New scenarios?

[bigus]

Here is the Missouri Scenerio........61-62.........beta...


There's a new version out......


bigus

[berto]

In the Missouri 61-62 scenario, here is the opening stocks & production display:

North: money 100(+0), conscripts 75(+2), war supply 125(+5), general supply 0(+166), ammo 0(+70)

South: money 50(+150), conscripts 25(+9), war supply 85(+8), general supply 238(+210), ammo 61(+64)

Note the wide disparity between the two sides, for example, the North's fixed money supply 100(+0) versus the South's generous, and apparently growing, 50(+150).

Is this an oversight or intentional?

Also, the scenario description and victory conditions are in error (left over from your full-war scenario starting template, no doubt).

So far, I think you have a winner in this scenario. Lots of choices (fascinating and especially hard ones given limited resources), and incredible replayability.

Again, I'm of the opinion that, after some people tire of playing the full-war campaigns, with eventually (hopefully) dozens of these smaller campaign scenarios to choose from, there will be no end of interest. Scenario modding will ensure this game's replayability and longevity far into the future!

[bigus]

In the Missouri 61-62 scenario, here is the opening stocks & production display:

North: money 100(+0), conscripts 75(+2), war supply 125(+5), general supply 0(+166), ammo 0(+70)

South: money 50(+150), conscripts 25(+9), war supply 85(+8), general supply 238(+210), ammo 61(+64)

Note the wide disparity between the two sides, for example, the North's fixed money supply 100(+0) versus the South's generous, and apparently growing, 50(+150).

Is this an oversight or intentional?

Also, the scenario description and victory conditions are in error (left over from your full-war scenario starting template, no doubt).

I still have too find the right numbers yet but the north should have much more resources and money. I don't want too have it so both sides can buy everything in 1 turn so I still have some number crunching too do yet.

The description should change in the next download as well as new resource numbers. Maybe I'll send you this one Berto if you like so you can check it out before I post it.

bigus

[berto]

By all means, limit the resources for each side, as having to make hard choices what to purchase is a large part of the scenario's appeal.

Aside from the weekend, when I have more time for this sort of thing, because I may not be the most reliable beta tester and may be delayed in reporting--no, I think you should release your betas publicly. So far, nobody else has reported playtest results, but that may change.

BTW, I think I figured out how the North might win the Missouri 61-62 scenario. As the North, I played a Missouri scenario through to the end. I lost, but maybe it could have been a near thing. In the process, I got a better handle on supply, and I gained a better appreciation for certain bold maneuvers (hint, hint).

[berto]

bigus, thanks for your latest Missouri 61-62 scenario version, which you have sent me via private post.

I really appreciate your scenario development efforts, because (repeating myself) they are saving AACW for me.

It's a funny thing. When I begin to play the full-war scenarios, I suffer from lack of motivation. That is, I am really not that interested in alternate histories, and seeing if I could win the war as the South, or as the Union end the war by 1862. I'm also an unrepentant landlubber and just can't get excited about moving ships around. (As a war gamer, I'm not very much interested in air warfare either.)

When I attempt to play Europa Universalis III (from Paradox), I am not at all motivated to do World Conquest or even grow my state (I'm fond of playing Brandenburg) into becoming a major military power. I have modest ambitions and really just want to go along for the ride, watching history (not too weird, not too much alternate, plausible changes at the margins only) unfold around me. So, atmosphere and good production values (decent graphics, good music) count for much, and depth and plausibility count for everything. AACW has these in spades.

I think I see AACW (and other) game(s) less as a competition and more as a vehicle to explore an historical situation. So, for example, the Missouri scenario--on a fairly obscure, little understood topic (compared to say Gettysburg or the war in the east that usually get all the attention). The Missouri scenario helps me to better explore and understand this single war theater, during a single campaign season. It suits my personal playing style (don't have much time, can only devote a few hours a week to war gaming, hit or miss) and caters to my gaming tastes (more interested in the simulation than the competitive aspects, indifferent to fantasy of any kind).

It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if AACW--which was designed as a total war, alternate history Civil War *game*--rather became for a new, smaller (?) audience of "gamers" a platform to explore more limited situations and campaign scenarios. In a few years time, with the hoped for (by me) proliferation of smaller scenarios, AACW (also Nap's Campaigns?) might morph into something that the AGEOD designers hadn't quite expected. Hey, it could happen.

I'll be sure to playtest the latest Missouri 61-62 scenario version and submit feedback by the weekend.

[bigus]

The Missouri Scenerio.......V0

[url=[URL=http://www.filecrunch.com/file/~cmkvo1]Download Trans Mississippi (61-62)V0.zip[/url]]Download Trans Mississippi (61-62)V0.zip[/URL]

bigus

[berto]

I played the Missouri scenario twice yesterday and today. After my second game as the Union, I now have much greater respect for the power of Southern river forts against river transports and ordinary gunboats. leure:

I can't say that I played all that well or expertly, but it seemed to me that, as the Union, I won maybe too easily both times on VPs. Do you think an adjustment is needed here? I should probably play as the South before I state this too strongly.

Again, lots of choices, lots of replayability, lots of fun. There are many more strategies I'd like to try. I'll see if I can fit some more games in soon.

I also want to return to your Atlanta scenario. But especially with the Xmas season, there's too little time!

[bigus]

I played the Missouri scenario twice yesterday and today. After my second game as the Union, I now have much greater respect for the power of Southern river forts against river transports and ordinary gunboats. leure:

I can't say that I played all that well or expertly, but it seemed to me that, as the Union, I won maybe too easily both times on VPs. Do you think an adjustment is needed here? I should probably play as the South before I state this too strongly.

Yes the forts help for units moving in ships by them but if you just use normal movement and click on "move by river" you can bypass the forts!
I think this is a bug and will have too check this out further.
Or I might have too stick 1 or 2 CSA gunboats with the forts?

Yes I will have too check on the VP's as my last game I won 246-48 playing
as the Union. The AI tends too use up those finances and drafts quite easily
which gives them -VP's.


RE:Atlanta.....I have added war supplies etc too Atlanta and am checking this out.when I get bored of one scenerio I move on too another,so A change might be coming soon for Atlanta. I will send this too you when I think I have the right numbers or if it works at all.


bigus

[berto]

Yes the forts help for units moving in ships by them but if you just use normal movement and click on "move by river" you can bypass the forts!
I think this is a bug and will have too check this out further.

Ouch! I can confirm this.

I've just played a couple of test games, essentially with the same strategy: launch an amphibious invasion deep in the Confederacy's rear, in the first game directed at Little Rock, in the second game, at Ft. Smith.

In the second game, I built Sigel's brigade, and an added fully loaded Supply Wagon. I combined four Supply Wagons and Sigel's brigade with Lyon's Force. Then, using Move by River, I set them sail down the Mississippi and up the Arkansas River to Ft. Smith. Along the way, every one of the Confederate river forts--New Madrid, Island 10, Memphis, Arkansas Post, all of them--just let the Lyon Force sail past with nary a shot being fired. The Lyon Force arrived in the Ft. Smith area about two months later with almost zero cohesion and with extreme losses from attrition, but with no unit losses due to actual combat (i.e., being shelled upon), apparently. (Moving this "virtual" naval force in the dead of winter no doubt had much to do with the extreme cohesion and attrition losses. But there was no sign of any direct combat.)

This is bad, especially so if this applies to the full-war scenarios, as I suspect it does.

Contrast this with my earlier reported games (not test) where I built actual transports and gunboats to transport marines and sailors, and they all eventually got blown away by the cumulative shelling from the river forts.

This bug needs to be addressed, else if exploited, players will build river transports, gunboats, and ironclads much less than would have happened historically, in Real Life.

Or I might have too stick 1 or 2 CSA gunboats with the forts?

As a (hopefully temporary) kludge, whatever works, but it's a shame you have to work around the "bug" in this way.

Yes I will have too check on the VP's as my last game I won 246-48 playing as the Union. The AI tends too use up those finances and drafts quite easily which gives them -VP's.

I wasn't aware that the South was doing that. As the North, I just used one of the finances/drafts options in one game, and I still won easily (on VPs), by lopsided margins, in every game so far.

RE:Atlanta.....I have added war supplies etc too Atlanta and am checking this out.when I get bored of one scenerio I move on too another,so A change might be coming soon for Atlanta. I will send this too you when I think I have the right numbers or if it works at all.

When you're ready to release it, I'll be ready to playtest it. Again, I suggest a beta public release, probably in this thread; put your "official" releases in separate threads, each devoted to one distinct scenario, as you have done in the past with Vicksburg and Atlanta.

[bigus]

It does apply to the full senerios as I tested out an assault on memphis with Lyons force in the 1861 scenerio.

The placement of the gunboats did not help at all

I've started a new thread in the general forum on this subject so hopefully it will be addressed.

For what its worth at the moment...the VP's have been altered in the scenerio so now it's not so lopsided.

bigus

[Pocus]

Bigus, we would like to investigate further the possibility of releasing officially your scenarios, if you agree that is. Can you please forward me your latest versions within one week or less (to give you time fixing leftover glitches), so we can examine them?
TIA
Pocus.

[bigus]

I'd be glad too but how would I send them to you?

bigus

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Thanks Gray I'll check that out.
and for the contact info as well

bigus

[Pocus]

Bigus,

Send me things at support@ageod.com please.

[bigus]

The Missouri Scenerio V0.1


see patch 1.08 for an update.

known issues:.... The Union supply and ammo doesn't show correctly in the display at the top of the main screen. (ie: 0 (+116)) Unsure of the cause but the Union gets ......And fowards supply normally.

bigus

[bigus]

see this thread for more on scenerios for ACW.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6982

Gray_Lensman has posted an excellent tut and link for those wanting to make their own scenerios.

bigus