Future options?

[CWNut77]

Wondering if the following features will be included in a future patch. My apologies if these have been brought up before...

1) Will forces have the option to surrender, particularly during a siege? Some incorporation of surrender terms would be sweet, though I am not sure if the AI would understand this. Currently it is frustrating (and demoralizing) to watch an army under siege waste away to the last man, if the besieger does not assault the besieged locale.

2) Why don't leaders die often? In the actual war many great generals (and not so great generals) were lost easily, so why is it so rare in the game? Some incorporation of this element, without going overboard, would be lovely.

3) To a lesser extent (and maybe it's just from my limited experience so far) I have noticed that naval losses (as in whole ships sunk) are more rare than they should be as well. Any hope of balancing this out in the future?

But I digress all the same -- these are NOT complaints, merely suggestions to improve historical accuracy, which is what we all, as gamers and developers alike, are striving for here

[Pocus]

Hi,

Feedback is always welcome (even if our plate and the neighbor's one, are quite full ).

1- Such a feature is being developed for WIA. I think you can have it added to ACW within some months.
2- This is mostly to protect the game from derailing if a 3* general get killed early. The AI would not be able to cope with that as well as the player what's more. Nothing prevent you from upping the chances by modding (just a little edit in a text file).
3- This can be true, but veterans players and testers should confirm and propose something if the data have to be tweaked.

[CWNut77]

Thanks Pocus -- I must confess to being a scrub in the programming world though. Please elaborate as to how the AI would "derail" if a leader got killed?

[arsan]

I think he means that if an AI 3* leader at the head of an army is killed on battle by an unlucky roll the Army would be dissolved, all the corps will revert to standard stacks (huge command penalties) and the AI could take some time to understand what happened and send an appropriate new 3* leader there, reform the army and attach the corps again.
Regards

PS very nice news about WIA and surrenders.
I always miss more prisoners an less deaths on the battle reports, specially when a side is completely destroyed. It makes you think of mass murdering

[GShock]

Well i can answer to 2 and 3 and i do agree on 1 and happy to see something will come in the future...but troops do surrender sometimes, just it takes them long enough to understand they've got no chance because no relief is coming.

As of 2, while generals died 15% more than privates (in average ratio) the AI, especially early in the game would be unable to cope with naming a new army commander or corps commander due to the lack of high ranking generals and of a presidential promotion feature. Imagine AS Johnston killed for CSA, you would have TN at your mercy in a snuff.

3...CSA is very weak naval-wise. Combat takes place in the coastal areas when ships meet and patrol/evasion values are the key here. When you look at the shipping and blockade boxes, consider those 3 boxes the entire Atlantic Ocean. I've sunk and been sunk often in coastal and personally think the 3 boxes combat/sink ratio is accurate but that's my opinion

[Brochgale]

I had AS Johstone wounded in one game and the entire Army of the Tennessee massacred - the Relevant Army HQ was lost in that battle so it meant recruiting a new HQ which is not fast to build. So AI i suspect could not just replace a 3 star general to head up an army - it would I assume have to repace the HQ unit as well and AI might not do it unless she perceived an immediate threat?

Would I be correct in this assumption. Is it something the present Athena could deal with or would it fry her circuits and scramble her programming?

[runyan99]

As for leader casualties, I'd like to point out that the code still protects leaders attached to a unit from being killed, due to the bug that will remove the whole unit. This means that division commanders, corps commanders (in my experience) and any general brigaded to a unit are immune from loss. Only loose unattached leaders can be lost.

I'd eventually like to see this improved so that division commanders and corps commanders are at risk.

[Brochgale]

As for leader casualties, I'd like to point out that the code still protects leaders attached to a unit from being killed, due to the bug that will remove the whole unit. This means that division commanders, corps commanders (in my experience) and any general brigaded to a unit are immune from loss. Only loose unattached leaders can be lost.

I'd eventually like to see this improved so that division commanders and corps commanders are at risk.

In game I refered to earlier Johstone was only wounded and Polk the Corps commnader was also wounded and 3 divisional generals wounded - Hardees Corps only survived I suspect because they did not march to sound of guns, being several regions away at time.

All units associated with Johstone, Polk and the wounded divisional generals were lost. Cant remember what patch I was playing that time.

I had Whiting wounded and his entire division, 10,000 men shattered and that was patch 1:10c. The patch I am presentl using to play a human v human game agaist my nephew.

[runyan99]

Wounded is a game mechaninc which only happens when the entire unit the leader is with is wiped out. It is a fudge to keep leaders in the game, versus losing them.

Wounded leaders is different from killed leaders. Killed leaders is supposed to be a random chance.