AGEOD Forums

I find the current railroad and river-transport capacities for April-June 1861 quite ahistorical, for both sides. It seems for CSA for example to be the standard to attack Cairo with a river-assault before the Union garrisons arrive there. Cavalry can be transported fast to locations behind enemy line from where they can start their massive raiding

Is it possible to have river-transport and trains arrive as reinforcement? If it is, I would think it would be much more historical to have a *very* limited transport pool for April-June 1861, and then in July bump up the capacities to what they are at the start of the July campaign. Not because the capacity would have as such suddenly bumped then, but the *will* to use capacity really didn't exist in such massive amounts as it is available now in the early months of the game.

Quite possible yes.

I see your point, but... what about supply?
I know that personally I make a commitment to build up rail and river transport early. I do use it for units somewhat, but the main reason that I build it up is for supply. The trade off is obviously fewer units... but my units don't starve.

ohms_law wrote:I see your point, but... what about supply?
I know that personally I make a commitment to build up rail and river transport early. I do use it for units somewhat, but the main reason that I build it up is for supply. The trade off is obviously fewer units... but my units don't starve.

You mean you have supply problems in April-June '61, or do I understand you wrong? Practically all troops start in depot or city areas, so a limited rail/river capacity for the three first months shouldn't be that horrible to endure?



Just to be sure Ohms, you did understand my question/suggestion? Ie I don't suggest rail/river capacity to be cut for good and for ever, but that the *majority* of the capacity currently available already at April '61 would "arrive" to use as reinforcements in July '61 (if technically possible, and Pocus above affirms that ).

It would make the ahistorical lightning assaults of May-June (which seems to be the standard when I read the AAR's written by the more competent and veteran players, and which work very well when I have tried them in SP too) much harder to carry out. I do *not* want the game to be a history book, but I for one would prefer the players to have the historical tools and limitations at use instead of the ahistorical ones now available in April-June 1861.

It depends on what I do... I've certainly run into supply problems out West in the past, but I've figured out ways to mitigate those problems (which include ramping up rail transport).

The way I see it, lightning assaults early in the game are only ahistoric because the CSA generals opted not to use them. They do carry their own significant drawbacks, not least of which is increasing attrition and combat losses which has a significant affect on the readiness of the Army of the Potomac specifically and Southern preparedness in general.
I guess I just don't see how choosing to use the forces available to the player at the beginning of the game changes the historic tools and limitations that the South faced.

Industrialization later in the game is a whole different subject, but that falls much more squarely into what you're arguing here in my opinion.

PS: I'd think that using the activation rule set would more appropriately address the concerns that you're bringing up here, anyway. This topic is the reason why US generals are given low strategic ratings early game...

I don't particularly like the activation rules personally, but this subject is why they exist.

I fail to accept that a southern incursion to Cairo would have been possible as it stands now. If southern troops would have suddenly stormed to Cairo, the very least that would have happened would have been a nation-wide uproar; bombarding Ft.Sumter would have been minor news compared to that.

So, yes, I do agree the CSA generals at the time were not willing to undertake such an operation before Manassass. The consequenses would have been simply too far-going. It would not have been defending the soil of Confederation, not even an attack against a military target threatening the Confederation, but an outright attack against civilians in a state firmly in the Union.

However, in the game there are no such consequenses, so it should be possible to represent that historical reluctance in other ways. If the mobility was to be limited to what it was historically, it would eliminate the usage of most obvious ahistorical strategies during April-June.

deleted

deleted

Gray, I suppose you don't seriously think a direct attack on Cairo in June would not have had any consequenses at all? Because in the game that is the situation now, which is quite unreasonable in a game that in everything else aims for historical accuracy.

Gray_Lensman wrote:Posts such as these would be more appropriately suggested and discussed in the "AACW Mods" forum whether you like that particular venue or not. A lot of things get worked out over there and eventually do get worked into the official game, after a lot of play testing and balance adjustments.

Oh, ok. I just thought suggestions and wishes were appropriate to be posted in the sub-forum which is intended for "your wishlists for future patches". I was mistaken, I am sorry.

Also, by default I do not play mods. I want to play the games as the game-designer has planned to be the way. However, I have been beta-testing games for years and I am just used to express my opinion in matters where I believe a game is not working as intended. I am sorry my comments here are apparently seen to be annoying blabbering, I shall behave more tactfully in the future.

deleted

Jarkko wrote:Gray, I suppose you don't seriously think a direct attack on Cairo in June would not have had any consequenses at all? Because in the game that is the situation now, which is quite unreasonable in a game that in everything else aims for historical accuracy.

I think there is a lot of validity to this statement, but limiting the resources is probably not the way to address such an issue. Instead, perhaps there should be events that result in the consequences? For example, in such a case, the south would be seeen as the aggressor, which would likely have had a negative impact on foreigh intervention possibilities. I'm sure there are other impacts of an early southern offensive strategy we could implement using events instead of eliminating the ability.

AndrewKurtz wrote:I think there is a lot of validity to this statement, but limiting the resources is probably not the way to address such an issue. Instead, perhaps there should be events that result in the consequences? For example, in such a case, the south would be seeen as the aggressor, which would likely have had a negative impact on foreigh intervention possibilities. I'm sure there are other impacts of an early southern offensive strategy we could implement using events instead of eliminating the ability.

Agreed... which is why Grey was suggesting moving this discussion to the Mods forum. I'd recommend actually moving the whole thread there, actually.

I actually don't disagree with your analysis Jarkko (really I tend to agree completely). What I do disagree with is the proposed solution however. Regardless, I'd personally need to see any proposal "in action" as a mod before making a final judgment, and I'm certain that others feel the same way.

Guys, let's take a step back; there are no ill intentions here, just a little talking by eachother.

Jarkko wrote:Oh, ok. I just thought suggestions and wishes were appropriate to be posted in the sub-forum which is intended for "your wishlists for future patches". I was mistaken, I am sorry.

Also, by default I do not play mods. I want to play the games as the game-designer has planned to be the way. However, I have been beta-testing games for years and I am just used to express my opinion in matters where I believe a game is not working as intended.

Don't take Gray the wrong way. As coordinator for AACW and official "clearing house" for what makes its way into the official version of the game, Gray runs a very tight ship on what can and can't be officialized at any given point. This is something you need to know to see where Gray is coming from in his postings.

You should in no way take it as a discouragement of providing feedback; quite the contrary. Constructive criticism is much appreciated, and AGEOD has a long and definite track-record on making good use of such criticism

Another thing that AGEOD has a definite history of doing, is incorporating excellent modwork into the official game. In fact, even as I'm writing this, I know that Gray (with help from others) is working on incorporating a major rework of something that has long been tested in mods and that has been somewhat lacking in the official game.

I guess what I'm saying, is that mods in several ways can be considered to be public beta-testing of various features that have the potential of improving the game. The powers-that-be often just want to see how it works out "in the field" before looking closer at incorporating it into the game proper.

OK, rambling on a bit here. To sum it up; Wikipedia has a rule for "assume good intentions"; I think it is a rule that easily applies here as well; I know the both of you, and I am quite sure that the both of you have the best of intentions for the game; please have that in mind when reading eachother's (and other's!) posts

Jarkko wrote:I am sorry my comments here are apparently seen to be annoying blabbering, I shall behave more tactfully in the future.

We all should strive to be as annoying blabbering as you are

ohms_law wrote:Agreed... which is why Grey was suggesting moving this discussion to the Mods forum. I'd recommend actually moving the whole thread there, actually.

[color="Blue"]Indeed; let's bring it over there and see how things evolve. Movified [/color]