User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Civil War III

Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:42 pm

I am a huge fan of CW2 and it's now 2018, been 5 years since the original release and I know I am hardly a hardcore player here but .........are there intentions to release a version 3 at some point? CW2 was ahead of it's time but with all the things learned the next release would be quite awesome if it ever happens I would pre-purchase. Also would AGEOD ever consider what other games have done if the funding isn't there, community funding?

A Civil War Shooter, "War of Rights," has done it. Successfully too... cause Civil War is a tough niche market.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Civil War III

Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:00 pm

I sure hope so. We'll see what the devs have to say about it. If I'm not mistaken the game engine
has been updated recently and that might help a whole lot. There are several features that would
be great if they could be added.

User avatar
pgr
General of the Army
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Re: Civil War III

Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:16 am

I'd buy it!

I'd advocate for 1 week turns, and some kind of decentralized manpower/political system. Something kinda quasi Wars of Napoleon with allied states. Each state has a manpower pool, fills quotas set by the national authority, and in the case of the North, different loyalties so that there could be an "election" backlash if the North is getting throttled. (Oh and reducing the supply glut back east would be nice :) )

my two cents

richfed
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 pm
Location: Marion, North Carolina, USA
Contact: Website

Re: Civil War III

Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:03 pm

Where do I enlist? :)

khbynum
Major
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: Civil War III

Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:25 pm

I'm not interested, short of a total re-think of the game. I suppose it's great for PBEM, since that seems the design intent. It is worthless against the AI and far too fiddly to even try playing both sides for whatever historical value might be derived.

The game has too much trivial detail for a strategic game and too coarse a time/space scale to allow for a simulation of operational warfare. There is too much "Gallic flavor", like those IIA or IIC brigades that were never used in the war (past the first few months) and make it difficult (fiddly) for the CSA to form rational divisions. Then there are all those cards. Each patch has moved it further from simulation, closer to game. I've followed it (and AACW) for a long time, hoping for the ultimate Civil War strategy game, but have decided to give up.

Yes, I know, if I don't like it I should design my own.

I've enjoyed some of our discussions and wish all forum members the best in their own Civil War studies. Go in peace.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Civil War III

Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:05 am

I don't know of a better strategy level Civil War game than this one. There are lots of ways
to improve the game and I hope that a CW3 won't be too far off. :coeurs:

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War III

Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:57 pm

I'd love to see a Civil War III. Bring it on! :D

RavenWargaming
Conscript
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:34 am

Hi,

I don't post much here, but I wanted to voice support and say I would definitely buy a Civil War III. However, please update or create a new engine. It's really starting to show its age!

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Civil War III

Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:58 am

RavenWargaming wrote:Hi,

I don't post much here, but I wanted to voice support and say I would definitely buy a Civil War III. However, please update or create a new engine. It's really starting to show its age!


They have. There's even a poll on the forums to figure out what game it will be first applied
to:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=52224

RavenWargaming
Conscript
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:06 pm

Oh wow that's awesome! I didn't realize that was an 'official' thread.

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Re: Civil War III

Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:47 am

Hope people tune into that Poll...

User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:38 pm

Re: Civil War III

Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:56 am

RavenWargaming wrote:Oh wow that's awesome! I didn't realize that was an 'official' thread.



It is not, I'm as official as you :siffle:

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Civil War III

Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:31 pm

WHY? Why should Civil War be done a third time? What exactly should be changed, and why? Please, no vague "it's got too many different units", because in really it has too few, nor boi, it would be ef'ing awesome

Should a 3rd CW game be striving for more of a simulation simulation feel, or a better game feel, and what do each of those mean?

Why are RGD's in any way bad? They are a game mechanic, and nothing more. The exact same thing could be done just like options, so what is wrong with RGD's, and what would be better, and why?

I think most of the things I think I would like to "fix" in CW2 aim for more realism:
• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens
• a map that pays more attention to geography, and less to politics
• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly
• Bombardment of passing ships at exactly one point on a river, and not every point a land region touches, because I'm not
• A well working replay function
- • not "Power" of stacks is reported, but number of men and horses and what ever other information might be realistic should be reported
- • Some kinds of history markers, on at least the replay map, so if a unit passes out of sight, one can still click on the marker and read the estimated number of men and horse, and when they passed through and since when they have disappeared.
- • a history function, so that more than just the last turn can be played back (of minor importance, but it would be nice)
• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond
• Indian tribes as factions, and not one huge nation (maybe we could the create an Indian Wars DLC finally)
• A traffic rule based on wagons and artillery being the worst causers of traffic, because that is historic
• Naval operations in general
• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough
• a way to upgrade elements (artillery, cavalry) in a unit, without breaking the game

So many other little things, but I'm sure others have pet-wishes too, so turn-over to them

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: Civil War III

Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:50 pm

See? There is a LOT that can be worked on and improved. They don't have to call it CW3, a
new name would be more appropriate, especially with a new game engine. I'd like to see
most of those sorts of changes implemented, along with some more alternatives that involve
Mexico and perhaps even Cuba.

RavenWargaming
Conscript
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:14 am

Captain_Orso wrote:WHY? Why should Civil War be done a third time? What exactly should be changed, and why? Please, no vague "it's got too many different units", because in really it has too few, nor boi, it would be ef'ing awesome


I think if there's going to be another AGEOD engine, then it makes sense to make Civil War III for nothing else than the chance to get it on an updated engine that runs smoother, calculates better, and brings whatever other improvements to the table. But you're right, there should be some other improvements too, rather than just a pure port.

Captain_Orso wrote:Why are RGD's in any way bad? They are a game mechanic, and nothing more. The exact same thing could be done just like options, so what is wrong with RGD's, and what would be better, and why?


I don't think anything is wrong with RGDs, though of course the implementation could be improved.

If anything, I'd like this mechanic expanded, along with the Political/Military decisions. One thing I really enjoy about Civil War II is that it's not -just- an army movement simulator. Out of all the AGEOD games, I feel Civil War II does the best job at portraying a holistic, strategic view of actually fighting a war. I like how you have to put a lot of thought into political and economic decisions, managing local loyalties/military control, funding rebels/disrupting the enemy, etc. So I would like to see those elements expanded in future AGEOD games, including Civil War II


Captain_Orso wrote:• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens


I'd probably agree with that. I think 1 week per turn would be a good compromise between denying the player 'total, 24/7 control' of their men, but still allowing your armies to be responsive.

In real life, if you decide to march to Point A, and on Day 1 of your march you encounter something that makes you re-evaluate that decision (like an enemy army appearing that you had no idea about 1 day ago), then obviously that would alter what you do. You wouldn't continue to march in the same direction for the next 14 days, and then stop to re-evaluate if that was a good idea or not.

I think AGEOD has always struggled with that a little bit, and I understand that's a difficult compromise to make - denying the player total control vs a reasonable level of control.

Captain_Orso wrote:• a map that pays more attention to geography, and less to politics

Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Captain_Orso wrote:• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly

Good idea.

Captain_Orso wrote:- • not "Power" of stacks is reported, but number of men and horses and what ever other information might be realistic should be reported


I think a 'power' rating is really important, but I would like an 'at a glance' way to see how many men/horses/guns are in a stack.

Captain_Orso wrote:• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond


Could you explain that a little better?

Captain_Orso wrote:• Indian tribes as factions, and not one huge nation (maybe we could the create an Indian Wars DLC finally)


I think that'd be a cool idea. You could add a psuedo-diplomacy element where you can gain support of different tribes, or try to persuade them to aid you instead of the enemy.

Captain_Orso wrote:• Naval operations in general


Agreed. Naval operations, and the 'trading' aspect of the map is something I struggle with. I wish it was more straight forward. I don't really know what I'm supposed to be doing with my ships so they tend to sit.

Captain_Orso wrote:• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough


Agreed. The game needs a clearer military organization. It's very difficult to understand why you can/can't combine certain units, or how everything is supposed to work. Now that I'm more experienced, I'll concede that the system more or less works but it's very inelegant, and needs better explanation/integration.
---------------

For my own purposes, I'd like there to be a greater premium put on improving the presentation of information, and explaining mechanics. For example, more contextual tooltips that explain exactly why you can't do something rather than just listing a few possible reasons why it doesn't work.

I'd think every unit should have 3-4 sentences of written fluff to help explain the unit and its purpose... i.e. 'Sharpshooters are the forward skirmishers of the army. You should always have at least a couple units in your army to screen your main force, because they'll give the rest of your army higher initiative' or whatever. 'This ship shouldn't engage in direct combat, put it in the trading sea tiles on passive to gain income, but beware because enemy fleets can hunt it down!'

Also, in the tutorials/manuals I would like a lot more time to be spent on explaining strategy, and possible reactions. Right now the manual and tutorial mainly just explain what certain buttons do, but it'd be great if there were sections explaining what to do in certain situations... like if your army is running out of supply and trying to retreat, or how you can use cavalry to raid effectively.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Civil War III

Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:52 pm

Civilization is in its 6th iteration, so yes, it can be done.

Some things to consider about 1 week turns. The Union production advantage would then be doubled, unless bi-weekly production were maintained and only movement was switched. However, losses might be increased if battles were happening every week, so... Also, the CSA would have to hold on for twice as many turns. NM would normalize to 100 twice as fast, too.

Expand the battle planner. More options should be available and the number of options a General can use would be tied to his Strat rating. So Lee would have more options than McClellan. The plans that are only available to higher Strat Generals should give a good boost too, demonstrating their genius. Certain plans should have requirements for a battle. A plan for "Massive artillery prep", should require X number of batteries present or a Cavalry Division may be needed for "Cavalry envelopment". Also, it should be possible in MP to choose a plan for Def/Off to cover the turn for a given stack before any battle. The simplest default plan would still be available for leaderless stacks or for instances where the player failed to pick a plan.

The CSA should have some Training Officer types. As has been mentioned many times, Hardee wrote the training manual for both sides. The Union advantage in this respect has been shamelessly exploited by foxy players. :)

The CSA should be able to outsource foreign blockade runners. Each turn, set a price of X dollars for WS. Subject to normal Union interdiction, a random amount of WS is available for that price. Southerners weren't the only ones running the blockade.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 2377
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:38 pm

Re: Civil War III

Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:17 pm

Gray Fox wrote:The CSA should have some Training Officer types. As has been mentioned many times, Hardee wrote the training manual for both sides. The Union advantage in this respect has been shamelessly exploited by foxy players. :)



This gamey problem does not need a CW3.

Should have been fixed by the developers! :fleb:

User avatar
pgr
General of the Army
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Re: Civil War III

Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:41 pm

Captain_Orso wrote::
• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens

Indeed. I like the idea of more decision making cycles. I would keep movement speeds the same (in days). It would mean that major movements would take 2 turns. Good intel would let people react, you could do feints etc. It also annoys me that units have a 30 day supply carrying capacity. (I understand it as a two turn supply allowance from a gameplay perspective.) Week long turns would solve the issue. As far as production issues go, one would only have to half current production levels, and we would be in the same place...(at least I think... sometimes I'm not to strong in maths :bonk: )

Captain_Orso wrote:• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly


It exists in a way, shallow waters can freeze in the winter. One could add a "drought" thing for shallow waters for places like the Red River. (Say 2 types of rivers, shallow waters and very shallow waters. Very shallow waters are navigable in "flood" levels (spring runoff), and not in summer/fall droughts. Have it linked to weather like freezing.)

Captain_Orso wrote:• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond


Yep! The problem is that structures (cities, factories ext) do all the production, and the bigger the place, the bigger effect. It would be nice if regions produced GS in fonction of their terrain type and civ level, and structures either consume them (towns eat) or converted them (GS to an Ironworks as an input with Ammo and WS as an output) to other stuff. Depots would still be the pumps, and cities and towns would stockpile, but there would be a supply flow from the country to the city and not the other way around.

Captain_Orso wrote:• Naval operations in general

What do you mean? I for one would be for making it a bit more like land combat. Have CP limits and form ship "divisions."

Captain_Orso wrote:• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough


It might be nice to have another level. Call it a Department level, like a super army. Have a Halleck in St.Louis as a 3 star Department commander with a super "army creation" radius. Grant in Cairo (2/3 stars) creates an army as if he was a new corps commander, but he can have corps attached to him in the current way (but Halleck gives him some of his bad traits as his department commander.) Corps MTSG of their army, but have some ability to MTSG to corps of another army under the same department commander (as long as they are in his command radius.)

The department radius would scale with a commander's skill so that a guy like Grant could cover the whole map, but Halleck or Mac could only cover a theatre. It might be a good of nerfing Grant, because he would have to work his way out from under those fools through the seniority system.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Civil War III

Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:14 pm

pgr wrote:8<

Captain_Orso wrote:• River passages that could seasonally be blocked (shallows - see Red River Campaign), because it affected supplies, , strategies, and tactics greatly


It exists in a way, shallow waters can freeze in the winter. One could add a "drought" thing for shallow waters for places like the Red River. (Say 2 types of rivers, shallow waters and very shallow waters. Very shallow waters are navigable in "flood" levels (spring runoff), and not in summer/fall droughts. Have it linked to weather like freezing.)l


It doesn't reflect the reality. There are places on rivers where during low water they become unpassable, but above and below the river is navigable. One such very well known place is on the Red River at Alexandria, which is where Porter's fleet was nearly trapped during the campaign of the same name.

Another is on the Cumberland River at Clarksville, which indirectly had great significance. It was the cause of the necessity for the Johnsonville Depot on the Tennessee River west of Nashville, because supplies could not be transported by riverboat past Clarksville from late Autumn until Spring, so the Johnsonville Depot was built on the Tennessee, which is infamous for Forest's raid in November '64 on it.

pgr wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:• more realistic supply management, because if supplies worked in reality, like they do in the game, Chattanooga would not have been starving, nor Richmond


Yep! The problem is that structures (cities, factories ext) do all the production, and the bigger the place, the bigger effect. It would be nice if regions produced GS in fonction of their terrain type and civ level, and structures either consume them (towns eat) or converted them (GS to an Ironworks as an input with Ammo and WS as an output) to other stuff. Depots would still be the pumps, and cities and towns would stockpile, but there would be a supply flow from the country to the city and not the other way around.


I would propose depots to cost nothing, other than the supplies in them, and for their sizes to be freely changed to allow the player to influence where more and less supplies should be. Also, supplies not transported by rail or river should be greatly restricted.

pgr wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:• Naval operations in general

What do you mean? I for one would be for making it a bit more like land combat. Have CP limits and form ship "divisions."


Naval stacks should not have DP and OP, only active or passive. You should never be confronted with having to decide to put your riverboats in DP to keep them on patrol longer, and then have a fleet sail right past them, because they are in DP. That's not how the navy worked. Also, that naval units can never recover cohesion outside of harbor is just not realistic, especially for oceanic ships. The Navy trained for being at sea for many weeks and months at a time, and had some capability to repair damage at sea, plus cohesion loss is not just physical damage, but exhaustion, and over time, even at sea, a crew will be able to recover from battles and bouts with bad weather to a certain extent.

pgr wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:• a changeable military structure, because the military structure changed throughout the war, for reasons, and we have been using a grade-school version of how military organization works since forever; but not too complex, just flexible enough


It might be nice to have another level. Call it a Department level, like a super army. Have a Halleck in St.Louis as a 3 star Department commander with a super "army creation" radius. Grant in Cairo (2/3 stars) creates an army as if he was a new corps commander, but he can have corps attached to him in the current way (but Halleck gives him some of his bad traits as his department commander.) Corps MTSG of their army, but have some ability to MTSG to corps of another army under the same department commander (as long as they are in his command radius.)

The department radius would scale with a commander's skill so that a guy like Grant could cover the whole map, but Halleck or Mac could only cover a theatre. It might be a good of nerfing Grant, because he would have to work his way out from under those fools through the seniority system.


Military organization was not dependent on a specific person, although there are occasions where the organization was changed to fit to a person, such as was done with Grant later in the war.

There are some major issues I see with the game.

An army is not an army everywhere. If seniority is to actually play a role, the number of people under a leader's command, and the significance of his post must be considered, and not simply the organizational name "army", which is what we have now. There were military organizations lead by Maj.Gen.s which had an "army", but from their size, in game terms, they were not more than corps size. If the conundrum of seniority is to play a valid historical role, an organizational structure must exist which allows for small armies, but also reflects that early-war high-seniority leaders (McClellan, Halleck, Fremont, Banks, and Butler) would not have accepted be relegated to a back-woods theater commanding an army only in name.

Halleck commanded a military organization--I don't recall the name exactly, and IIRC it changed over time as well--which more or less included everything from the Appalachians to the Great Planes. This included the military area for which Grant was responsible with his Army of the Tennessee, plus Buell's Army of the Cumberland, plus all forces west of the Mississippi up to Kansas, which would have had an army as well. But, 1. there is nor such organization in the game, and 2. there is no such thing a position above an army in the game, which would allow for a leader to have an influence over multiple armies under his command, which is why the Atlanta Campaign has armies represented as corps in the game.

How much influence additional organizational levels might have on the game, I can only speculate, but it would reflect reality much better.

pancerni
Lieutenant
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:58 am

Re: Civil War III

Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:01 am

After playing this game for the last 6 months primarily as Confederate player I think , in addition to the points that already have been raised most of which deal with gameplay that would affect both sides, I think the following should be pursued.

-The impact of Confederate penetration into northern states, particularly Maryland and Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois, during the two years of the war should result in much more of an impact on the Union. Those impacts should result in both a reduction in Union national morale and supply/recruitment capacity. There should be a political impact of the loss of northern territory. There were crucial elections in 1862 and particularly 1863 in key states, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, as well as some northeastern states where Copperhead sentiment was high. Those elections were affected by the Union victories at Vicksburg and Gettysburg...without those victories there is a strong possibility that the Union would have been forced to think about peace on Confederate terms. This might result in a shorter game...the Confederates can win by the end of 1863 if they are aggressive and effective.

Playing the full scenario I have captured Gettysburg and Harrisburg in 1862 but what was the benefit...not much. It delayed Union advances towards Richmond but beyond that the Union didn't seem to suffer much.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Civil War III

Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:03 pm

Those are very good points, which have been discussed to some extent at different times.

I agree that invasion of the North, especially into areas hitherto untouched by the war, and very especially if larger cities, state capitals, and industrial cities were captured, should have a great impact on Northern morale.

The question is however also, should there also be a penalty for the South invading the North? The Confederacy was fighting for independence and not conquest, so invasion was viewed by many as actually going against their cause.

From a gameplay perspective, would rewarding the South with NM gain and the North with loss not simply incentivize the CS player to disproportionately put efforts into invasion, resulting in highly ahistorical gameplay?

Very few understood as Lee did that the greatest chance for the South to succeed in gaining their independence was to break the Northern population's will to resist their secession (asymmetrical warfare). I at one time tried to find information on the Southern population's reaction to Lee's two invasions, knowing full well that there would be only a very small time frame between when the start of each invasion became publicly known in the South and the reactions to their cumulative battles, when reactions to those would overshadow the former. I could find really nothing.

Also, the risks for the South are minimalized through the games difficulty in assessing success or failure and the overall cost of invasion. Would invading deep into the North to then fight and losing a battle not be detrimental to Southern morale even if it were not such a great loss as at Gettysburg? Maybe.

But the South's greatest danger is not in losing a great battle, but in losing a series of retreating battles, each time losing a small portion of their force. In the end they could be whittled down to only a portion of their original size, but unless there is a single great loss in battle, the game will not trigger any kind of penalty for the South.

IMHO what it really comes down to is not having a real knowledge of the effects of invasion on the South. The Confederate citizenry was in no way homogeneous on nearly any points other than more or less just a very few.
- They wanted to insure the perpetuation of slavery, which was central to their economy.
- They wanted independence from a strong central government, which threatened the previous.
- They felt that criticism of slavery was also a criticism of their way of life, which is a sure way to provoke anger and resistance.
- They felt that seceding from the US government was exactly the same as declaring independence from England in 1776, and felt they absolutely had the legal right and moral obligation to do so.

Beauregard wanted to invade the North right after First Manassas, but Davis rejected the idea as being contrary to a war of independence, plus I believe he saw it as too much of a risk. But how the North and South would have reacted to such an invasion, I cannot give an honest answer, but I am fairly certain it would not have been a neutral reaction.

In conclusion, I think the question could, an possibly ought to be addressed, but coming up with the formulae to address the situation properly would be very difficult, and I would be somewhat surprised if any game engine at all would have the capabilities to actually do the subject justice.

User avatar
Cardinal Ape
General of the Army
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

Re: Civil War III

Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:01 am

Do we have any details on what this new ageod engine will be capable of? Same old battle mechanics?

Even if they don't change the game mechanics much or if at all, I still might be in the market for CW3 if it came with a bunch of 'quality of life' improvements. Stuff like: a tool to search for units and commanders, a better method to build divisions, an easy way to compare units that doesn't take 10 clicks.

I really do hope this new engine does away with the clunky MP system. I've played some other turn based MP games that send me alerts when my next turn is ready, I can click on the alert to seamlessly load right into the game turn and be playing within seconds.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25229
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Re: Civil War III

Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:41 pm

The new engine should be using the PBEM++ system from Matrix/Slitherine

User avatar
BattleVonWar
Major
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am

Re: Civil War III

Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:03 am

Glad to see Pocus wrote here, that leaves me some hope that the plans are there. Perhaps not in the immediate future but in a couple of years or so...

I like some of the ideas I skimmed over. Some of the detail of CW2 could of used refinement. Some of the historical debate would add to the quality of the game within practical terms.

User avatar
pgr
General of the Army
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)

Re: Civil War III

Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:12 pm

Pocus wrote:The new engine should be using the PBEM++ system from Matrix/Slitherine


So what is ++ about PBEM ++?

I was having a thought about victory conditions. The current game really does not penalize a turtleing North. A player can sit on his hands into 63 and build up a huge material advantage, and then steamroll the South. There should be some kind of "political" dynamic that compels the Union to make progress.

( In reality of the thing, the longer the CSA remained intact, the better it could claim it had achieved defacto independence. Plus, the USA was undertaking the most expensive war effort in the Republic's history...simply sitting with nothing to show for it would have gotten Linclon run out of office, either in the 62 midterms or the 64 presidential.)

The "on to Richmond" NM events are trying to simulate this, but they are a bit brutal. Perhaps VP could be rethought.
Instead of having VP go up, why not have it go down. Have the USA start at 10,000, with a a -100 loss per turn. That loss rate can be reduced by winning battles and capturing VP cities, but in November 62 and 64 there are election checks with a minimum required VP total. If the Union does not have enough remaining VP to meet the check, the election is lost and Lincoln is forced to recognize the CSA.

That would put a ticking clock in front of the USA, without forcing a certain path (as in you MUST capture Richmond or Manassas)

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25229
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Re: Civil War III

Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:18 am

PBEM++ system allows players to post challenges which are then accepted by an opponent, then play games by grabbing their turn, playing, and uploading back to the server where it goes to their opponent's game list.

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War III

Thu May 10, 2018 1:57 pm

If there is a Civil War 3 then things I'd like to see, in no particular order are:
- No more mixed brigades.
- A far greater selection of generals, (basically anyone who was crowned a brigadier general during the war should be included) and the ability to promote any one of them if they'd performed particularly well in battle. I've always found it irksome that there are certain generals that I just can't promote regardless of how much success they've had.
- 7 & 8 day turns, to keep everything within a 30 day month framework, with actual calendar dates.
- The option to move to an offensive or defensive stance immediately after a battle.
- The AI properly coordinating their armies and corps so that they not only act in concert with one another, but are able to spot potential weaknesses in an enemy region. There seems to be a genuine lack of this. I've lost count of how many times I've been attacked in a region where I really didn't want to be, and have sat there thinking, 'Hmm... I really hope they go away somewhere else', and then lo and behold they do. An enemy that possessed sufficient intelligence to give the player little breathing room would surely keep the player well and truly on their toes. This should, however, be relative to a number of factors: the aggressiveness/timidity of the commanding general, intelligence on enemy strength or lack thereof, etc, etc. You get the idea.
- An AI that properly sustains and looks to exploit any successful landing on enemy territory with force. All too often I've seen a single brigade or militia regiment dropped off in Texas or Louisiana and then seemingly forgotten. Why bother landing anywhere in enemy territory unless its a landing made with intent?
- I could be wrong here, but as far as I can tell Army commanders require combat units to be under their direct command to participate in/influence the outcome of a battle. That really shouldn't be the case. An army commander should only need a headquarters staff at his disposal and be in the same region as the corps under his command.
- The ability to designate a strategic reserve. One thing I often see in this game in large scale battles involving numerous corps/divisions on both sides is that corps will often drop out and in of a battle and frequently leaves the smallest & weakest force to face the full wrath of the enemy (usually not for very long but it doesn't need to be), the result of which is usually considerable casualties to this smaller, exposed force. I find that very frustrating, not to mention inexplicable. A designated strategic reserve that is the last to be committed to battle, and the first to be pulled from it (if circumstances permit, of course) should largely eliminate this problem.
- The inclusion of more units: From what research I've done there seems to be quite a number of field units that are not included in the game. I know not why, though there may well be perfectly understandable reasons for not including them.
While I'm at it, the availability of the superb brigade of William Barksdale's Mississippians should not be subject to an event as I've been told that it is. The player should be able to recruit & field Barksdale's Brigade like any other, or, as is the case with the Texas Brigade & others, it should just become available at some point.
- A battle history tab included for field commanders and units that might include the date and location of the battle, casualty lists, comments upon the performance of said field commanders & units.
- A more detailed battle screen with improved graphics & sound.
- A greater variety of music! As much as I enjoy the current tunes, and I truly do, a more comprehensive track listing surely wouldn't hurt.
- The inclusion of administration and cabinet (à la Darkest Hour/Hearts of Iron) with the player able to choose Secretary of State, Treasury, war, etc, from multiple options, with each choice having a direct impact upon a particular aspect of the game.
- Marching to the sound of guns. Scrap that whole idea. Well, maybe not scrap it, but refine it to a point that actually makes it feasible. I think it's ridiculous to have corps that aren't even in the same region as the force that is attacking/defending being able to assist in a battle. I mean, if a corps is 50 miles away from its sister corps, then how on earth are their infantry & artillery of any plausible help unless a battle stretches into a second or third day? To give a better example, if I wanted to march a detached corps from Fredericksburg to Culpeper to assist in an attack or defensive it might take me, on average, about 10 days. But under 'Marching to the sound of guns' I can be there instantly. Frankly, that's ridiculous. It needs work.

Anyhow, I think that might be it. For now. Thank you for reading :)

User avatar
Khanti
Captain
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Civil War III

Mon May 21, 2018 2:08 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:WHY? Why should Civil War be done a third time? What exactly should be changed, and why? Please, no vague "it's got too many different units", because in really it has too few, nor boi, it would be ef'ing awesome

Why are RGD's in any way bad? They are a game mechanic, and nothing more. The exact same thing could be done just like options, so what is wrong with RGD's, and what would be better, and why?

I think most of the things I think I would like to "fix" in CW2 aim for more realism:
• 1 week turns, because 2 week turns allow too much to happen, while one side just sit's back an watches while it happens


I whole heartily support 1 week turns. In this game and all other Ageod games. Always. The more turns the better, the shorter reaction time. If someone wants less turn, let him play scenarios not campaigns. :)

pgr wrote:I'd advocate for 1 week turns, and some kind of decentralized manpower/political system. Something kinda quasi Wars of Napoleon with allied states. Each state has a manpower pool, fills quotas set by the national authority, and in the case of the North, different loyalties so that there could be an "election" backlash if the North is getting throttled. (Oh and reducing the supply glut back east would be nice :) )


Political system - that is what is lacking in this game. There could be some "congress" stuff (South and North one) with different political party members taking seats. Too many defeats or just inactivity (for the North) and some of them would be exchanged during elections by voters. Too many lost warmongers and North congress could be forced to peace terms with South.
Contrary, for South it could be just staying idle (alive and independent!) to get support. If Confederacy exists another months some political bonus could be acquired. The longer CSA exists the better from political point.

RavenWargaming wrote:For my own purposes, I'd like there to be a greater premium put on improving the presentation of information, and explaining mechanics. For example, more contextual tooltips that explain exactly why you can't do something rather than just listing a few possible reasons why it doesn't work.


Good point. I always need time to understand why this division or army cannot be created, or units merged. Is it possible for system to give me proper toolpit, not just a list. Example: "this general is inactive this turn, so he can't be used to create corps".
Meteoryt-like user. Strikes and disappears.

graydingo
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:08 am

Re: Civil War III

Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:58 pm

Sorry to dig up dead posts. Maybe do something about the set amount of elements in a division. Base it more on manpower. As it is now, a general can command an infantry division of anywhere from a few thousand to a ginormous amount just as long as one stays within the elemental constraints. I think most generals at the time struggled (or didn’t) mostly with the amount of soldiers they commanded and not whether they commanded 6 regiments or 16. Also, could there not be a War Department option to
A) reinforce existing regiments, or B) build new regiments? Maybe if you pick A you get fewer CCs, but if you pick B you get mor CCs. This could lead to quicker replacements in experienced regiments or slower replacements, but more green regiments. It would give the player some control over the historical decisions both sides made when it comes to new conscripts.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Civil War III

Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:48 pm

First off, the military operated under the constraints set by Congress. How the nation was districted was a congressional act, which determined the number of armies which were to be formed, and their sizes, and the rank of their commanders. The use of the Divisional and Corps Command structure are examples of how this is represented in the game.

Divisions actually existed early in the war. IIRC even the Wikipedia article on 1st Manassas describes the divisions. But early in the war, both sides were still struggling to come to terms with commanding the large formations of their armies, and divisional command ultimately played such a small role in that aforementioned battle, that Pocus decided to leave the division command rule out of the game until after the battle.

I don't recall ever having read how division size was regulated, but I imagine that is was, probably by regimental numbers. But I also know that both sides had divisions which were larger and smaller than the average. The larger division were often given to leaders who were deemed to be of above average quality, if not always.

The problem with this is in the detail. Divisional commanders were not always in charge of their divisions. A. P. Hill is a good example of this, but short-term illness is not addressed by the game, as is the question of acting commanders.

If there were a rule allowing for the formation of divisions larger than the 'average' size, and the commander of such a division were wounded or killed, what would the status of such a division become. Currently in the game the division is simply dissolved and must be reformed, which in and of itself is not realistic, because in reality many divisional commanders were wounded and/or killed during battles, without their command structures completely breaking down. Also the 'grace period' of one turn, when a 'new' commander receives a division and has his ratings lowered by 2 for that turn makes no sense if the commander has already lead that division.

--

You currently CAN reinforce regiments. It's called replacements, which you get by purchasing replacement chits <F2>. You can replace hits lost through battle and attrition in this way.

If course you can also build new regiments. Each time you buy a new infantry unit, you are building new regiments.

How the balance between purchasing replacements and/or new units is always left to the players digression.

Replacements are always green, and adding replacements to an experienced regiment can and will lower its overall quality.

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests