User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25115
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:24 am

Several good points indeed. Time to tight the knot!
Image


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

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Sun May 05, 2013 7:08 pm

Is it too late to make suggestions for the new game? Something that has irked me for a while is that "elite" units as they exist in the game are somewhat flawed. While there is no doubt that units like the Irish Bde, Iron Bd or Stonewall Bde deserve that status, it seems that too many units have "elite" status just because they had a cool nickname and were thus notable. Examples on both sides would include the CSA's European Bde and the Union's Irish Legion (Corcoran's unit, not Meagher's)- these units primarily served in garrison duty (New Orleans and Norfolk respectively) and certainly never accomplish anything to actually deserve "elite" status. It seems as if what are now classified as "elite" brigades should really be split into two groups- actual elite units with actual battlefield honors and then notable units who just have cool historical nicknames and provide a bit of color to the game.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun May 05, 2013 8:12 pm

Most elite units historically were raised with some political backing and efforts. The were often made up purely of motivated volunteers, enjoyed better equipment, training and moral and therefore they stood out in the ranks of the average of volunteers and conscripts.

I would not overvalue them all too much once the war wears on, if they do not gain experience in combat. Normal line units after gaining experience through a few campaigns will I think outclass the fresh 'elite' and leave them behind in quality.

If historically some elite formations were poorly used and didn't get to prove their value and increase their experience, then so be it. That doesn't mean that early on they didn't have an inherent quality beyond the average conscripts of the day.

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Sun May 05, 2013 11:40 pm

I think that makes sense except that players are going to know better than to leave these units who start off more well-drilled and well-trained behind in rear area garrisons, players are going to know to push these units up as much as possible. Perhaps these units should simply start off "normal" but instead gain experience at a faster rate?

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Mon May 06, 2013 8:42 am

If it's not broken, don't try to fix it; it's not broken.

Whether a unit gained renown on the battlefield or not is not necessarily a measure of their quality, especially if they did not have the opportunity to prove their mettle in battle. If you have information that an 'elite' unit in the game historically showed less than elite status in battle, then there would be an issue.

Besides, between a first line and an elite regiment, other than the 'Strong Moral' attribute, is marginal and AFAIK there is no difference in how they gain experience.

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

Mon May 06, 2013 9:07 am

European brigade starts the game as militia, not as elite unit.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Mon May 06, 2013 9:20 am

How about the ability to re-name armies, or start them off with whatever name you want
to give them?
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Tue May 07, 2013 9:20 am

Also, promotions. I'm playing a game where Hood is due, but I won't promote him
because I know he'll become a dispirited leader. There ought to be a mechanism
where they automatically get promoted (if there isn't and I currently don't know about
it). There should be a way the game makes you use crappy leaders more often than
they do in the game. I realize that sometimes you have to due to a shortage, but
eventually you have so many generals it's never a problem.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Tue May 07, 2013 10:47 am

Posted too soon. Hood got promoted. How dare they! :wacko:
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

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

Thu May 09, 2013 4:51 pm

One idea I have for AACW2 involving epidemics is to make the possibility of an outbreak greater when units from different states or regions are brought together. Many times when the boys from the midwest joined the guys from the bigger cities in the east, they succumbed to the diseases the encountered for the first time.

The more states or regions you mix units from would increase the chance of an epidemic.

Having a newly formed division get hit with sickness does suck, but it would add a bit of realism to the game.

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

Thu May 09, 2013 7:21 pm

I am always pro history, but that would be too much. To take account which divisions are from which state would take the fun out of the game. :(

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Thu May 09, 2013 9:34 pm

Ace wrote:I am always pro history, but that would be too much. To take account which divisions are from which state would take the fun out of the game. :(

And lets not forget that more than half the deaths were due to illness and disease.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWcasualties.htm
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

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

Fri May 10, 2013 4:57 am

I am aware of that, and that is why we have a concept of attrition, which is an excellent concept. Attrition in wild, uncivilized swamps can also be increased.
I am only saying, do not complicate it and force the player to micromanage things in a way that the player has to take care of which units are suited for swamp, which for mountains, and which units should not be mixed attritionwise.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Fri May 10, 2013 8:20 am

Here's a notion. Right now the current game lets me use lousy generals as spies if I
want to. I'm playing past the point where I won the game playing the CSA and sent
Loring up to Philadelphia just to see how he'd do. He seems to be able to travel with
impunity and send me back all sorts of info on what's going on in that region. Would it
be too complicated to have the game engine prevent leaders from moving in enemy
terrain without leading troops?
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

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

Fri May 10, 2013 12:37 pm

Imagine your general on a raid gone wrong, losing all his troops. Would you want him to return to your lines through enemy held territory.
With your suggestions it could not be done, with him loitering stuck in enemy lands forever.
There is a simple solution for this problem, do not do it. AI doesn't do it and any decent player doesn't do it either. :D

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Fri May 10, 2013 3:55 pm

DrPostman wrote:Here's a notion. Right now the current game lets me use lousy generals as spies if I
want to. I'm playing past the point where I won the game playing the CSA and sent
Loring up to Philadelphia just to see how he'd do. He seems to be able to travel with
impunity and send me back all sorts of info on what's going on in that region. Would it
be too complicated to have the game engine prevent leaders from moving in enemy
terrain without leading troops?


Management Summery Answer: Yes, it would be too complicated. IIRC the simple solution is going to be to give alone leaders 0 Detection ratings for human player. Athena is rather dependent on them.

Ace wrote:Imagine your general on a raid gone wrong, losing all his troops. Would you want him to return to your lines through enemy held territory.
With your suggestions it could not be done, with him loitering stuck in enemy lands forever.
There is a simple solution for this problem, do not do it. AI doesn't do it and any decent player doesn't do it either. :D


:w00t: :mdr: You are kidding right? Athena sends leaders deep into your territory all the time and lets some to them sit the for the rest of the game just observing what you are up to :feu:

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Fri May 10, 2013 5:54 pm

Captain_Orso wrote: :w00t: :mdr: You are kidding right? Athena sends leaders deep into your territory all the time and lets some to them sit the for the rest of the game just observing what you are up to :feu:

I've got 2 Union leaders parked in different regions for many months now and no matter
how many cavalry I send they never get rid of them.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Fri May 10, 2013 6:42 pm

Yes, I know how that works. You basically can't run them off. Chalk it up to something that Athena does and learn to live with it.

Aside from the fact that Athena can see some more of what's going on behind the lines the only thing bad that can happen is in areas where you have little or no MC. Then if she's parked enough leaders in one region, especially high ranking leaders, she could prevent you moving a force from that region into a neighboring region in which you have no or very little MC. Look here for a more thorough explanation: Blocked by an Empty Corp

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

Fri May 10, 2013 6:59 pm

I am curious if this could be solved by treating a Leader, alone in enemy territory, with the same mechanism that exist for a leader that is wounded. The leader is 'tele-ported' to the closest Friendly Depot or City and locked in place for a couple of turns.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sat May 11, 2013 3:26 am

DanSez wrote:I am curious if this could be solved by treating a Leader, alone in enemy territory, with the same mechanism that exist for a leader that is wounded. The leader is 'tele-ported' to the closest Friendly Depot or City and locked in place for a couple of turns.

That would be very acceptable to me. Hope they consider it for the new version.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sat May 11, 2013 3:30 am

Captain_Orso wrote:Yes, I know how that works. You basically can't run them off. Chalk it up to something that Athena does and learn to live with it.

Aside from the fact that Athena can see some more of what's going on behind the lines the only thing bad that can happen is in areas where you have little or no MC. Then if she's parked enough leaders in one region, especially high ranking leaders, she could prevent you moving a force from that region into a neighboring region in which you have no or very little MC. Look here for a more thorough explanation: Blocked by an Empty Corp


I've learned to just ignore them. Interesting thread there. I haven't had that happen to me yet but I'd be very
frustrated if it did. I guess it's something they are working on. Athena is a hell of a game engine as it is but
I think AGEod is doing great things with it and it seems to always improve.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

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

Sat May 11, 2013 8:41 am

Captain_Orso wrote:
:w00t: :mdr: You are kidding right? Athena sends leaders deep into your territory all the time and lets some to them sit the for the rest of the game just observing what you are up to :feu:


Sorry, I haven't noticed it. Maybe, because I always give high detection bonus to AI (no FOW). In that case it can be frustrating, especially being blocked by an empty corps.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sat May 11, 2013 12:53 pm

If you want to know how Athena "thinks" you have to have a look under her toga once in a while :blink: . Go to "Load Game" menu and click on the computer icon at the top-left in the list. This will allow you to open Athena's side of a scenario.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Sat May 11, 2013 7:11 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:If you want to know how Athena "thinks" you have to have a look under her toga once in a while :blink: . Go to "Load Game" menu and click on the computer icon at the top-left in the list. This will allow you to open Athena's side of a scenario.

Just did that with a game I've played beyond the point I've won and it's amazing how she has Union leaders all over the place in
my regions. I'm guessing that they got there leading troops and the troops died off leaving them to sit in place and feel sorry
for themselves ;)
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sat May 11, 2013 8:37 pm

No, Athena marched them there all by themselves to use their detection level to spy on your hinterland.

Now they're sitting in some taverns, drinking that good Yankee bourbon and lamenting on the war Image

;)

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

Brown-water blockade

Sun May 12, 2013 6:07 pm

Could we please have, for AACW2, a more realistic implementation of brown-water bockades? By which I mean having blockading forces in river mouths or coastal regions being able to blockade, for economic purposes, ports upriver? An eight-element blockade in Hampton Roads being effective against Richmond, Mississippi Delta and Atchafalaya Bay against New Orleans, and so forth? If a port can't trace an unblocked path to any blue-water region, it should count as blockaded.

I understand the game engine didn't allow that in AACW1, but the consequence of this was to make brown-water blockading unrealistic, ahistorical, and basically not worth trying. In far too many cases, the only way to blockade a Confederate port was to push the blockading force past major Confederate fortifications, when realistically and historically a blockading force holding just outside the range of the fortress's guns would be about as effective.

The current version also gives us the perverse consequence of having the CSS Virginia and USS Monitor both under construction at the beginning of the game, available at the historic time and with their historic commanders, but with no motive to fight their historic battle because even if the US Navy stations itself in Hampton Roads there is little reason for the Confederacy to care.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5738
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Tue May 14, 2013 8:20 am

I can't.. I.. I can't answer.... *gaaaah* Image

MAYBE! *aaaaaaa* Image

Sheik Yerbuti
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 11:27 pm

Thu May 16, 2013 4:18 am

One thing I would like to see in a AACW II would be more political options. And some more realistic constraints for the Confederacy.

Most of the suggestions in this thread concern practical limits on the Union side, but many Confederate practical limitations haven't been mentioned yet:

1. Lee. Lee's primary loyalty was not really to the Confederacy as a whole, but to the state of Virginia. When refusing command of the Union army he said "I cannot raise my sword against my state." Or often as he expressed it "I cannot raise my sword against my country", by which he didn't mean the U.S. OR the Confederacy, but the state of Virginia.

During the war Lee several times convinced Jeff Davis to authorize his invasions of Maryland in 1862 and 1863 (Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns), because he wanted to prevent having any portion of his army detached and sent west to support Bragg.

Yet, of course, the Confederacy's biggest advantage was possession of interior lines, and the ability to shift corps from one theater to another.

In the game there after the "Lee takes command" event you should not be able to deploy Lee out of the Virginia theater without a NM hit. Because of Lee's political strength with Jeff Davis and general popularity, there should also be a NM cost if any corps of Lee's army is detached (or divisions transferred to avoid exploits).

Another constraint would be taking Jackson away from Lee's command. I normally do this to make maximum use of Jackson in the West where he can be given an independent command. But, once again this is probably unrealistic and should involve a NM hit.

This reflects Lee's Virginia parochialism and fixation on protecting Virginia at all costs rather than maximizing the overall strategic position which might mean taking corps not immediately needed in Virginia out west.

It's true that Longstreet's corps was sent to Bragg and the increase in strength meant that Bragg had more men than Rosecrans at Chickamagua, but the South historically did not make NEARLY the use of their interior lines they could have.

And a lot of the reason is political.

Same thing with the North. Normally, I like to deploy most of my union forces west leaving only those necessary to hold Manassas because there are a lot more strategic possibilities out west and you can have better commanders sooner. Against a good Confederate player you're not going to take Richmond before 1863 (at least I haven't managed it -- perhaps I'm just inadequate).

BUT historically, while logical, a "western priority" campaign has two constraints:

1. Foreign intervention. Lord Lyons (British ambassador) & Lord Russell (Foreign Secretary under Palmerston who basically ran British foreign policy single-handedly for much of this period) paid little attention to events in the west. Most of the Union public (and newspapers) were of like mind. (See the classic diplomatic history - Great Britain and the America Civil War, Ephraim Douglas Adams)

Hence a lack of progress in the east cannot be made up for by victories in the West.

2. Since most of the population on both sides lives in the east at this time, naturally both populations are fixated more on events in Virginia and Maryland than the west. National moral hits from losing battles or units in the east should be greater than corresponding losses in the West.

There are lots of others but these will do for a start.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2967
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Thu May 16, 2013 4:27 am

I totally agree with restricting Lee and Jackson to Virginia. While I've used Jackson out West
because of his fast mover ability it's not very realistic.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"

Image

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

Thu May 16, 2013 6:01 am

Sheik Yerbuti, welcome to the forums, your first post, and it's a long one.

You have made your point rather well, but I do not agree with all of it. Lee was fixated on Virginia, So you would restrict him from moving outside of state. When you strive to get historic result, you could achieve total opposite. If you fix him in Virginia, Union player could just circumvent Virginia alltogether, and start his campaign in North Carolina. Where is the fun in that? Also, imagine, Union pushing CSA through Virginia to NC. Would you leave Lee without troops leading gueriila units IN NV while the main army is south of Petersburg.

Also, many people, me included are a fan of what ifs scenario. What if Lee went west to relieve Viscksburg, and the game is a perfect setting for the fun of trying it. It is not good to over regulate it.

I am not a fan of it, but if mayority of the people on the forum agree, Lee could be made Eastern theater leader, having command penalties when leaving East. The concept is already included in other Ageod titles. I wouldn't make those penalties high (-1/-1/-1 is enough). It would streamline to use him in the East, but not forbid to use him in the west.

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests