it.

Please make the Shenandoah Valley have the equivalent strategic significance that it did historically. It doesn't seem to have much in AACW1, as there are no clear passes in and out. I expect this will probably be clearer since the graphics are supposed to be improved anyhow.

Thanks!

User avatar
John S. Mosby
Lieutenant
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:53 pm
Location: Virginia, CSA

Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:31 pm

I'm sure the wise but not too old developers have a good idea of where they want to take AACW2. :p apy:
Hopefully, with great anticipation, they will post them so y'all can share your input. I am very impressed with the quality involvement of the forum members, especially the seasoned veterans (you know who you are :p ).

User avatar
FENRIS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:02 am
Location: Marseille (France)

Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:52 pm

Ubercat wrote:I'll post this here as it seems a hair more appropriate than the last place I posted it.

Please make the Shenandoah Valley have the equivalent strategic significance that it did historically. It doesn't seem to have much in AACW1, as there are no clear passes in and out. I expect this will probably be clearer since the graphics are supposed to be improved anyhow.

Thanks!


:thumbsup: :hat:
[color="#FF8C00"][/color]Eylau 1807

"Rendez-vous, général, votre témérité vous a emporté trop loin ; vous êtes dans nos dernières lignes." (un russe)

" Regardez un peu ces figures-là si elles veulent se rendre !" (Lepic)[color="#FF8C00"][/color][I]
[/I]

Boomer
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:43 am

Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:23 am

I guess my own list would echo what many others here have mentioned, supply being a big one. Supply problems and logistics is one area in AGEOD games that has just driven us players mad for years now. I hope supply is finally streamlined in a way that makes sense and also leaves the player free to make strategic decisions that include but don't overpower us with supply problems.

Others off the top of my head would be...

1. Naval warfare. Not a huge part of the civil war, but in AACW it is so abstract it's almost not even worth having in the game aside from blockade fleets.

2. AI raids. Annoying, ineffectual and maddening as hell. One unit of confederate partisans isn't enough to do a hill of beans in Northern territory, but they're just capable enough to cause endless headaches. This is 'grand' strategy operations we're talking here, not small scale unit actions. AI needs improvement to maximize concentration of force and not scatter shot guerrilla warfare. I can see small units operating around or behind large field armies, but seeing one lone rebel cavalry unit marching towards Detroit is just silly.

3. Territory conquest. Gaining or losing large important cities or supply depots should have more impact. Taking New Orleans in 1862 along the historical route should benefit the Union player much more than a handful of VPs and one small militia unit. Atlanta, St. Louis, and of course Richmond and D.C. should all have huge morale, VP, and unit points to gain or lose over their conquest. Maybe even an event or two could kick off for the player after taking an important city, offering him the chance to either gain new production points or maybe have an elite infantry brigade stationed in the newly won city. Something like that to entice the player to make greater risks at taking/defending cities.

4. Presentation. This might be the biggest one aside from the supply issues. I love the AGEOD engine and what has been done with it over the last few years, but in all honesty, I think many of us feel that it is starting to show its AGE... no pun intended... a bit. While the engine serves its purpose just fine for this genre, I think the presentation in visual cues and interface could use a lot of advancement. The game looks very board game bound, but we're all seeing the video game industry move into, shall we say 'flashier' directions. Dry and technical is fine, but the UI, the music, the event cards, all could be improved and given more attention so that we can roleplay more and enjoy really diving into the meat of the game rather than having to sit and stare at page after page of unit statistics and boring economic data, both of which to me were big problems with PON. AGEOD games are the best when they allow the player to make decisions in a fluid manner and presents the scenario in a way that rises above the minutia that can so often bog everything down.

5. Map scrolling. Nothing else needs to be said there.

Gallagher1
Civilian
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 2:59 am

Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:16 am

I only play solo, so my xmas wish is a better AI. Specifically, a Union AI that can make at least some sort of effort in the West. I've been very disappointed that this great game has an AI that can't make even the most elementary of efforts to do what the Union did to actually win the war--take the Mississippi to cut the South in half, knock Tennessee out of the war, then cut the South in half again by going through Georgia. Considering how busy Athena keeps in the East, I've never understood why it almost ignores the more important theatre.

Michael Hopcroft
Sergeant
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:43 am
Location: Portland, OR USA
Contact: AOL

Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:28 am

Campaign scenarios. The more the better. For those without the time to play out the full war.

User avatar
Chuske
Lieutenant
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:03 pm
Location: Exeter, UK

Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:59 am

Hello,

Been away from the forums for a long time but back now. Been 6 months since I played this game but here are suggestions I have, feel free to argue against these if you disagree :) These a just me thinking aloud and are not in any way refined thoughts.



1) The start of the war saw very little action due to the time it took for armies to drill and prepare for battle. The current game sees the early war confusion simulated by not allowing divisions and corps in the first few months. This introduces a few issues in that you have big unwieldy stacks but this doesn't see to curtail large scale operations in games as players just go for objectives any way and don't care about the 35% penalty as its same for both sides.

Instead maybe the game could simulate the greenness of early recruited volunteers rather than just treating them as low experience regulars. Then if armies with high levels of greenness try to maneuver there is a high chance of not moving and attacks will falter easily making, plus high risk of one side routing. This can happen to any green force even later in the war, making players drill their infantry or risk debacles like Battle of Richmond, KY when Kirby Smith whipped a green union force.

2) MTSG. Problem with limiting this to corps and not allowing corps till 62 is you can't replicate Johnston's reinforcement of Beauregard at 1st Bull Run. This can lead to early war gamey tactic of Union building an invincible mega-stack (there maybe a counter to this as I used on inexperienced CSA player with great success) rather than more realistically having armies spread about but supporting each other. Problem is how to model MTSG before corps? Maybe allow any stacks to support those in adjacent regions but have bonus for corps and penalties to MTSG occurring with green troops and poor leaders.

3) Marines in real civil war played a very minor role and weren't a bridging force. Maybe limit marines in pool, give them an amphib bonus rather than pontoon and have bridging engineer units instead for land armies?

4) Coastal forts should only fire on ships that are attacking them or trying to move into estuary or port not ships sailing past at sea in the coastal region. Even coastal vessels can go far enough from coast to avoid a fort.

5) The double adjacent rule for forts/guns firing on ships seems confusing to me as to what regions can fire on which river regions. Anything that can make this rule easier to understand and more consistent would help or get rid of it and model this differently.

6) The current Grand Campaign seems a bit too easy for CSA to be more competitive than the real war. "War in Pacific Admirals Edition" has two grand campaigns in one thats realstic and another where Japanese are stronger than real life for more balanced PBEMs. Maybe this idea could be added to AACW2? The real war was impossible for CSA to win in terms of economics and attrition but could be won politically if they inflicted enough defeats with their superior leadership to erode Union political support for the war. The Lincoln election and politics could play a larger role in AACW2?

7) Union senior Generals with recruitment attribute are usually by most players left recruiting even if you get the odd NM hit for promoting a leader to army command. In reality their political sway was so big that they would not have stayed recruiting and got a field command. Be great to be forced to use comissary Banks in the field.

8) Tents. The whole of a states recruitment comes from the state capital or other important city (ie cities with a tent icon) meaning you can take that state out of the war in recruitment just by holding the capital. Be great to have more recruitment cities.

9) Battle results. Be useful to get more info on why a battle was won or lost in particular how many units on each side engaged and hints as to whether one general out thought the other tactically. The current row of icons takes some deciphering, and often left wondering if my general failed to get all his troops into combat or if one side managed to defeat part of the other army in detail or outflank or if one side just launched suicidal Cold Harbour attacks. Anything to help show what happened and why would be great.

Also would like to see improvements to economy, raiding and human wave attacks etc as discussed here http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?28273-How-to-cut-off-and-destroy-an-enemy-force
Useful Info for Beginners

"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William Tecumseh Sherman

colonel hurst
Corporal
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:06 am

Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:45 am

One idea I have has to do with illness among the troops. It seems now that epidemics are just a random occurrence. I was thinking that epidemics should have a greater chance of happening when units from different states are mixed together or when troops are in a state far from home. I know having units crippled by sickness is no fun but it was a very real part of the war.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:08 pm

I am assuming that the game is still in the early stages of development.

There were several things that I noted earlier, not necessarily in this thread, that should be considered.

The Arkansas River was navigable by steamboats up to Ft. Gibson and by flat boats up to and a little beyond Dodge City, and the Red River was also navigable by steamboat up into Indian Territory.

There were major ferry crossing on most of the major rivers that should shorten crossing times unless the other side is in enemy hands.

Indian Territory should have potential for industrial improvements. There were major lead mines being worked before and during the ACW. There were also large coal deposits on the surface in the eastern area as well as iron and other ores and minerals which were rapidly developed after the war.

This should be especially true if roads or railroads can be extended or built.

Don’t forget the Williams Gun this time. The South used automatic weapons first.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13440
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:43 pm

Could you make a quick map visual sketch of required river improvements in Arkansas / IT....the new map is being finalized and it will be too late to introduce more changes in a few weeks.
Image

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:49 pm

Thanks Phil.

I have two river maps for you.

One of the Arkansas River:
Image

Regular service on the Arkansas River went to Ft. Gibson which is up Neosho Creek just above Muskogee on the map. It was navigable above that point, however and after the war a fairly large steamboat went all the way to Hutchinson Kansas. Above that point the river became too narrow to turn the boats around.

And one for the Red River: Image

I have heard that a steamship could make its way all the way to Prairie Dog Town Forks but I believe the last regular port may have been Preston Bend which is on the river map directly south of Ardmore, Ok.

Here is a quick and dirty article on Riverboat landings in Oklahoma: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/S/ST026.html

If that is not enough, let me know and I will try to provide some more info.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13440
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:39 pm

Excellent...good maps. I'll check how I can add the extended navigable river parts without breaking the current map work... Thanks :cool:
Image

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3490
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:00 am

People are putting various wishes here. Just don't change it too much, and please leave recruitment and economic interface similar to current one. It is much easier to use than the system used in AJE (Now you can use whole screen while recruiting units, not just the bottom of the screen) .

DanSez
Sergeant
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:08 pm
Location: Lip o' Heck

Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:44 pm

Sorry I am rambling all over the Leader Ratings (suggestions and questionss about the scale)

/* suggestion 1
Since a leader can be promoted and also die, I assume you can change some parameters of the Leader stats. I would like to suggest that if you can use a formula to congratulate and blame a general for actions in a battle, you could also use the same mechanic to either add a point to Offensive/Defensive rating and/or add a positive or negative trait. Set a trigger so that in a battle with a set NM shift (4 plus?) that a shifting random change (higher NM shift, higher base chance) that the Corp, Division and possibly Army commander (changing Strategic Rating) will get a permanent bonus/minus.

/* suggestion 2
If you are tracking battle experience for Leaders - this would also be a good way to discourage rapid/too soon promotion of some Leaders (Grant comes to mind) until they get a certain level of battle experience at their starting rank. Otherwise, to promote a level the Strategic Rating would decrease by 1 for each level of rank promoted.

/* Questions on scales -- never mind I started reading in the General Room
(deleted stuff)

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:02 pm

Can we get a better wounding system in AACW2. Currently, leaders only get wounded when all their troops get shot from under them. First, it should happen more often than that. Second, it should have the possibility to affect ratings. An amputated or scarred trait that gets added after a wound could represent generals who lost their nerve after a severe injury. Some generals really went down hill after a heavy wound. Others didn't.

How about randomly assigning between 2 traits. An amputated trait that affects ratings. And then a scarred trait that doesn't affect ratings. Both cases mean another heavy wound would/might force a retirement. Whaddya think?

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:06 pm

DanSez wrote:Sorry I am rambling all over the Leader Ratings (suggestions and questionss about the scale)

/* suggestion 1
Since a leader can be promoted and also die, I assume you can change some parameters of the Leader stats. I would like to suggest that if you can use a formula to congratulate and blame a general for actions in a battle, you could also use the same mechanic to either add a point to Offensive/Defensive rating and/or add a positive or negative trait. Set a trigger so that in a battle with a set NM shift (4 plus?) that a shifting random change (higher NM shift, higher base chance) that the Corp, Division and possibly Army commander (changing Strategic Rating) will get a permanent bonus/minus.

/* suggestion 2
If you are tracking battle experience for Leaders - this would also be a good way to discourage rapid/too soon promotion of some Leaders (Grant comes to mind) until they get a certain level of battle experience at their starting rank. Otherwise, to promote a level the Strategic Rating would decrease by 1 for each level of rank promoted.

/* Questions on scales -- never mind I started reading in the General Room
(deleted stuff)


It would probably be simpler to just improve how experience points are handed out. Right now it's really hard to get exp without destroying elements. It would be better to just base it off of hits inflicted. And losses shouldn't remove exp like they do now. Most generals learned as much from a loss as they do a win (if not more).

DanSez
Sergeant
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:08 pm
Location: Lip o' Heck

Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:56 pm

Thanks, I did not know that a leader would lose experience for loses. That makes 'experience' actually something else - a rating for effectiveness or some such, but you can easily argue that a general might learn as much or more from a hard fought loss than an easy victory.

I hope they review this parameter.

User avatar
GlobalExplorer
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact: Website

Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:15 am

I just sat down and spent 45 minutes or so of my life, so I hope AGEOD reads my suggestions ... before they disregard them :D

Major issues with AACW:

[INDENT]1. When forming Corps, there should be an option to select which Army the Corps goes to. This has been asked for by players of all games .. since they exist.

2. Remove recruitment scrolling. Most people seems to find that the new recruitment interface in RuS is superior to AACW, but I disagree. The interface in AACW was perfect, and looked much better as well. The only (big) weakness was that it did not specify where the unit would be raised, but while it is nice to do this now in RuS etc, everything else is a step down. If I want to recruit units which are pretty far down the list for example, example, I have to scroll 20-30 steps to the right of the panel every time, and that can be VERY annoying. The panel is also not informative when I want to review and compare units. To suggest something meaningful, I would make the panel (much) bigger, at least four times, so there is no need to scroll, and players can actually review units.

3. Promotions. There is one very annoying thing in all AGE games: you can only promote the leader of a stack, and must split / weaken your stacks if you want to promote someone while the enemy is still near. This is made worse by the fact that the option will disappear after an unknown amount of time (as to this day I still don't know what triggers it to disappear). As a programmer I think I understand the problem, that promotion is implemented as a function of the stack object, not of the leader object, and therefore some things would have to be rewritten. I do however think that it is not a big thing to ask for, and that the promotion has confused the hell out of many players, othen leading to very unfavourable things said about the game! So if I was AGEOD, I would implement a new, logical way to promote leaders individually and deterministically, even while in the same stack! (there could be a new context menu, a checkbox on the units information panel, or something else like that)[/INDENT]

Miscellanous

[INDENT]1. enable more leaders, and at an earlier date. For example in the 1863 campaign the CSA has no Nathan B. Forest, I think thats unexplicable.

2. ability to give names to Divions / Units, not just stacks.

3. recruitment of cavalry brigades. Why was this not possible in AACW?

4. add strategic atlas like in RuS. This is a good feature to review the situation on grander scale.

5. I'd also like to know about enemy army HQs even if they are in fog of war. Of course it is unrealistic to know where the HQs are .. but right now its just as unrealistic to not even know that they exist somewhere. A simple list / overview with enemy armies / commanders should do. That could be added somewhere / somehow to the strategic atlas.

6. Better AI stacks. From my experience the performance of both the player and the AI armies depends greatly of the stack quality. In general the AI does a good job inasfar that it's not possible to predict it's next move, and it prioritizes cities / objectives quite well, so I think it does not need new superalgorithms to make it smarter. But the AI seems to be making huge mistakes with stack composition, resulting in huge command penalties. That means the AI could be greatly improved by a system that builds optimal stacks, makes optimal use of command points, and no command penalties if it can be avoided! I think this should be made a priority before anything else concerning the AI.

7. I would like to see a difficulty setting where the AI gets no combat/movement bonuses, but a certain percentage of extra money / WM / conscripts per turn. For me this would offer a better challenge without having to deal with a "cheating" AI.

8. static units? In AACW sometimes militia stacks could not move. This confused / annoyed me, and it there was no logic explanation, if a militia would be static or if it wouldn't.

9. a CSS Hunley unit. Please consider this! The confederate submarine sank the 1200t USS Housatonic, so it's not ahistoric in any way, and could be a nice morale boosting event.

10. the same with Ironclads, with the Merrimack the Confederates ruled the sea for one day, until the Monitor appeared ...[/INDENT]

User avatar
deguerra
Captain
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:20 am

Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:41 pm

A lot of good points.

Just to add onto the 'don't just take on everything new from RUS' pile:

Please keep the detailed ledger of AACW - I love being able to find individual brigades and especially leaders and being able to sort.

The ledger from RUS has some good new features, but it would be a shame to lose these old ones. A combination would be great!

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests