User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:34 pm

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... :p leure:

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:42 pm

Pocus: Is that a free addition to EUIII or is this another game to buy? Thanks. t PS: back to work!!

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:20 pm

tagwyn wrote:Pocus: Is that a free addition to EUIII or is this another game to buy? Thanks. t PS: back to work!!


Magna Mundi?? Its a huge free mod for EU3 plus expansions. (mayeb thera re older version just for EU3).
I've heard its great. I plan to play with it after i learn teh game mechanics on vanilla.
Check here
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=403

User avatar
berto
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1386
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:13 pm
Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:29 pm

Magna Mundi? I'm a member of the mod team (though less involved now than I was in the past; AGEod's got most of my affection and attention now).

Magna Mundi tries to give you an historically plausible game experience. It's incredibly rich and deep, and amazing things are planned for future versions.

See http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=386139

Paradox's games in their "vanilla", off-the-shelf versions may be insipid and unrealistic. It's their very extensive scripting and modding facilities that bring their games to life.
What this town needs is a good Renaissance band!
Early MusiChicago - Early Music in Chicago and Beyond - http://earlymusichicago.org
PIKT - Global-View, Site-at-a-Time System and Network Administration - http://pikt.org
AGElint - an AGE debugging toolkit - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2978333
Your Mileage May Vary -- Always!

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:21 pm

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 :)


HOI and HOI2 have the same fundamnental problems than all others games: Paradox is stuck with a game system they apply without fundamental changes for the core features ( real-timee, all nations playable, regions, diplomacy considered on a business model, economics based on a financial model and financial model based on something yet unknown in the real world). This game system is unable to depict plausible outcomes ( and so on for the usual "read a book rather than playing a game" I've read so often and which a sort of paradox in the Paradox, as the truth remains Paradox is selling games marketed as the representation of a historical period and even if anyone will disagree about the degree of plausibility of a German victory in WW2, anyone will agree world conquest by Rumania in WW2 - and I've seen some examples in HOI, EU2 _ is just a joke).

So to sustain the historical chrome, Paradox has long been relying on events. But in the end, events aren't a complete erzatz to lack of real game engine features as described in some posts.

Pardox decided with EU3 to align event system to the game engine by designing contextual events: once again a failure as the game ran amok and provoked some modder works...

In Nomine is showing some Paradox signs they at last understood the solution belongs to a real evolution of the game mechanics. On the contrary, Roma seems to be the same unachieved port of a game system without real adaptation to another period.

Of course, I suspect behind these contradictions a large panel of economical constraints working against a real desire to produce some historical games. But, as much commended must be Paradox for delivering some features, the current state of their game is consisting of high priced games considering the need to buy the expansions to get a final product.

I would like Paradox to get again some sort of philosophy design forcing them to return to the drawing board to create something really new, playable at start and offering the historical feeling claimed, without waiting modding efforts.

Whatever modding is in the AGEOD system, Ageod games are from the start historical products and we have now 2 game systems proposed: the AGE engine and the yet faulty but promising WW1 one. Not too bad as Paradox , in spite of larger modding tools, is yet unable to have delivered this.

A last word about AACW: now I 've read about one hundred works about Civil War and all of the great posts on this forum, I'm very prone to think AACW to be really more historical than some are arguing. Of course, there are some features producing gamey opportunities but this war could really have been fighted according to vrey different strategies: CSA could have been more defensive in the East and reinforced more the Western front, Grant planned initially in 1864 a amphibious raid by a large part of the Potomac army in the Carolinas rather the actual Overland campaign, another CIC than McCLELLAND could have really attacked with certainly good chances to win Richmond in 1862, Jackson could have lived more, Grant could have lost at Belmont, or invaded Kentucky first,etc....

Your view about AACW seems really to me a little short . Considering all other games depicting on a strategical scale the Civil WAr ( including F. HUNTER's game,the joke included in Paradox Victoria and the boardgames I know of), I've yet to find a more historical products. That's a sort of bashing I really don't understand.
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:41 am

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.

AACW do shine in scenarios however. There some true historical choices are available (at least as long as you use homerules not to exploit the forts to dust during the first two turns), and the game feels like I believe it should. I also understand why that is so, it is much easier to provide historical tools in a confined space and time, while the campaign game would require some *serious* work; work that is not in any way profitable for AGEOD (unless they would release an expansion, but those have been determined in this thread as crimes against humanity ;) ) and I presume all the nice people at AGEOD would like to have some income to eat and pay the bills :) Thus the further develompment of AACW is burdened on the few people who have the will and ability (after quite a few tests I have to conclude my abilities to write events in AACW seems to be on par of our christmas tree; I'd like to believe that is the fault of the event system, but I suspect it is a code 20 issue (as we used to call it back in late 80's when I was working at a computer repair shop for one summer)...) to do that, and I do stand in attention in their presence :)
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Syt
Colonel
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 6:41 am
Location: Vienna

Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:56 am

Chiming in about the historical straightjacket vs. the freeform sandbox:

the key for immersion is for me plausibility. Given how the dice roll in my game - is the result within the realm of possibility?

I don't mind huge aberration if there's some explanation behind it that is believable. After all, a lot of history is the outcome of unlikely accidents and surprises - a king killed in battle, a small country inheriting the throne of a much larger one (Hannover vs. England), unplanned discoveries (finding America when searching for India) etc. etc.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The brutality and inhumanity of war stood in great contrast to what I had heard and read about as a youth.
- Reinhold Spengler, war volunteer 1st Bavarian Infanterie Regmnt., 1916

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:56 am

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.
:)


Burning military depots in AACW assimilated to a genocide...Really interesting...You're joking I hope.

About the CSA cabvalry raids: you're just ignoring it was indeed what north feared in the first months...And they acted consequently: a large part of the raised troops or militias went on garrison or patrol duty on the borderland to close it. Of course, history hasn't put much on these operaations, and most players are just building armies to invade South immediatly without building such a protection. The 1863 Morgan's raid was technically possible in 1861 and certainly easier torun against an organized opponent. The act CSA didn't is some such a sort of historical outcomes resulting from a strategical choice than of an impossibility and a GOOD engine has to let this choice to a player.

You should do like Grant before BELMONT: taking some months before BELMONT to patrol on the Missouri frontier in the dull mission of keeping control of the front line by in your case reading a bit more bout Civil WAR before launching real offensive operations... :neener:
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
aryaman
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:19 pm

Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:30 am

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.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:55 am

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.


Jeb Stuart led some sort of corp sized cavalry raids at fast speed in the east and the Jubal Early's infantry corps in 1864 sustained a fast rate of advance on Washington.

I really don't think this to be unhistorical. Most players assume security of large metropole to be assured when in fact Union took always some measures in rear aeras. In 1864, Hood faced during its offensive operations in Tennessee about 60,000 Union troops. Of course, one reason of this huge number was the occupation and logistical duty. But in any case, Union strategy never granted rear aeras to be absolutely secure because of the distance and always kept a largepart of second class troops in these zones.

About economics and mobilization, I implemented a long time ago some changes in SVF to reduce this unhistorical path.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:34 am

deleted

User avatar
aryaman
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:19 pm

Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:35 am

Clovis wrote:
About economics and mobilization, I implemented a long time ago some changes in SVF to reduce this unhistorical path.


Besides there is inconsistency regarding mobilization, because you ha the option to mobilize, but you also get by event mobilization , for instance in march 1863 Union gets a mobilization act event, -5 NM and +200 conscript points.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:59 am

deleted

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:01 pm

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.



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 :bonk:

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

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:06 pm

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


The real limitation for raids is yet existing: ammo. In the current state of the database, units carry 2 days of ammo. Any weak garrison is forcing raiders to use ammo. when depleted, either there is a wagon to replenish but to the price of a slower move and so more chances to be intercepted or to be pinned without ammo....
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:09 pm

deleted

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:10 pm

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!"


I've begun the modding work when the xls files weren't available. Now il would be so huge a task to retrofit changes I've made in xls form I just can't get the time. I will put in xls changes the future variations I'm going to implement ( some new 3 stras gennerals for CSA with variable values, a real work on Maryland situation in 1861).
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Gray Lensman+Clovis=much much better AACW :thumbsup:
Many thanks for your awesome work guys! :coeurs: :coeurs: :coeurs:

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:27 pm

deleted

User avatar
aryaman
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:19 pm

Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:36 pm

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 :bonk:

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

Thanks for your defense!
You explained my idea much better than myself

User avatar
aryaman
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:19 pm

Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:41 pm

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!" :D

I have some experience modding XLS file from my 2nd Punic War project, however I like to first put forward my ideas looking for some feedback from other experienced players/modders.
So, I think the way to go could be
1) Discuss the ideas (in the Historical Mod thread)
2) If there is some agreement on their convenience, Implement them modding the XLS files, if you are too burdened I can mod them myself and send them to you
3) Then you make a test scenario and post it in the thread, and we test it, Daxil and I can playtest for PBEM.

User avatar
aryaman
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 6:19 pm

Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:46 pm

About large raids, my concern was about their historicity, is that is ok (Clovis could you please indicate sources? I am really interested in the subject and not only for gaming reasons) I am not against the need for heavy garrisoning the rear areas.

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:01 pm

Clovis, pillaging and burning un-garrisoned cities do in fact mean civilians are attacked. There is no chivalry in that, just pure terror. You may say I am joking, but personally I see nothing funny in terror. That doesn't prevent me from using terror strategies and tactics in games where they are allowed (on the contrary, usually they are the best strategy if there is no malus in doing so, like in AACW), but at least I do not pretend it is on par with fluffy bunnies with red roses :)

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.

While I don't regard myself as a very dedicated type (I've been around for a very short time, and I play other games), I do feel a sting reading that :) I like to complain about things I don't like, but sadly I am thick as a rock regarding computers :( It took me two years to get some understanding in how the event system in Paradox games work (I just *needed* to get a counts scenario for a Crusade Kings MP game working, and since nobody else was willing to do the stuff even after I had moaned about it for weeks...), and people keep on telling the system is so easy even idiots figure it out in five minutes :bonk:

I really tried to get some events work in AACW (if CSA invades the North during early summer 61, massive volunteer garrisons to cities *and* drastic drop in the chance of England/France interventing on behalf of South; CSA made it clear they were defending their independency and would fight anybody invading, if CSA would have been the one invading first (before North had invaded) all their justification would have been gone, and it would have been very hard to find sympathy anywhere). I gave up after I got nowhere. After a couple weeks I tried to get just *one* event to work, and the best result I achieved was a CTD (so apparently I had succeeded in doing something :wacko :) . During the holidays I tried again, but this time I didn't get anything, not even a CTD :( There is but one conclusion: I am way too stupid to understand how to make events work in AACW.

Thus I have limited myself to playing the scenarios in AACW. They play (mostly) like *I* feel the game should play, because real historical strategies are available in them :)
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:12 pm

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. :blink:
Later on the war, Sherman march to the sea was much harsher on civil population, but that's a different thing.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:50 pm

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. :blink:
Later on the war, Sherman march to the sea was much harsher on civil population, but that's a different thing.



Jarkko is reading history in a Paradox way, the same way they introduced for EU2 these 2 montruous heresies named bad boy and nationalist revolts in a time where diplomacy and political life was based on whole different concepts not modelled in the game ( to the difference of the original boardgame but as a full load of players with really few historical knowledge discarded them as dull on behalf of these wonderful features which until today haven't solved the problem of the big blobs). That's life. But frankly saying that when AACW doesn't model the real terror oprations led by Quantrill and other cruel outlaws is just amusing...
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

comagoosie
Private
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:41 pm

Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:20 pm

I think that if I want a historical simulation I will go and get one.

If I want to go and do a world conquer as the Iroquois in EU3 I think I may and well do that. Though in paradox's defense you can set historical options on (for leaders, advisors, generals), though, imo it is rather a boring game.

If I wanted something in between then ageod is there for me.

In addition EU3 + NA + IN takes up a rather long time frame (400 and some odd years). There are too many variables that when history could have gone out of control. If you want a detailed analyst of what I am saying/meaning read Timelines in the EU3 forums at Paradox.

I guess what I am trying to get at, is that every game should have (at one point) the "what if" factor. What if all the native american tribes allied against the British during the French and Indian war? Err...ok. Basically every game should have this factor, yet finding the right *number* is the key.

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:50 pm

arsan wrote:Later on the war, Sherman march to the sea was much harsher on civil population, but that's a different thing.

As far as I can see, the only real difference is in fact only scale. In small scale good stuff happens and bad stuff happens. Sherman took an army with him on his march to the sea, and basically that is on the same scale of what I've seen happening in AACW campaign games during the first turns of the campaign; cavalry just flood past the lines (when there actually are yet no lines at all). When there are tens of thousands of men raiding, things are not going to be nice and tidy (not even if there are no people like Quantrill amongst them), and there is bound to be more of the bad stuff than the good stuff.

And yet Quantrills raid on Lawrence is quite a good example of the consequense what did happen after a non-military location is (in game terms) burned down. In game terms a single Bushwacker unit pillages a town in Kansas. All Union goes bananas (and some quite drastic measures are taken), Confederates officially renounce Quantrill's actions after England and France protested, and Quantrill lost the control of his men. The only thing of this we would see in the game would be the last one, ie Bushwackers disappear after a while, but no protest from England or France, no Union in uproar. And notice, the raid did happen in August 1863, not April-May 61 when the shock effect on the public would have been manyfold. In my opinion, and I would be bold enough to claim that was the opinion of the people back then, CSA troops (even troops who officially didn't belong to the CSA chain of command :) ) did have all the right for the incursions after 1st Bull Run and arguably already after the Massacre of St Louis.




When I'll see how Gray have decided to handle the invasion to Kentucky, I'll again try to claw my way into modding :) I'll try to see if it is possible to add more such units that allow invasions. "Invade North in Trans-Mississippi", "Invade North in West", "Invade North in East" for CSA, and conversely "Invade South in Trans-Mississippi", "Invade South in West", "Invade South in East" for USA :) Would still leave Missouri, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware (maybe even add Virginia to that list) open for operations from day 1, but perhaps slightly stem some of the ahistoric operations (my pet peeves, ie the cavalry raids behind the lines and oceanic fleets used to nuke the coastal forts to dust) strategies available at start :)
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm

you're just forgetting Kansas was in trouble since the mid 1850 and Quantrill was a product of this situation. And any international reactions didn't prohibited the war to degenerate badly in Missouri after 1863, with other massacres. But in any case:

- it wasn't genocide as you said
- other cavalry raids weren't as murderous on civils
- cavalry raids were technically possible in 1861.

To sum up, you're wrong.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Jarkko
Colonel
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Finland

Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:26 pm

Clovis wrote:To sum up, you're wrong.

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.
There are three kinds of people: Those who can can count and those who can't.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:41 pm

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.


Pure speculation as never the chance of a foreign reconnaissance of the Confederacy were sio high than during the Lee's invasion of the maryland in 1862 before Antetiam...
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

Return to “General discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests