Hide activation status.

[veji1]

Would it be a possibility to make that an option at the beginning of a game : hide the activation status of a leader, no enveloppe, nothing. It would mean that the computer would have to wipe clean the "memory" of the stack once the turn is played out, so that when plotting a move we don't have an indication of whether a leader is active or inactive based on the predicted time of travel.

With such an option, one would really be faced with real ACW command issues, forced to rely on leaders that are not reliable, launching operations that go belly up because of sheer incompetence, etc. It wouldn't change the way the AI plays in a sense, because I suspect to a considerable extent she doesn't game that aspect of the game as much as players do. But it would be great for the human player and for PBEMs : hidden activation status + historical losses and you get the hardcore sim you want. One wouldn't have to use the ultra severe settings of the activation toggle (no move if inactive), just the one below. Couple with uncertainty it would be a great addition to the game.

It is already something I missed dearly in AACW. Would it be doable ?

[minipol]

It sounds like a good idea. It might add something to making the game more of a challenge

[Ebbingford]

I like the sound of it.

[Pocus]

This might be doable, we will test something close to that in private beta

[minipol]

Pocus, do you have a date for the next rc patch?
I'm not asking for a specific date, but are we talking januari, februari, ...?

[veji1]

This might be doable, we will test something close to that in private beta

Thanks Pocus ! I am quite positive this would become the default setting in PBEM play : historical attrition and hidden activation status would make the game harder, less predictable, probably force players to be more conservative in their operations :
- because you don't know how fast a leader will move, whether he will attack or not, best laid plans become really hard to implement. Massive premium goes to leaders with higher strategic rating with that setting : you can trust Lee and Jackson to try a complex operation in the east, or Grant and Sherman in the west, but for the Union conducting ambitious operations in the east would become risky, and generally players would tend to be more prudent, ie go one province at a time rather than try sweeping movements.

I really think this would make for an even greater game.

[Pocus]

Next patch will be released in February, I can't say at the beginning or at the end though.

[veji1]

Pocus, let me just expand on why I think such a setting would be a massive bonus to the game. First off it would put us in a more historic situation, where the best laid plans can go awry not only based on what the enemy does, but also based on the actions and inactions of one's proper forces. It would also I suspect rebalance a bit the situation with the AI

Second element is a balance element. We hear following the last patch that the Union might now be too strong. Might be the case, but as the side that spends the most time on the offensive, the Union is the one who would be more affected by such a change, forced to slow down its operational pace (either by being more prudent or by only going on the offensive with good leaders, meaning having to chose its places more). That alone might balance the game more, preventing more tweaking of the game which could be quite endless really.

[minipol]

Thanks Pocus for the estimate.

Just a thought, wouldn't it also be more historical to mention in the message list that a leader wasn't able to move.
Maybe it is already implemented like this, I don't know.
But historically, they knew if a leader wasn't moving and probably most of the team why.
It would be nice if that aspect could be mimicked, maybe simplest via messages.

[veji1]

only after the fact though of course.

[Ol' Choctaw]

If you are going to use it you likely should not have it set to lock all your inactive leaders. They will move slower and not attack normally. If they do you will have to live with the 35% penalty for inactive leaders.

[veji1]

If you are going to use it you likely should not have it set to lock all your inactive leaders. They will move slower and not attack normally. If they do you will have to live with the 35% penalty for inactive leaders.

Indeed. I always found that locking all inactive leaders was exceedingly severe and sort of a turnaround, it has the perverse effect of making players "shop" even more for active leaders. No the best setting would be middle of the road penalties for inactive leaders (no offensive posture, slow movement, battle penalties, etc...) BUT with the added hidden activation status. This to me would emulate a lot better the situation a commander is faced with. For example in Virginia in 61/62 this could force the Union, because of a lack of competent leaders to be either very prudent, or to tend to regroup in big stacks with their best leaders, but leaving holes for the CSA to exploit via rapid manouvers, etc... once 63 kicks this becomes and equal penalty for both sides : they both have their good and bad leaders, and suffer similar effects, although the penalty will always be harder on the offense (so the Union), which makes sense.

To me perfect settings would be historical attrition, hidden activation status, medium activation penalties. This I think would give us the best, if very frustrating at times, experience... No more "I didn't move because so and so where inactive".. instead very real "i saw an opportunity and ordered so and so to move and attack, but of course if one of them is inactive, this is going to bite me in the ass..." this is how second Manassases happen. Add to that the "well I don't know if I can seize that opportunity and my guys have low cohesion anyway so I'll just sit on the depot for a turn to replenish" and you start getting a real immersion. This is how we should feel as players.

Might be too hardcore for casual gamers (who wants to play a game where you tell a stack to go there and it doesn't ?) but for the grognards and PBEMers it would be the true experience.

[MarkCSA]

IIRC Forge of Freedom had a similar setting, where it was never 100% sure if your orders would go through, causing all kinds of fun mayhem.

[Ol' Choctaw]

The real killer, especially in the attack, during the Civil War was not usually the local commanders fault.

It was local guides leading the troops to the wrong place.

There were battles that never took place because of it. Let-alone all the bad timing and lost opportunities.

[minipol]

only after the fact though of course.

Off course. Together with the change you proposed, it would be more realistic.

[Ace]

This setting has potential to improve gameplay experience in all AGE engine game. If it achieves its potential, it would be awesome. Thanks to veji for suggesting it, and thanks to Ageod for listening to good suggestions

Of course, when faced with this setting, some players may opt to omit commanders of the stacks altogether. I would certainly house rule against using large force without commanders. This setting has a lot of promise to it. Let's just hope there won't be trashed monitors by angry players when they see their orders have not been obeyed .

[Ol' Choctaw]

Along those lines, if it is not an option as to use it or not, there are going to be a lot of people who will say the game is broken and veji1 may have a bounty on him.

It will be useful in competition but those who mostly play single player are not going to be too thrilled.

[Ace]

You never know, there are casual gamers and there are gamers that want to feel the same way as Lincoln did when he repeteadly ordered McClellan to attack only to find him not obeying his CiC. Definetly a good addition as an option.

[Pocus]

I would not dare add that as a obligatory setting! This is an extra option in 'activation rule' in fact.

[Owl]

I really like the sound of this and also agree that this would make a great addition to other titles, if practicable. Having to decide between additional risks and opportunities while planning your move would add yet another welcome layer of complexity into the equation, both in PBEM as well as single player.

[veji1]

I would not dare add that as a obligatory setting! This is an extra option in 'activation rule' in fact.

Indeed, to me this has to be an option because it can be quite frustrating for players and some might not want the frustration such a setting would induce. But I for once would just love it. Because of the unknown it brings to the game, the uncertainty of war... People that tend to play AGEOD turnbased games are people that for most of them are I think open to this. I mean we are already a weird bunch when you think about it, plotting our moves and so, but then pressing end turn and than just watching the computer play itself !!!

Thanks Ageod for trying to implement it !

[veji1]

This setting has potential to improve gameplay experience in all AGE engine game. If it achieves its potential, it would be awesome. Thanks to veji for suggesting it, and thanks to Ageod for listening to good suggestions

Of course, when faced with this setting, some players may opt to omit commanders of the stacks altogether. I would certainly house rule against using large force without commanders. This setting has a lot of promise to it. Let's just hope there won't be trashed monitors by angry players when they see their orders have not been obeyed .

This could be an issue at the beginning of the game, and only in the west and transmississippi really, once in 62, a stack of 20 000 without leader would get destroyed by a well led stack of 10 000 anyway.

[Ace]

Well, it can be an issue in the East as well. Until divisions are formed, most stacks suffer 35% penalty, commanded or not.

[veji1]

Along those lines, if it is not an option as to use it or not, there are going to be a lot of people who will say the game is broken and veji1 may have a bounty on him.

It will be useful in competition but those who mostly play single player are not going to be too thrilled.

Well I so far only play single player to be honest and I want this setting because otherwise even when trying to behave, I end up gaming the engine. I can see McDowell is not active so of course I am not going to go on an offensive with him. With such a setting my "strategy" and execution would be a lot more sloppy because hey, i can't know in advance what would happen. I suspect the AI games the engine less, so I think it would actually help rebalance the game.

[veji1]

Well, it can be an issue in the East as well. Until divisions are formed, most stacks suffer 35% penalty, commanded or not.

I have always thought that a stack with a leader should never be more penalised than a stack without. for me units without leader should be lost, uncohesive. I would be in favour of the top penalty of a stack with a leader be say 25% and 40 or even 50% for a stack without. exact numbers should be tested, but really this feature makes no sense to me.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Those units have leaders. They just are not Generals. There are Colonels, Lt. Cols etc leading those units. Some might even have been better than the guy in charge of the division. The penalties are because these guys have no big boss so they don’t work so well together.

But on occasion having that commander proves worse than letting the brigades or regiments take off on their own.

[veji1]

Those units have leaders. They just are not Generals. There are Colonels, Lt. Cols etc leading those units. Some might even have been better than the guy in charge of the division. The penalties are because these guys have no big boss so they don’t work so well together.

But on occasion having that commander proves worse than letting the brigades or regiments take off on their own.

I know, but as the leaders (the ingame leaders) are at the very heart of the game, they should sort of be mandatory as soon as possible. They are after all a big part of the war ! Even a McGown or a Floyd, despite all their suckiness, should be better than no leader when a certain amount of CPs weight is reached. A regiment or brigade acts alone under guidance of its officers, faire enough. Several brigades or regiments together without a commanding officer should not be able to fight together. It's just my opinion, but the game should make it better for you to have a 1-0-0 leader leading a force of say 3 brigades of infantry (10-12 elements) than none at all.

[minipol]

I wonder if it would add to game play if you would get the chance to receiver a leader after a leaderless stack fought a battle.
Rise to command as it where. I think Total war games have this feature if you lose to many generals in battle.
I don't know if this was historical or not.
And if it would be implemented, it would only make sense as an option. But it sounds more like something for an expansion pack than a regular patch.

[veji1]

I wonder if it would add to game play if you would get the chance to receiver a leader after a leaderless stack fought a battle.
Rise to command as it where. I think Total war games have this feature if you lose to many generals in battle.
I don't know if this was historical or not.
And if it would be implemented, it would only make sense as an option. But it sounds more like something for an expansion pack than a regular patch.

Complicated feature as the leaders are such an essential part of the game...

[minipol]

Yes indeed but that wouldn't make it less fun
As I said, i'm not sure if that happened historically.