Blood and Thunder Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:22 pm

Just a suggestion (sing its praises, slap it down or studiously ignore it at your leisure); allow the player to recruit by regiment rather than brigade. The player can then determine the strength (with limits and maximums, obviously) and the geographical composition of said brigades (For example: 3 Virginia regiments + 1 North Carolina regiment + 1 Georgia regiment, or, 2 Alabama regiments + 1 Louisiana regiment. You get the idea). To complete the picture, anybody who was commissioned a brigadier general in the Union or Confederate army should be included in a generals pool, and introduced into the game roughly around the date when they received their commission. The player can then choose a brigadier to command their newly created brigade which then takes on the name of the commanding general.

I like it. I really like it... :hat:

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1511
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:02 pm

It's true that a lot of the generic Brigades in the current game are not crowd pleasers. However, any Brigade commanded by a General cannot be added to a Division as such. So General BloodnThunder would need to be stripped from the unit that bears his name, unless you changed this.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:33 am

allow the player to recruit by regiment rather than brigade


I am already doing this in a mod. There are a few issues with it. Assume you don't alter anything except the units you can recruit. For this example, we won't count the elite brigades (Excelsior, Mississippi, etc), and we change all the brigades to regiments.

Managing the stack panel can get very cumbersome. I don't know if it will affect AI turn processing. I have a fairly good machine, exceeds the stated requirements for CW2 by quite a bit, and even on a vanilla CW2 setup a large stack will slow down the game.

Under the vanilla setup, a "division" requires 4 CP to be effectively commanded. Since there aren't any (or many) brigade units, every "brigade" has to be formed by creating a "division." Most brigadiers out of the chain of command will be at a disadvantage (only 2 CP for a standard brigadier out of command chain).

My solution is to create 1-3 element units for infantry and 1-2 element units for cavalry. There will be a few 2 and 3 element brigades per state. None of the standard units require over 2 CP. The elite brigades are altered to be almost all 3 element units that only require 2 CP. Their unit definition allows them to add another infantry element in the same way a vanilla CW2 militia unit does, so you can end up with a 4 element unit that only costs 2 CP and only requires line replacements. Artillery are all single element units, although I am knocking around the idea of a couple of artillery brigades.

But on a CW3 setup, they'd need to adjust stack panel management with the potential for many more large, unwieldy stacks. I'm just telling you, Joe User, this; I'm sure the devs already know this kind of thing.

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:12 am

Gray Fox wrote:It's true that a lot of the generic Brigades in the current game are not crowd pleasers. However, any Brigade commanded by a General cannot be added to a Division as such. So General BloodnThunder would need to be stripped from the unit that bears his name, unless you changed this.


Then why not change it too? Really mix it up a bit ;)

lightbrave
Lieutenant
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:39 am
Location: Jackson, Georgia

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:04 pm

I would like to be able to have lesser generals be appointed to Army Commander. This is just a hypothetical. Without promotion the Confederates only have 4 Commanders that can control an Army. In my opinion, the South needs at least that many armies. 2 in Virginia and 2 in Tennessee. That being said, there is no way to shift command without breaking up an army for at least 1 turn. So say Grant is opposing Lee in any given area...……..( in my opinion the best matchup for the Union is Grant vs A S Johnson)………………… Since the Union can change command fairly easily because you can have an excess of qualified Army commanders then Grant can detach from the Army opposing Lee and shift to the one opposing Johnson and the South cant respond without breaking up and Army. Lee wouldn't be able to follow Grant to oppose him. Im hoping this makes sense to people. You should be able to put anybody in command of an army. If they are a sorry leader then it would just effect the whole army but at least you can keep the Corps structure in place. That's one change I would like to see but ill write more later. P.S. one other thing iv seen people say turns should be weekly. Im thinking there should be 10 days turn. 3 per month instead of every week. Also, I think the Loyalty premise needs to be changed. For instance, it doesn't make sense that a region in the south can become 100% loyal to the Union based on presence. They should have loyalty and also another term that can describe (under control but they hate you). There could be some cool cards they could come up with to make that fun too like sabotage or something. Who knows. Also, they should have delayed intel. So if you sent a scout to New Orleans to see whats going on there, but maybe not actually be able to see whats there until the next turn. Although that might be difficult because if you have troops coming 2 days behind then that wouldn't work out as intended. Food for thought. What do you guys think?

Blood and Thunder Brigade
Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:03 am

I've always said that all generals should be promotable to any level but with increasing amounts of seniority points required to achieve promotion from brigadier general to major general to lieutenant general to general.

Also, 5 day turns....

grimjaw
Colonel
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:38 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:07 am

As far as allowing sub-3stars to command armies, the problem exists throughout the command structure of the game. Promotion is only (or mostly) modeled based on battlefield success and not attrition. For example. Bragg got army command for 2 reasons: Johnston's death & Beauregatd being sick/AWOL. If a commander is killed or injured in the game, there is no provision to fill his shoes. The engine provides for something called a provisional leader system which somewhat bridges this gap, but it only applies to 3stars. And anyway, it's not implemented in vanilla CW2. I am trying to code up a set of attrition promotions via script in the same mod I mentioned previously.

Under the current system, penalties & privileges are doled out based on leader seniority, & seniority is not static (although it should be IMO). So if you allow any old general to become army commander, does the current penalty system remain in place? Is it magnified when 1star Quantrill is given command of the Army of the West over AS Johnston? I

Return to “Civil War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests