berto wrote: (...) My life is such that, the press of other events can prevent me from doing any war gaming at all for weeks and weeks (...)
How I understand you, my friend... leure:
tagwyn wrote:Pocus: Is that a free addition to EUIII or is this another game to buy? Thanks. t PS: back to work!!
Jarkko wrote:You conveniently forgot Hearts of Iron. If I remember correctly, I think Johan at some point said the sales of all the other Paradox games together are peanuts compared with HoI2 sales alone. I believe HoI series for Paradox is the bread&butter series, and the other games are more or less products of love and interest in the time-period. If they indeed are such projects of love, and as we all know, everybody will never be happy with all love-affairs
I also find it funny how you Clovis bash EU3 for non-historical outcomes. EU3 at least promotes historical strategies, unlike for example AACW Personally if I'd want games to play out exactly as history, I wouldn't play the games but read a book instead. I use the words "historical game" for games that at least promote some historical strategies; a pretty map and a historical set-up does not a historical game make (look at De Bellis Multitudinis for an example -> no map, no set-up, total fantasy opponents in some cases, yet the game feels very very historically accurate). And yet, I play fantasy games too (Dominions series for example ), because I like good games that provide some exercise for the grey cells in my brain
Then again, I am quite impressed with the work AACW is going through. There seems to be a genuine interest to make the game actually somewhat historical, and I can't but applaud at that! The planned changes are baby-steps, but they seem to me to definitively be in the right direction
Jarkko wrote:Clovis, if you claim it is historically plausible that CSA could have in summer 61 swamped the North with lots of cavalry regiments, burning and blowing up everything (in effect a mass-murder on civilians) without what so ever consequenses (England and France would have on the spot rejected all support for CSA, a slaver nation committing a genocide in North; not to mention what the population in USA and CSA would have thought and done), or if you think it is perfectly ok that USA has blown up (and consequently taken) *every* single CSA coastal fort during autumn 61then I do not have anything to add. Those two are in my opionion just two of the most glaring inaccuracies the campaign has.
See, in my opinion the AACW campaign game is not a historical game at all. It is about using every single ahistorical choice you can think up. It is Vietnam War in the 19th century, guerilla operations is the way to go, terror-operations against the civilians is the way to go.
aryaman wrote:The problems I see with raiders in AACW is that, given the WEGO system and 15 days turns there is little to no time to respond to them. For me it is not the small raids with a single cavalry unit the bigger problem, it is the large raids later in the game, when a cavalry corps can quickly march through KY and take Louisville or Cincinnati. I have been told that historically cavalry in the ACW could indeed sustain very fast march rates, but I doubt a Corps size cavalry force could.
So, besides the forts issue cited by Jarkko, I do find cavalry raids too easy, and I wonder if some kind of better response during turn could be implemented. For instance, an order for cavalry units for antiraid patrol, so that any enemy raid passing through a neighbouring region could be intercepted.
Finally, my main problem with the game is that economic options have too weak penalties, so players always take maximum money options. The same is true for mobilization options, and the final result is that we have very large armies already by the end of 1861. I have played with house rules forbidding printing money and limiting mobilization to historical dates and the game plays much better historically.
Clovis wrote:
About economics and mobilization, I implemented a long time ago some changes in SVF to reduce this unhistorical path.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Absolutely no offense intended here, but to paraphrase your statement above: "The problems I see" with posts such as these is that they demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the game itself due to not reading the manual in the first place. Yes, it is somewhat dated, but for game mechanics it is pretty darn thorough. Here's an example:
Straight out of the manual pg 31:
[ATTACH]5472[/ATTACH]
Might I ask, "How much more of a command for interception do you want, especially since it's already there?"
You also, have to consider, that the raiding unit has to first be spotted first and it would be non-historical to have responding units automatically respond to units without spotting them first. So Yes, the raiding unit gets a jump on you as was the case historically, but with this command you can follow them quite easily as long as they remain in friendly territory, much like the intercepting units that chased Morgan and his raiders all over southern Indiana/Ohio.
arsan wrote:In any case, IMHO Clovis have a very valid point about the lack of garrisoning players do in game compared with the real war. The Union had huge numbers of second line troops securing his rear. Players like to optimize his assets and deploy nearly all their troops on the battlefront, making deep raiding much more easy.
Regards
Gray_Lensman wrote:I can agree that the options need working, however, I haven't got there yet, and I can only accomplish so much. I choose my own priorities since I'm a volunteer. Up until recently, we only had 2 active betas. I am currently working to change that situation. In the meantime, it is real easy for everyone to suggest all sorts of changes to be made, but without others learning how to actually make the changes within the specified format, progress is indeed very slow and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
In other words, I'm throwing down the gauntlet here...
Some of you more dedicated types need to learn how to make file changes for yourselves, using the correct specified AGEod database format, experimenting with your various ideas. When I read about them, and they prove reasonably acceptable to other players, I generally analyse the work and try to place it in the game itself, much like some of Clovis' work which has been recently added to the game ala Kentucky, Corp formation limitations, and just recently Div formation limitations which you have yet to even see. Though I don't particularly like the way Clovis' only mods the output files, at least he is making an attempt to implement ideas in order to experiment with them. This is in direct contrast to most everyone else suggesting changes but not really doing anything about their own suggestions. Some of you would find the inner workings of this game fascinating if you would only take the time to learn about it. In other words, "There are too many "chiefs" and not enough indians here!"
arsan wrote:I'm sure a veteran like aryaman already knows about teh intercept order
The problem is that with units so fast as cavalry raiders it has little use.
With 15 days turns, it means the raiders have a 15 days jump over the defenders before they can react.
On these 15 days the raid may be already over or the raiders can reach the other side of the state and have 4 or 5 regions advantages over the would be pursers. No chance of interception.
On reality it woudl take just some days for the enemy patrols to start concentrating and pursuing the raiders.
I agree with aryaman that it woudl be very nice to have an automatic intercept order. Something like an "anti-raider" special order available to cavalry units that would make the unit try to auto intercept enemy raiders on adjacent regions. Something like the auto march to guns corps do.
But for a change like this we woudl need to wait for AACW II i think
In any case, IMHO Clovis have a very valid point about the lack of garrisoning players do in game compared with the real war. The Union had huge numbers of second line troops securing his rear. Players like to optimize his assets and deploy nearly all their troops on the battlefront, making deep raiding much more easy.
Regards
Gray_Lensman wrote:I can agree that the options need working, however, I haven't got there yet, and I can only accomplish so much. I choose my own priorities since I'm a volunteer. Up until recently, we only had 2 active betas. I am currently working to change that situation. In the meantime, it is real easy for everyone to suggest all sorts of changes to be made, but without others learning how to actually make the changes within the specified format, progress is indeed very slow and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
In other words, I'm throwing down the gauntlet here...
Some of you more dedicated types need to learn how to make file changes for yourselves, using the correct specified AGEod database format, experimenting with your various ideas. When I read about them, and they prove reasonably acceptable to other players, I generally analyse the work and try to place it in the game itself, much like some of Clovis' work which has been recently added to the game ala Kentucky, Corp formation limitations, and just recently Div formation limitations which you have yet to even see. Though I don't particularly like the way Clovis' only mods the output files, at least he is making an attempt to implement ideas in order to experiment with them. This is in direct contrast to most everyone else suggesting changes but not really doing anything about their own suggestions. Some of you would find the inner workings of this game fascinating if you would only take the time to learn about it. In other words, "There are too many "chiefs" and not enough indians here!"
Gray_Lensman wrote:Some of you more dedicated types need to learn how to make file changes for yourselves, using the correct specified AGEod database format, experimenting with your various ideas.
arsan wrote:Jarkko, i thing you are misinterpreting what cavalry raiding was on the ACW.
There was some cases of civilians murdering, but it was mostly rail destroying, military buildiongs and supplies burning, arms and horses stealing... It was not about population extermination.
I have read about several cases of raiders helping the population to put out town fires started while burning military/government buildings.
Later on the war, Sherman march to the sea was much harsher on civil population, but that's a different thing.
arsan wrote:Later on the war, Sherman march to the sea was much harsher on civil population, but that's a different thing.
Clovis wrote:To sum up, you're wrong.
Jarkko wrote:That may very well be so, altough I'd actually prefer some data to prove that instead of just a slightly miffed opinion Yet I do insist that if CSA had been the one invading first, all its credibility would have gone. If not in the eyes of England and/or France, then at least in the eyes of the population of the Union. I think I am not far off in my guess that if USA had been the one under incursion from April 61, there wouldn't have been much sympathy for the rebel cause amongst the loyal states.
Return to “General discussions”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests