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

Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:52 am

Ace wrote:Correct if I'm mistaken, but if I press enter city button, the unit will enter city even if there is no battle outside the town, loosing the entrenchments in the process.


Nope. Enter city only works when you're on the move and arrive at a city.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Fri Mar 29, 2013 7:25 am

So you will not enter city if I you are not moving?
I did some testing of it few years ago and a unit even if not moving entered the city. I ll test it again.

I have just made the test. If you press enter city button, you will enter the city regardless if you are moving or not, regardless if you are just standing or retreating from a battle.

I was saying it would be nice, if this button would work only if you were moving, or if you have lost (retreat) from a battle.

Canon
Lieutenant
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:58 pm

Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:56 pm

Ace wrote:So you will not enter city if I you are not moving?
I did some testing of it few years ago and a unit even if not moving entered the city. I ll test it again.

I have just made the test. If you press enter city button, you will enter the city regardless if you are moving or not, regardless if you are just standing or retreating from a battle.

I was saying it would be nice, if this button would work only if you were moving, or if you have lost (retreat) from a battle.


Confirmed this. If enter structure is selected, the stack will enter the structure regardless of movement. I don't think it was always like this though. I can remember units staying put outside despite this. Perhaps this was changed by accident in one of the patches?

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25168
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:49 pm

I'll check that.

As for retreat logic checking more than adjacents links... Room for improvements indeed, but I can only put that in my backburner list.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

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

Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:16 am

On the topic of retreats, we find our selves chasing down units that have no supply or ammunition and keep going deeper into enemy territory with units that have no cohesion. The chase always takes months. This is mostly a problem with the AI.

To make matters worse they seem very capable of evading contact and destroying rail lines while they sit with a whole enemy army on top of them.

Can we have some kind of rule where unsupplied units, or those out of ammo and under 30% cohesion must surrender when they are in a region with supplied enemy units?

Units that can not possibly have ammo reaming always seem capable of inflicting more losses then the sustained. This is not the same as units escaping from a pocket and we are not talking about high mobility forces or irregulars on a deep raid but divisions and higher three or more tiers deep in enemy territory and not actively trying to reach their lines. These are beaten units that would disintegrate from low morale and lack of supply if a commander took them to the field.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:27 am

marecone wrote:Great to see that forum is still alive :thumbsup: . I still play the game and this now is a very long time since I was in beta team :dada: .
Bellow I have reposted my older post that was in other thread concerning wishes. I still hope that some of those ideas will make through and enter the game.

Ofcourse, more I play, more wishes I have :D . Older players probably remeber that games 10 or 20 years ago almost always had a spectacular movie finish. Like you play and play and when you reach the end of the game movie pops up and rounds everything up.
Newer games lack that and I simply hate to come to the end of the game and see a simple victory screen with points.
Anyway, this is what I suggest.

While you would play the game some sort of recorder would remember what you did. I beleive that we have those log files for that. So battles, generals, drafts and such.

So... After you win or lose a book shows up. Book about American civil war. But book about "your acw". It would show gratest battles, important events such as drafts or forgein intervention, greatest generals, best regiments and such.
At first few simple pages but if this would be possible to make then it could be expanded to show more info, more battles and more events with timline. At final stage we would get a book with let say 10 to 20 pages that could decribe what happened in your game and how you won or lost.

This idea is conected with my older ideas wich idealy should be implemented first as info would probably be taken from those battles and generals histories.

Hope you like them and hope it would be possible to include some of them :) .


Reposted this suggestion as it links to my next one. If you manage to implement OOB's and some kind of stats for generals, units and battles then I volunteer to make stories after the battle.
Example:
Battle finishes. We get the results. Those results draw information from predesigned texts and form a story. It would be a huge predesigned text base that few volunteers can make and result would be a story in Shelby style.
Looking just at a result is a bit dry to me and just misses that ACW touch. Story in newspaper style saying that let say it was a foggy day (drawn from weather) in Washington area (drawn from the map position) when 2 veteran generals met (info drawn from general exp). Then add a juicy story how rebs won because Forrest was cunning and fast (drawn from traits of general) and let say 5th Mississippi regiment, vicors from let say battle of Manassas (drawn from regimental info) carried the day with their assault.

Hope you understood what I am trying to suggest. I am just sooooo excited that we will have ACW 2!

Godspeed
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...

He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:50 pm

Marecone, the book idea is awesome! But it sounds pretty hard to implement.

On another topic: I think the map should include Bull Run. I'm referring to the river. The current map doesn't show it. In reality it was very significant in the Battle of Bull Run as a major obstruction to the union troops. Commanders on either side initially made the river central to their plans. The big question during the battle for the Union was how to cross it and attack the rebels. One of the reasons they lost so badly is because it took them so ridiculously long at the start of the battle to cross the river. This was an obstruction in real life, so why should it not be one in the game? After all, the game doesn't really depict Manassas as the great defensive position it was in real life. A river crossing can remedy that by making a union attack more difficult.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:24 pm

I am not a programmer but we do have a log file wich contains all we need for a "rough" book with just dates, places, commanders, casulties and outcome. Only "let say problem" would be to take info from log file and send it to "book file". IMHO and just guessing this would not be to hard. As for stories and OOB's and other flavor stuff, I am aware that such task would be huge but I am also sure that it would add a lot to "dry" battle reports we get.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...



He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25168
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:59 am

Many a time things are not 'hard' to do, just time consuming :) It is like when a new beta arrives and provide us a wealth of infos, all as links to sites and articles. This is not exactly what we need to save us time, we need much more formatted and ready to use data. Not speaking of you or anyone in particular here, this is just to demonstrate that sometime the problem is not where we think it is :)
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:42 pm

Pocus wrote:Many a time things are not 'hard' to do, just time consuming :) It is like when a new beta arrives and provide us a wealth of infos, all as links to sites and articles. This is not exactly what we need to save us time, we need much more formatted and ready to use data. Not speaking of you or anyone in particular here, this is just to demonstrate that sometime the problem is not where we think it is :)


You know I am ready to help with stories if you decide to go this way. Same with OOB.
I hope you didn't forget who made a big chunck of those huge lists with Regimental names ;)
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...



He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:22 am

It has just occurred to me, an elegant way to implement the importance of Shenandoah valley to the game. It was a bread-basket for the besieged Confederacy, similar to the way ancient Rome depended on grain import from Sicily and North Africa. Maybe, similar concept as in AJE can be implemented, with penalties to Virginia cities supply production if the Valley is not controlled by the CSA.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:00 am

One other thing, in order to mimic history, CSA player should be rewarded for advancing into Maryland and Pennsylvania with random NM bonuses and random NM negative effects for the US. It was a politic issue. CSA Army on Northern soil threatening Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia could not have been tolerated by Northern public. The game should have a mechanism mimicking that, as it is mimicking political situation with the "On to Richmond" events.

The way the game runs now, unless someone makes a big mistake, war in the East turns into a trench warfare with little action, as the CSA player entrenches and waits for the Union player to come to him, disregarding the Valley to shorten its defense line, with no incursions to the North (as there is no real target there except DC).

By these changes, the game could become more fluid, and more historically accurate, with rewards (and risks) for CSA players venturing North.

User avatar
marecone
Posts: 1530
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:47 am

Very good suggestions Ace.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...



He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."

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

Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:05 am

Ace wrote:One other thing, in order to mimic history, CSA player should be rewarded for advancing into Maryland and Pennsylvania with random NM bonuses and random NM negative effects for the US. It was a politic issue. CSA Army on Northern soil threatening Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia could not have been tolerated by Northern public. The game should have a mechanism mimicking that, as it is mimicking political situation with the "On to Richmond" events.

The way the game runs now, unless someone makes a big mistake, war in the East turns into a trench warfare with little action, as the CSA player entrenches and waits for the Union player to come to him, disregarding the Valley to shorten its defense line, with no incursions to the North (as there is no real target there except DC).

By these changes, the game could become more fluid, and more historically accurate, with rewards (and risks) for CSA players venturing North.


I think more realistic would be drop of NM for the Union when a State is invaded (or a major raid (aka 4 CP+) like f.i. Morgan's into Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia) occurs. I think the drop in morale on the Union side was far greater than any gain in the south (particularly when you consider how such moves did not bring about hoped support in the invaded/raided states (Price in Missouri, Smith in kentucky, Morgan in Indiana, Lee in Maryland all come to mind). In game terms the result is similar, but not identical, so I'd rather go for the loss...
Marc aka Caran...

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5746
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:10 pm

I think you're right caranorn. Ace, that idea has come to my head a number of times :wacko: . I have no idea why I've never suggested it myself :bonk: . Kudos to you :thumbsup: .

People are people throughout history, and many people are prone to panic, especially if their region or home town has been invaded or has enemy troops passing through. Just being in the proximity will have citizens worrying if they will be next. Rumors and speculations can sprout like wildfire and panic-makers will spread their fears far more easily than the level-headed could have a calming affect. Additionally, the ignominy of the Union army allowing Confederate troops to penetrate onto Union soil would have been fuel for indignation in general and for war opponents in particular. I think this would be grounds for a small non-returnable NM loss on the side of the Union; ie once the invading troops have left Union soil the NM will not be returned to the Union. They will have to earn them through battle.

For the South there was little direct support for invading Union territory, many thought it against the ideology of a war for independence and some feared it might be a cause for retribution beyond the current situation. So I would not suggest giving the South an NM boost for invading, but definitely the Union an NM loss for being invaded and possibly a VP trade--plus for the South, minus for the Union--for each turn a certain amount of troops are invading, maybe the amount dependent on the number of troops; this additional to the capture of any strategic or objective locations. Besieging a strategic or objective location could also be a reason for a VP trade per turn.

One question is, is there reason for a converse if--when-- the Union invades the South, possibly beyond Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky and coastal towns and cities. My general feeling is that the South--although certainly indignant about being invaded--were more aware that it was far easier for the Union to invade the South than the other way around. So for example the Union having invaded northern Virginia I think was nearly expected, albeit not accepted.

One drawback to having reciprocity for the Union invading the South would be that it is to be expected and beyond a very un-historical development of the war. So giving the Union VPs for invading would tip the scales in the game toward the Union in the game an be a cause for unbalancing the game.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:47 pm

Thank you for nice comments. I agree South should not receive NM bonuses for invading North, but the Union should receive NM hits for being invaded.

The opposite needs not to be implemented. The war was not fought politically on equal terms. What was success for CSA, was only expected for the Union. So I wouldn't lower CSA morale for Union advancing deep into CSA. This is represented enough with NM hit whenever objective city is lost to Union advance. For the Union, the success was not to only threaten CSA cities, it needed to capture them.

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:49 pm

I'd like to see less micromanagement needed to implement riverine blocking (i.e. controlling/patrolling a river and stopping enemy crossings).

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:23 am

What exactly are you suggesting?

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:37 pm

As the union, I've always found I spend too much time maintaining a string of river fleets to stop crossings. Once you run out of supply/cohesion, you have a period where either you have open holes as units resupply or you have to try to remember all the places to move to/from and try to get a new series of fleets in place.

I think this could be handled in a more abstract manner designed around the concept of river control. Effectively, if a side has a predominance of riverine fleets, taking into account a forts ability to block fleet movement past them, they impact the ability to cross rivers. The larger the ratio, the more the impact.

Two ideas around the concept:

1. Units in a port are assigned a "patrol" mission. These units cannot move as part of another force. Their sole purpose is "patrolling and stopping crossings" (i.e. fighting for control of the river). For each river region, the "patrol strength" of each side is based on the riverine fleets assigned to patrol within X regions as long as an enemy controlled fort is not between them and the region (i.e. forts block the fleet). You then block river crossing based on the ratio of units set for patrol near the region.

2. An even simpler method (from the players perspective) would be to calculate "river control" for each "river segment". A "river segment" is a sequence of river regions from a river headwaters to either the ocean or a fort. You would then calculate the riverine fleet strength for each side for each segment with the ability to include adjacent "river segments" if you are in control of the fort. Effectively, for one side the fort would end the segment, for the other it wouldn't.

So ultimately, I'd like to see a concept of river control, with forts blocking the ability for fleets to impact control past them. One nice side effect is that a simpler way to control river crossings would also stop the unrealistic raids. You could then limit the ability to cross a river controlled (perhaps controlled by enough of a ratio) to forces led by people such as Forrest with a special attribute, and only if their force was under a certain size.

Of course, you could always allow some percentage change that a force can cross, but if the chances are low, then they risk never being able to recross to safety.

I think these would dramatically reduce micromanagement while accurately simulating the impact of river control.

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

Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:52 pm

AndrewKurtz wrote:As the union, I've always found I spend too much time maintaining a string of river fleets to stop crossings. Once you run out of supply/cohesion, you have a period where either you have open holes as units resupply or you have to try to remember all the places to move to/from and try to get a new series of fleets in place.

I think this could be handled in a more abstract manner designed around the concept of river control. Effectively, if a side has a predominance of riverine fleets, taking into account a forts ability to block fleet movement past them, they impact the ability to cross rivers. The larger the ratio, the more the impact.

Two ideas around the concept:

1. Units in a port are assigned a "patrol" mission. These units cannot move as part of another force. Their sole purpose is "patrolling and stopping crossings" (i.e. fighting for control of the river). For each river region, the "patrol strength" of each side is based on the riverine fleets assigned to patrol within X regions as long as an enemy controlled fort is not between them and the region (i.e. forts block the fleet). You then block river crossing based on the ratio of units set for patrol near the region.

2. An even simpler method (from the players perspective) would be to calculate "river control" for each "river segment". A "river segment" is a sequence of river regions from a river headwaters to either the ocean or a fort. You would then calculate the riverine fleet strength for each side for each segment with the ability to include adjacent "river segments" if you are in control of the fort. Effectively, for one side the fort would end the segment, for the other it wouldn't.

So ultimately, I'd like to see a concept of river control, with forts blocking the ability for fleets to impact control past them. One nice side effect is that a simpler way to control river crossings would also stop the unrealistic raids. You could then limit the ability to cross a river controlled (perhaps controlled by enough of a ratio) to forces led by people such as Forrest with a special attribute, and only if their force was under a certain size.

Of course, you could always allow some percentage change that a force can cross, but if the chances are low, then they risk never being able to recross to safety.

I think these would dramatically reduce micromanagement while accurately simulating the impact of river control.


In that case blocking crossings shouldn't be 100% certain though. F.i. during Morgan's Raid of Ohio and Indiana in 1863, Morgan was able to first cross the Ohio by surprise into Indiana, then prevented from crossing back for a while following that, finally to partially fail doing so in Ohio close to the west Virginia border (Morgan with about half his remaining command wasted time engaging a union militia command, which brought gunboats to his intended crossing forcing him further into Ohio and then West Virginia (apparently some of his men drowned trying to cross in the presence of the gunboat), the other command at the same time crossed at a different point). In game terms this could not work exactly that way (unless the player intentionally split Morgan's division in two), but at least a npercentage of river interdiction could be determined based on weather (in rain it's much less likely for a river gunboat to be on station than in good weather), boat/ship type (an ironclad is less flexible than a river gunboat) and total fleet strength (the more gunboats you have available the more likely one will be present at a ford/ferry when needed)...

Though generally I agree with your suggestion...
Marc aka Caran...

John Schilling
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:59 am

Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:33 am

caranorn wrote:In that case blocking crossings shouldn't be 100% certain though. F.i. during Morgan's Raid of Ohio and Indiana in 1863, Morgan was able to first cross the Ohio by surprise into Indiana, then prevented from crossing back for a while following that, finally to partially fail doing so in Ohio close to the west Virginia border (Morgan with about half his remaining command wasted time engaging a union militia command, which brought gunboats to his intended crossing forcing him further into Ohio and then West Virginia (apparently some of his men drowned trying to cross in the presence of the gunboat), the other command at the same time crossed at a different point)...

Though generally I agree with your suggestion.



Agreed, blocking should never be certain. But since you raise the issue, I've run into a related problem more times than I am comfortable with.

Specifically, the nigh-invulnerability of land forces moving by river transport, in the presence of enemy gunboats. Even in cases where the turn replay shows I have properly anticipated an enemy force's movements and sent a strong gunboat force on an offensive posture up- or downriver against them, the enemy force seems to invariably retreat without being harmed - and retreat again if the gunboats' orders take them into the river segment they retreated to the first time. Entrenched artillery reliably mauls any enemy force that tries to pass, but gunboats and even the occasional ironclad - which unlike the entrenched artillery can actually pursue a retreating enemy - seem to only block river movement.

This should certainly be a possible outcome, and should be the most probable outcome if the blocking force is holding in position with a defensive stance. The transports will certainly try to retreat when they encounter serious opposition. But it should always be possible, and with gunboats advancing in an offensive posture I would argue probable, that an actual battle occurs. A battle which should go very much against a land force using abstracted riverine capability, which I gather to be random civilian shipping pressed into service piecemeal and unarmed.

This does not seem to be the case in games I have played, either as USA or CSA.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25168
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:12 am

To be clear you are speaking of land forces moving using the order 'river move' and not using actual transport units, right?
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

AACW 2 multiplayer

Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:27 am

One of the features in current AACW that can be improved is the multiplayer.
There is nothing preventing opponents, except chivalry, from looking at opponent's orders, or replaying the turn if they are not too happy with the turn result.
I wonder is there a way to password encrypt orders before they are sent to the host, so the host would not be able to see opponent's orders or replay the turn without the opponent's password?

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:00 pm

John Schilling wrote:Agreed, blocking should never be certain. But since you raise the issue, I've run into a related problem more times than I am comfortable with.


Ultimately, river control and fort control need to have a very high impact on movement and supplies. And IMHO, I'd like to see as little micro management as possible in implementing it. But as long as it river region and fort control have the proper impact, I can live with the concept spelled out (I never thought of adding the transports).

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:23 pm

Pocus wrote:To be clear you are speaking of land forces moving using the order 'river move' and not using actual transport units, right?


This was always a big problem for me. In the end one could use the River move thing way too much, including in offensive operation or very near the front. I have always thought that either there should be away to make it for example impossible to use this feature whenever the river zone they are traveling through is either controlled or has one of its banks controlled by the ennemy. Basically this river move mode should be restricted to rear area moves only.

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

Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:35 pm

veji1 wrote:This was always a big problem for me. In the end one could use the River move thing way too much, including in offensive operation or very near the front. I have always thought that either there should be away to make it for example impossible to use this feature whenever the river zone they are traveling through is either controlled or has one of its banks controlled by the ennemy. Basically this river move mode should be restricted to rear area moves only.


Don't really agree as chartered ships were commonly used in operations, whether in enemy territory or not. On the other hand, once an enemy is encountered (and assuming no battle takes place) such ships should probably retreat all the way back to their point of origin with it's cargo rather than just halt their movement wherever they are. That way players can chose to use generic transportation even in relatively offensive moves, but 1) they risk taking damage if they encounter enemy forces and 2) they will move quite a ways back if they run into trouble. So if you expect trouble and think it's important enough use navy crewed ships, else you can charter as historic but at risk...
Marc aka Caran...

John Schilling
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:59 am

River transport anomaly

Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:28 am

Pocus wrote:To be clear you are speaking of land forces moving using the order 'river move' and not using actual transport units, right?


Correct. Certainly so when it is my own troops exhibiting the "immunity to gunboats" feature, and when it is enemy troops immune to my gunboats, both the replay graphics and the end-of-turn intelligence seem to indicate only land forces.

I agree with the other recent comments that the "river move" abstraction is a good thing so long as the river movement in question is both timid and fragile. If the theatre commander hasn't specifically arranged a concentration of naval forces to support a move, he's presumably using merchant shipping chartered as available. Which is quite practical if there is a surplus of shipping, but it gets you riverboats in ones and twos carrying a battallion or battery at a time over the two-week turn, and not commanded by resolute naval officers.

Approximately the same end result as a whole-unit move if there is no opposition, and reasonably abstracted as such in the game. But if there are gunboats or entrenched artillery in the way, the most likely result would seem to be,

A: The first few riverboats turn back rather than try to press through.

B: Particularly if facing gunboats capable of pursuit, there's a good chance that they and their cargo are lost.

C: All the rest of the riverboats in the queue, upon hearing of this, retire to the safety of the nearest port and await more sensible orders.

So, catastrophic destruction of the moving force would be rare. But the whole force patiently waiting mid-river one region away, and always evading the actual naval forces pursuing them, should be similarly rare. Mostly, modest casualties and retreat to a safe port. If for reasons of game mechanics this cannot be implemented, I'd prefer catastrophic destruction of the moving force and a stern warning to the players to Not Do That.


Where actual transports are concerned, everything seems to be working about as I'd expect.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:46 am

I'd also prefer catastrophic casualties to unescorted force using river transport. Such a move should have been escorted with gunboats of its own.

On a similar subject. I was always wondering how can a lone cavalry in hostile territory use riverine transport from a imaginary pool that could not go near its location because of enemy forts and navy. Should riverine transport be tied with the loyalty on river banks in a same way a rail transport is? Another option for a river transport could be to check if there are enemy forts or guns blockading the river between your location and your big city (abstract location of your riverine fleet in harbor)?

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

Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:41 am

Ace wrote:I'd also prefer catastrophic casualties to unescorted force using river transport. Such a move should have been escorted with gunboats of its own.

On a similar subject. I was always wondering how can a lone cavalry in hostile territory use riverine transport from a imaginary pool that could not go near its location because of enemy forts and navy. Should riverine transport be tied with the loyalty on river banks in a same way a rail transport is? Another option for a river transport could be to check if there are enemy forts or guns blockading the river between your location and your big city (abstract location of your riverine fleet in harbor)?


I recall a few historic cases where river boats were pressed into service in hostile territory (at least one by cavalry, though the two boats involved in that incident were used to ferry a force across the river in question, not along it for quite a distance). Still I think your suggestion is realistic. Maybe a free route (no enemy fort of gunboats) to a loyal river port, to any sea port (for the Union, CS only after foreign intervention) or any port that already has any naval unit it in. But that might be too complex a requirement...
Marc aka Caran...

AndrewKurtz
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 am
Location: Greenville, SC

Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:00 pm

Ace wrote:I'd also prefer catastrophic casualties to unescorted force using river transport. Such a move should have been escorted with gunboats of its own.

On a similar subject. I was always wondering how can a lone cavalry in hostile territory use riverine transport from a imaginary pool that could not go near its location because of enemy forts and navy. Should riverine transport be tied with the loyalty on river banks in a same way a rail transport is? Another option for a river transport could be to check if there are enemy forts or guns blockading the river between your location and your big city (abstract location of your riverine fleet in harbor)?


Goes back to my original comments, a key part of which is I don't think forts play a strong enough role in river control.

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests