berto wrote:Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy is indispensible for understanding the war as a whole. A very good background read.
Or battles and leaders ......
not as good as Foote but good reading...
bigus
Battles and Leaders of the Civil War is of course a classic reference, but (as I recall, haven't looked at B&L in over 30 years):
--It is a compilation of articles, maps, OOBs, etc. from different authors and sources, so doesn't have equal depth of content, evenness of quality, and editorial consistency throughout.
--For OOBs, maps, etc., there are better, more modern references available. (B&L dates back to the late 19th century, no?)
Still, Foote's trilogy and Battles and Leaders are good places to start.
--It is a compilation of articles, maps, OOBs, etc. from different authors and sources, so doesn't have equal depth of content, evenness of quality, and editorial consistency throughout.
--For OOBs, maps, etc., there are better, more modern references available. (B&L dates back to the late 19th century, no?)
Still, Foote's trilogy and Battles and Leaders are good places to start.
bigus,
As the Union, I won your Vicksburg scenario again, this time with Grant's severely short supplied force assaulting an undermanned Confederate Vicksburg defense force and taking the town on turn seven.
Although I am still learning the nuances of the game system, at this point I think that there is some basis in my observing:
--With victory conditions so overwhelmingly dependent on taking or losing Vicksburg (take Vicksburg, game won, although not game over--a very good thing), maybe the Confederate AI is still not committed enough, forced to defend Vicksburg. If the scenario Objectives are said--for the Union--to be "Take Vicksburg at all costs!" shouldn't the flip side of that--for the Confederacy--be "Defend Vicksburg at all costs!"?
--Should maybe Vicksburg's NM points be reduced to 45, keeping the Automatic Victory level at 150? That way, even if the Union takes Vicksburg, if they wreck their forces and lose half the map elsewhere, it is a Pyrrhic victory, and really they have "lost".
Again, this smaller Vicksburg scenario is much more digestible than the full campaign scenarios, and larger enough than the standard First Manassass, Shiloh & Gettysburg scenarios to give a better sense of the whole. (I like the small added dimension of the river and naval action.) Thanks again!
On to your Atlanta scenario next...
As the Union, I won your Vicksburg scenario again, this time with Grant's severely short supplied force assaulting an undermanned Confederate Vicksburg defense force and taking the town on turn seven.
Although I am still learning the nuances of the game system, at this point I think that there is some basis in my observing:
--With victory conditions so overwhelmingly dependent on taking or losing Vicksburg (take Vicksburg, game won, although not game over--a very good thing), maybe the Confederate AI is still not committed enough, forced to defend Vicksburg. If the scenario Objectives are said--for the Union--to be "Take Vicksburg at all costs!" shouldn't the flip side of that--for the Confederacy--be "Defend Vicksburg at all costs!"?
--Should maybe Vicksburg's NM points be reduced to 45, keeping the Automatic Victory level at 150? That way, even if the Union takes Vicksburg, if they wreck their forces and lose half the map elsewhere, it is a Pyrrhic victory, and really they have "lost".
Again, this smaller Vicksburg scenario is much more digestible than the full campaign scenarios, and larger enough than the standard First Manassass, Shiloh & Gettysburg scenarios to give a better sense of the whole. (I like the small added dimension of the river and naval action.) Thanks again!
On to your Atlanta scenario next...
berto wrote:
--With victory conditions so overwhelmingly dependent on taking or losing Vicksburg (take Vicksburg, game won, although not game over--a very good thing), maybe the Confederate AI is still not committed enough, forced to defend Vicksburg. If the scenario Objectives are said--for the Union--to be "Take Vicksburg at all costs!" shouldn't the flip side of that--for the Confederacy--be "Defend Vicksburg at all costs!"?
--Should maybe Vicksburg's NM points be reduced to 45, keeping the Automatic Victory level at 150? That way, even if the Union takes Vicksburg, if they wreck their forces and lose half the map elsewhere, it is a Pyrrhic victory, and really they have "lost".
On to your Atlanta scenario next...
Was this V1.4? I still have the NM loss at 50 for Vicksburg but I added and locked 1 division now into Vicksburg along with the garrison. I see what you mean about dropping the NM too 45 however since then both cities must fall for an automatic victory. Since the goal of the campaign is to open the mississippi maybe this would be a better approach to the victory conditions.
Hopefully making a depot out of St Joseph the AI will not worry so much about limited supplies since I think the AI tends too look after supplies more than taking VP etc. Although the depot at St Joseph only gives them a turn or 2 of supplies until Port Hudson falls.
I will drop the NM for Vicksburg and test it out......
thanks again for the feedback.. much appreciated. let me know how the Atlanta scenerio goes.
bigus
No, it was 1.3. I've since downloaded 1.4, but I'm going to give your Atlanta scenario a try first.
I think dropping the Vicksburg NM to 45 is a good idea. It gives more significance to everything else happening elsewhere on the map.
Also locking the extra division. When Pemberton sortied out to fight Grant at Champion Hill, he left behind at Vicksburg a ~9,000 man garrison, thereby hurting his chances in the open-ground encounter with Grant but preventing any Union force from slipping into Vicksburg via the back door. Davis had instructed Pemberton to hold Vicksburg "at all costs," and no way he was going to entirely abandon the town, even for a short while, and even if Johnston kept insisting he do just that.
It's amazing all the choices and the depth of play there is even in just this one limited battle scenario. Good work!
I think dropping the Vicksburg NM to 45 is a good idea. It gives more significance to everything else happening elsewhere on the map.
Also locking the extra division. When Pemberton sortied out to fight Grant at Champion Hill, he left behind at Vicksburg a ~9,000 man garrison, thereby hurting his chances in the open-ground encounter with Grant but preventing any Union force from slipping into Vicksburg via the back door. Davis had instructed Pemberton to hold Vicksburg "at all costs," and no way he was going to entirely abandon the town, even for a short while, and even if Johnston kept insisting he do just that.
It's amazing all the choices and the depth of play there is even in just this one limited battle scenario. Good work!
I've been testing out the Atlanta scenerio almost all day and still cant get the Union AI too attack Atlanta! 
I've even made Rome a depot and loaded it with supplies although I have'nt started any units in the city yet .....I might.
I might have too move sherman at least into Rome with a decent depot too mount a decent campaign and lock units in there too.
It seems the AI worry way too much about supplies even on different AI settings in the options menu, Although the Confederate AI is aggressive the Union AI is more supply dependant. I've even seen them destroy rail lines that they need too get supplies?
gunna have too check this one out further..........
@berto check your mail I'm sending you the Vicksburg Scenerio with the changed NM too check out.
bigus
I've even made Rome a depot and loaded it with supplies although I have'nt started any units in the city yet .....I might.
I might have too move sherman at least into Rome with a decent depot too mount a decent campaign and lock units in there too.
It seems the AI worry way too much about supplies even on different AI settings in the options menu, Although the Confederate AI is aggressive the Union AI is more supply dependant. I've even seen them destroy rail lines that they need too get supplies?
gunna have too check this one out further..........
@berto check your mail I'm sending you the Vicksburg Scenerio with the changed NM too check out.
bigus
For what little it's worth, given that I still don't quite understand how the whole supply system works:
In my first (and so far only) Atlanta game, as the Union I stumbled about the Chatanooga area for half the scenario, then said: what the heck, as a learning experience, let's observe the bad effects of being perilously out of supply, so plunged directly south towards Atlanta.
Now, the strange thing is that the Confederates ignored this move entirely and for some reason Johnston, Hardee & co. fixated on attacking Knoxville, which they eventually succeeded in taking.
At the end of the scenario, a woefully out of supply Army of the Cumberland was besieging Atlanta with nary a Confederate stack in the vicinity (they being all the way to the northeast around Knoxville).
Hmm, how do you get the Confederates to focus on the scenario objective?
Thanks for the new Vicksburg update. I'll give it a try soon.
But maybe first I should browse the forums some more for game play strategy and tactics hints.
In my first (and so far only) Atlanta game, as the Union I stumbled about the Chatanooga area for half the scenario, then said: what the heck, as a learning experience, let's observe the bad effects of being perilously out of supply, so plunged directly south towards Atlanta.
Now, the strange thing is that the Confederates ignored this move entirely and for some reason Johnston, Hardee & co. fixated on attacking Knoxville, which they eventually succeeded in taking.
At the end of the scenario, a woefully out of supply Army of the Cumberland was besieging Atlanta with nary a Confederate stack in the vicinity (they being all the way to the northeast around Knoxville).
Hmm, how do you get the Confederates to focus on the scenario objective?
Thanks for the new Vicksburg update. I'll give it a try soon.
But maybe first I should browse the forums some more for game play strategy and tactics hints.
berto wrote:
Hmm, how do you get the Confederates to focus on the scenario objective?
Ya thats the question now.....
I thought that the AI would focus on Objectives first then VP's second?
Not sure but maybe I'll look into "Event Scripting" but I think that the Union as the AI right now will not launch an offensive unless well supplied. I dont know how the AI is programed so I can't say.
Im Surprised the Confederate AI would go for Knoxville. I have'nt seen this before.And how would they be supplied? I reduced their supply quite a bit, or so I thought.
Did you win that game?
you would think Atlanta was more of a strategic target than "Lincolns" knoxville.
Feedback is appreciated as always....thanks...
bigus
bigus, no, the Union did not in the end win the game where I had them plunge, with little supply, due south to besiege Atlanta. The scenario time limit ran out first.
Wouldn't it make sense that Sherman's (and others') forces would be very well supplied going into the 1864 campaigning season?
Yes, it was weird for the Confederate forces to congregate around Knoxville. I don't know what I did or didn't do to cause that.
I am turning away from the Atlanta scenario until I read up (in the Forum, in the manual, on the Wiki?) on how supply works. The Atlanta scenario won't make much sense to me until I do.
Instead, I have another Vicksburg game ongoing. I'll let you know how it turns out. (But you should know that gaming is mainly a weekend activity for me. I might go quiet through the coming week.)
Wouldn't it make sense that Sherman's (and others') forces would be very well supplied going into the 1864 campaigning season?
Yes, it was weird for the Confederate forces to congregate around Knoxville. I don't know what I did or didn't do to cause that.
I am turning away from the Atlanta scenario until I read up (in the Forum, in the manual, on the Wiki?) on how supply works. The Atlanta scenario won't make much sense to me until I do.
Instead, I have another Vicksburg game ongoing. I'll let you know how it turns out. (But you should know that gaming is mainly a weekend activity for me. I might go quiet through the coming week.)
berto wrote:Wouldn't it make sense that Sherman's (and others') forces would be very well supplied going into the 1864 campaigning season?
Yes it would. Playing as the Union I have no problem keeping supplied. Its the AI As the union that just keeps falling back on Chattanooga.I'm Not sure whats happening here. Like I said I'll try out some stuff and see if they can move south a little easier.
berto wrote:(But you should know that gaming is mainly a weekend activity for me. I might go quiet through the coming week.)
NP Maybe by next weekend I'll have come up with something. We'll see how it goes.
bigus
Guru80 wrote:As for your Atlanta Scenario........Shouldn't the divisions with Polk be in his Corps instead of the independant divisions they are now? If not never mind and if they are it is easy for the player to just add them but thought I would point it out. Haven't had a chance to play it much yet but very well done again.
Sorry I missed the last part of your post from before.
I did'nt add them because you can move only 2 div at a time by rail
so it would take 2 turns too move the corps. I thought you would have too split them anyway for this.
Thanx for checking it out and looking foward to your scenerio.
bigus
bigus wrote:Sorry I missed the last part of your post from before.
I did'nt add them because you can move only 2 div at a time by rail
so it would take 2 turns too move the corps. I thought you would have too split them anyway for this.
Thanx for checking it out and looking foward to your scenerio.
bigus
My scenario is now "Sherman's March Through the Carolinas" since it encompasses so much more than Bentonville now. You won't be disappointed.
Guru80 wrote:My scenario is now "Sherman's March Through the Carolinas" since it encompasses so much more than Bentonville now. You won't be disappointed.
I can't wait. These smaller campaign scenarios suit me perfectly. Fewer pieces, but still lots of choices, sort of chess-like. The possibilities along these lines are exciting.
bigus,
I like your very latest Vicksburg version much better, with the Vicksburg NM set to 45. I note for the first time in any of my test games my winning/losing battles adding/subtracting NM points. (Somehow I don't recall seeing that before.) So, one could take Vicksburg, not take Port Hudson, and still win enough lesser battles around the map to get to 150 and win the game. I recommend that you post it publicly. (I believe you only made this available to me via private e-mail attachment.)
My latest game, playing as the Confederates, was fascinating. It was a three-way fight for Vicksburg, Natchez, and Port Hudson. Banks and Grant switched historical roles, with the former taking on Vicksburg while Grant turned south towards Port Hudson. It surprised me to see the AI move Ord's command south, overland from Memphis down through central Mississippi to join up with Banks' command in a joint attack on Vicksburg (didn't succeed). Afterward Ord retreated northward. At scenario's end, it was a stalemate, although the Union came out ahead on points.
Much maneuvering, some fighting, very chess-like, lots of fun. That's what it's all about.
I like your very latest Vicksburg version much better, with the Vicksburg NM set to 45. I note for the first time in any of my test games my winning/losing battles adding/subtracting NM points. (Somehow I don't recall seeing that before.) So, one could take Vicksburg, not take Port Hudson, and still win enough lesser battles around the map to get to 150 and win the game. I recommend that you post it publicly. (I believe you only made this available to me via private e-mail attachment.)
My latest game, playing as the Confederates, was fascinating. It was a three-way fight for Vicksburg, Natchez, and Port Hudson. Banks and Grant switched historical roles, with the former taking on Vicksburg while Grant turned south towards Port Hudson. It surprised me to see the AI move Ord's command south, overland from Memphis down through central Mississippi to join up with Banks' command in a joint attack on Vicksburg (didn't succeed). Afterward Ord retreated northward. At scenario's end, it was a stalemate, although the Union came out ahead on points.
Much maneuvering, some fighting, very chess-like, lots of fun. That's what it's all about.
Hi!
Very good work, Bigus!!
Big thanks!! Both scenarios look great. Hope to try them soon.
But i missed this thread until now...i only noticed them on the matrix forums
Maybe download links should be included on the first post and change the thread title
Also it would be great if the scenarios would be posted on the wiki.
They are the first ones since AACW is out... they deserve better exposure! Specially to new players who have problems tackling the grand campaign.
Just my two cents
Cheers!!
Very good work, Bigus!!
Big thanks!! Both scenarios look great. Hope to try them soon.
But i missed this thread until now...i only noticed them on the matrix forums
Maybe download links should be included on the first post and change the thread title
Also it would be great if the scenarios would be posted on the wiki.
They are the first ones since AACW is out... they deserve better exposure! Specially to new players who have problems tackling the grand campaign.
Just my two cents
Cheers!!
@Arsan.... I'll look into maybe posting a new thread with links when The two scenerios are fully complete. Right now I think I was premature in posting them in their own threads since it seems I keep finding something I can change (hopefully for the better). When I feel they are totally complete I will ask Rafiki if he can post them on the Wiki. I believe that the Vicksburg scenerio is now complete. I hav'nt posted it yet but have sent it to Berto and have tested it myself and it seems to be ok.
thanx for the advice...
bigus
thanx for the advice...
bigus
bigus, how's the Atlanta scenario coming along? I'd like to give your latest a try.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
The Atlanta Scenerio......v1.1
[url=[URL=http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~aeo4de]Download Atlantav1.1.zip[/url]]Download Atlantav1.1.zip[/URL]
Changes too Atlanta .........................................
Mobile now has a garrison too prevent Union navel
supply and\or AA In Georgia. The two forts were Captured 5 Aug so they are not shown.
((Edit footnote
seems you can't block rivers ...waterways....etc in the DB)))
Supply scources and depots changed for the Union.
Knoxville is no longer a depot.
Winchester made a depot with a garrison.(raids are still possible?)
Added Cairo fleet and Lousiville Fleet too Nashville fleet.(to support the Campaign)
Victory points changed.
Made Chattanooga an objective site for the Rebs. If you can Capture it you should win.
bigus
[url=[URL=http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~aeo4de]Download Atlantav1.1.zip[/url]]Download Atlantav1.1.zip[/URL]
Changes too Atlanta .........................................
Mobile now has a garrison too prevent Union navel
supply and\or AA In Georgia. The two forts were Captured 5 Aug so they are not shown.
((Edit footnote
seems you can't block rivers ...waterways....etc in the DB)))
Supply scources and depots changed for the Union.
Knoxville is no longer a depot.
Winchester made a depot with a garrison.(raids are still possible?)
Added Cairo fleet and Lousiville Fleet too Nashville fleet.(to support the Campaign)
Victory points changed.
Made Chattanooga an objective site for the Rebs. If you can Capture it you should win.
bigus
bigus wrote:The Atlanta Scenerio......v1.1
[url=[URL=http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~aeo4de]Download Atlantav1.1.zip[/url]]Download Atlantav1.1.zip[/URL]
Changes too Atlanta .........................................
Victory points changed.
Made Chattanooga an objective site for the Rebs. If you can Capture it you should win.
Good one.
This raises the interesting question in your Vicksburg scenario. If the Union were to strip the map elsewhere in order to throw everything it's got at Vicksburg and Port Hudson, what if the Confederates thereby took Memphis and New Orleans easily? Shouldn't they get NM points for that?
OTOH, would that seriously weaken the Confederate AI's resolve to defend Vicksburg and Port Hudson and divert the Confederates' attention to attacking Memphis and New Orleans?
Don't know, just thinking out loud.
I have a busy weekend ahead of me, but I'll try to spend some quality time with AACW and your Atlanta scenario.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
berto wrote:This raises the interesting question in your Vicksburg scenario. If the Union were to strip the map elsewhere in order to throw everything it's got at Vicksburg and Port Hudson, what if the Confederates thereby took Memphis and New Orleans easily? Shouldn't they get NM points for that?
That would be a "what if scenerio"
bigus
Hmm, in my just concluded game of Atlanta v1.1, again the Confederates hung around trying to take Knoxville while essentially ignoring the Union's drive south towards Atlanta. 
At scenario's "end", the AI announced a Union victory on NM points, even though the Union was besieging Atlanta but not yet overtaking it. I played past the scenario end and assaulted and took Atlanta two turns later. No sign of any Confederate relief force.
At scenario's "end", the AI announced a Union victory on NM points, even though the Union was besieging Atlanta but not yet overtaking it. I played past the scenario end and assaulted and took Atlanta two turns later. No sign of any Confederate relief force.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
berto wrote:Hmm, in my just concluded game of Atlanta v1.1, again the Confederates hung around trying to take Knoxville while essentially ignoring the Union's drive south towards Atlanta.
OK but not sure why the're going there. there's no supplies for them there.
I took the supplies out of the area. ..............? all the games I've had have them going for Chattanooga.
bigus
Ok The Rebs in my last game went for Knoxville. I finally see it now.
I'm not sure why but they went too knoxville then back too Chattanooga.
I wrecked 2 armies following them in the mud and mountains. I took the other army and went for Atlanta which I captured on the last turn but by then my NM was 85 so the Atlanta NM of 50 did'nt give me a victory. In fact I lost the game in points cause I lost so many men fighting in the mountains.
leure:
I don't really think I can do much about this as I think I have the right balance for the scenerio as it is now.
bigus
I'm not sure why but they went too knoxville then back too Chattanooga.
I wrecked 2 armies following them in the mud and mountains. I took the other army and went for Atlanta which I captured on the last turn but by then my NM was 85 so the Atlanta NM of 50 did'nt give me a victory. In fact I lost the game in points cause I lost so many men fighting in the mountains.
leure:
I don't really think I can do much about this as I think I have the right balance for the scenerio as it is now.
bigus
I played two more Atlanta test games earlier today.
The first was entirely hands-off, i.e., I simply hit the Next Turn button all the way through and made no movements and took no action whatsoever. I was relieved to see that the Confederates did not gravitate towards Knoxville.
In the second, I followed the very simple, unthinking strategy of:
--Schofield & co. stay put in Knoxville
--Grierson to Knoxville
--McPherson to Chatanooga
--Sherman directly south to Atlanta
The Confederates immediately contested Sherman's move south, resulting in a large, three-day battle at Rome, Georgia, in the end a Union victory. Sherman continued south, although Thomas stayed behind at Rome. The Confederates retreated to the sidelines, licking their wounds. Although I did see some of the Southern forces move to attack Decatur, I observed no general movement towards Knoxville.
So, based on these two games, I don't think there is any built-in pull drawing the Confederates towards Knoxville.
After the Rome battle, Sherman moved south to invest Atlanta. The Army of the Cumberland besieged Atlanta for five or six turns, assaulting the Atlanta fortifications thrice, losing each time, and annoyingly breaking off the siege and retreating northward to the adjoining Gordon region. I had to move the Army back to renew the siege each time. This was annoying. Unless it was supply considerations, I don't see why failed assaults would repeatedly have them give up the siege temporarily and retreat northward.
At scenario's end, Sherman was besieging Atlanta but had not yet taken it. So, the game was drawn, but the South won on VPs, 80 to 46.
Although in this last brute force, blitz toward Atlanta game there was no Confederate movement towards Knoxville, still, there was also no continuing, direct defense of Atlanta by Johnston or any other Confederate force. In each of my Atlanta games so far, the Confederates have ultimately let Sherman through to besiege Atlanta unmolested.
One thing seems clear: The AI will not give the human Northern opponent a fight anything similar to the actual historical Campaign for Atlanta.
This is no fault of your scenario design, I think; probably just how the AI works. What can you do? (Rhetorical question.)
The first was entirely hands-off, i.e., I simply hit the Next Turn button all the way through and made no movements and took no action whatsoever. I was relieved to see that the Confederates did not gravitate towards Knoxville.
In the second, I followed the very simple, unthinking strategy of:
--Schofield & co. stay put in Knoxville
--Grierson to Knoxville
--McPherson to Chatanooga
--Sherman directly south to Atlanta
The Confederates immediately contested Sherman's move south, resulting in a large, three-day battle at Rome, Georgia, in the end a Union victory. Sherman continued south, although Thomas stayed behind at Rome. The Confederates retreated to the sidelines, licking their wounds. Although I did see some of the Southern forces move to attack Decatur, I observed no general movement towards Knoxville.
So, based on these two games, I don't think there is any built-in pull drawing the Confederates towards Knoxville.
After the Rome battle, Sherman moved south to invest Atlanta. The Army of the Cumberland besieged Atlanta for five or six turns, assaulting the Atlanta fortifications thrice, losing each time, and annoyingly breaking off the siege and retreating northward to the adjoining Gordon region. I had to move the Army back to renew the siege each time. This was annoying. Unless it was supply considerations, I don't see why failed assaults would repeatedly have them give up the siege temporarily and retreat northward.
At scenario's end, Sherman was besieging Atlanta but had not yet taken it. So, the game was drawn, but the South won on VPs, 80 to 46.
Although in this last brute force, blitz toward Atlanta game there was no Confederate movement towards Knoxville, still, there was also no continuing, direct defense of Atlanta by Johnston or any other Confederate force. In each of my Atlanta games so far, the Confederates have ultimately let Sherman through to besiege Atlanta unmolested.
One thing seems clear: The AI will not give the human Northern opponent a fight anything similar to the actual historical Campaign for Atlanta.
This is no fault of your scenario design, I think; probably just how the AI works. What can you do? (Rhetorical question.)
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
berto wrote:I played two more Atlanta test games earlier today.
The first was entirely hands-off, i.e., I simply hit the Next Turn button all the way through and made no movements and took no action whatsoever. I was relieved to see that the Confederates did not gravitate towards Knoxville.
Did the AI go for Chatanooga?
I could load Atlanta up with ammo ,war supplies or money intstead of General supplies.
this might make the city more tempting for the Union but I won't change the supply situation as it is now. For now I Think it's good.
bigus
In all Atlanta games so far, I've played the Union, so any "problems" reported are entirely with the Confederate AI.
In either of yesterday's test games, the hands-off or the simple plunge south one, the AI did not go for Chatanooga.
In the hands-off one, the Confederate AI, not surprisingly, did little, because the Union literally did nothing.
In the game of simple strategy--heavily garrison Chatanooga, strip (but not entirely bare) Decatur, reinforce Knoxville, and send Sherman hell-bent for Atlanta--the Confederate AI at first contested Sherman's advance (hence the big battle around Rome), then let him pass and spent the rest of the game either attacking Decatur or dancing around north Georgia. Pointedly, after the Rome battle, the Confederate AI did nothing further to impede Sherman's southward push or siege of Atlanta.
Yes, maybe jiggering the supply, etc. might induce the Confederate AI to attend more persistently to a direct Atlanta defense. But as it stands now, in my limited (four game, two for real, two test) experience, it doesn't act "historically".
In either of yesterday's test games, the hands-off or the simple plunge south one, the AI did not go for Chatanooga.
In the hands-off one, the Confederate AI, not surprisingly, did little, because the Union literally did nothing.
In the game of simple strategy--heavily garrison Chatanooga, strip (but not entirely bare) Decatur, reinforce Knoxville, and send Sherman hell-bent for Atlanta--the Confederate AI at first contested Sherman's advance (hence the big battle around Rome), then let him pass and spent the rest of the game either attacking Decatur or dancing around north Georgia. Pointedly, after the Rome battle, the Confederate AI did nothing further to impede Sherman's southward push or siege of Atlanta.
Yes, maybe jiggering the supply, etc. might induce the Confederate AI to attend more persistently to a direct Atlanta defense. But as it stands now, in my limited (four game, two for real, two test) experience, it doesn't act "historically".
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
berto wrote:Yes, maybe jiggering the supply, etc. might induce the Confederate AI to attend more persistently to a direct Atlanta defense. But as it stands now, in my limited (four game, two for real, two test) experience, it doesn't act "historically".
I've played close to 30 Atlanta scenerios and I've seen some historical games and some not so historical games. I've recently tested 6 scenerios each using a different AI setting. I can tell you that It played out almost differently each time. The AI is fantastic.
AAR
My last game set at moderate to high settings playing as the union. I made it to Atlanta with the Confederates blocking me all the way. By the time I reached Atlanta (early Sept) I knew they were short on supplies so tried a direct assault on the city.(It failed and they got some VP's I'm sure). Next turn tried to move in for the siege and was blocked by what was left of the confederate force.(Lost again cause by then my cohesion was really low).
Last turn tried again for the siege and was able too get there but could not assault. lost the game 128-127.
It was a good game from the start and I thought quite historical even though I did'nt take Atlanta. But the feeling of the Campaign was there if you know what I mean...
Most of the scenerios I've played have turned out "semi" historical for the most part.
bigus
What's the latest Atlanta version? I have v1.1, I believe. Please be sure to provide a download link.
I'd like to give your latest a whirl or two (or ...) this long holiday weekend, and probably your Vicksburg scenario, also. (I plan on playing some HPS Vicksburg, too.)
Thanks for all your scenario modding efforts! They are making all the difference for me!
I'd like to give your latest a whirl or two (or ...) this long holiday weekend, and probably your Vicksburg scenario, also. (I plan on playing some HPS Vicksburg, too.)
Thanks for all your scenario modding efforts! They are making all the difference for me!
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!
berto wrote:What's the latest Atlanta version? I have v1.1, I believe.
yes the latest is v1.1. I'm gunna continue the campaign game I have going for now and move on too a different scenerio maybe on the weekend or next week.
7 days with jackson in the valley.
Or Trans Mississippi theatre scenerio maybe just from 61-62 but I've gotta learn how money and replacements are generated etc. It could be a good learning scenerio too try out.
@berto ...try playing with the AI settings a bit when you play Atlanta. I seemed too work out O.K for me. Continued feedback is welcome as always.
bigus
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests