New patches / questionable game balance changes

[Pocus]

There is the possibility to accommodate both sides I believe. We are discussing the matter within the team. Clearly some of you just want bug fixes (and possibly only minor edits for the rest) while others are eager to have the game constantly polished even with new major features, concepts and changes in OOB, events etc.

[Franciscus]

There is the possibility to accommodate both sides I believe. We are discussing the matter within the team. Clearly some of you just want bug fixes (and possibly only minor edits for the rest) while others are eager to have the game constantly polished even with new major features, concepts and changes in OOB, events etc.

Irrespectively of what comes of this (and again, I am one that likes new things in AACW ), I must say this kind of answer is a reflection of the reasons why I (and others, I am sure), have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for you, Pocus, as a game developer.

[Maqver]

There is the possibility to accommodate both sides I believe. We are discussing the matter within the team. Clearly some of you just want bug fixes (and possibly only minor edits for the rest) while others are eager to have the game constantly polished even with new major features, concepts and changes in OOB, events etc.

Ditto to Franciscus's post. It's a great game.

Despite my concerns about the Threaten Richmond in 62 event, I hope you all can pull it off. I am one that wants to see the game polished and improved with major features. You learn things as you go and not to take initiative on the learnings would be a mistake.

One of those learnings was that if the Union player wants he can sit on his arse in the East, drink lemonade and watch the Potomac meander. The idea to get them to do something is a good one. It's the art of the possible as well was all I was saying. What can make it work? Temporary activation? Penalties for a too aggressive Southern posture? They were suggestions in the spirit of actually wanting to see it done.

In a current PBEM I have had an eye toward "what would happen if I received the order to march on Richmond?" The southern player wisely committed strongly to taking Monroe and by attacking aggressively in Penn and West Virginia and Alexandria...often. It is a wise strategy to force the Union player back into the Alexandria/Frederick corridor to make sure Washington is defended. In the early game most (not all) of the initiative is theirs. It's early 62 and it would be a tricky thing to pull off but to do so would almost be considered gamey and probably not in the spirit of what was intended. (Additionally cavalry patrols have reported another large force near Fredricksburg just waiting for any one to visit :neener

Anyway, I hope you continue to make great improvements and thanks for all your good work.

[TheDoctorKing]

For example in the april 61 campaign the csa loves to attack early on an undefended cairo - invading illinois a northern state. Southern public opinion did not support at all invading the north - so why not have a 20 NM point loss to the csa for such a move ??

I argued for this some time ago and got the answer essentially that there weren't going to be any penalties for the CSA invading the north so be quiet. Nobody explained why this was; I assume it is because people like to play the CSA and enjoy being able to invade the north at will. It makes the game a more marketable product, which is, of course, the point. If people don't buy the games then we don't get any more of them, which would be a bad outcome.

Of course, it would be nicer if this could be made explicit, rather than hearing a lot of posturing about "sandbox" games produced by other companies and how they produce ahistorical results and of course ours are better...better, yes, but there are always compromises to be made.

[Big Ideas]

My thoughts on the Move on Richmond Event (and I have only played the CSA- so I might have things muddled).
If you change the McClellan counter so that it starts in Washington DC in April 61 but is locked until July 61. He has two stars and stats 1/1/2. He auto-promotes to three star as per the McClellan Commander Event but has 4-2-2 stats and unlocks. This allows a good chance to activate. End of Sept 61 auto-promotes to four stars and he returns to 1/1/2. While three stars increase his weight to 1000 so he can't rail/boat out. A small dependable window for the USA opens to attack during the Move on Richmond Event only.

BI

[jazman]

Franciscus:

In reference to the Leader MOD: Well over a year ago, I personally wanted to help "officialize" that work into the vanilla database files. Unfortunately, in my eagerness to provide transparency to the update process, I thought it would be a good idea to post about it ahead of time. That was a big mistake at the time because a perfectly great MOD, was quite literally trashed by just a few individuals and the discussion thread turned into a borderline flamewar. Changing the Leader stats became a taboo subject to discuss, and the officialization was never again pursued. I should have learned my lesson at that time about the necessity to just do the update/enhancement work and release it, then discuss it. At least, the work would have been implemented and then could have been edited for any inaccuracies after the fact.

Why not just slip that fine leader mod in now, unannounced? Just make Joe Johnston's strategic rating "3" and the opponents will never notice.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Injun]

The new requirement will make things 'interesting' to say the least. My only unease which is why I will not wipe my 1.12a installation is that there is an automatic assumption that all the Union player has to do is to 'move' troops into specific regions. Sounds easy on paper and kind of assumes that the CSA player is just going to let it happen.

My real unease about it is that you get no credit for ATTEMPTING to fulfill the conditions. You either win or lose. So the upshot may well be that the Union player is not only forced into taking potentially heavy battle losses but then getting hit again with a big NM loss. In which case, rather as happens most of the time with the 61 NM event the Union player may just decide to take the hit thereby defeating the aim of the change.

One point that has been already made many times in both this thead and others that is undeniably true is that an attempted move on Richmond by the Union is not aided by the 'activation rule'.

It would be nice in both 61 and 62 if there were at least a window where say Lincoln issued an order that AUTOMATICALLY caused the Union high command within a certain range of Washington to be activated for say 6 weeks

As for historical accuracy I would as well respectfully point out that in the Penninsula campaign of 62 the CSA lost more troops than the Union and some like Jackson performed badly. Now with the absolute odd exception those two things are not going to happen in game for with probably unactivated generals in enemy territory attempting to advance is not just going to be expensive as regards losses it becomes probably suicidal.

There is aan in game solution: People normally set the activations rule to level 2 for the period turn the activation back to 1 where move and combatis not penalized and back on after the required period.

[Injun]

Yes, this is obnoxious. Here's why, First off, I acknowledged this the first time you brought it up and have even used some of your suggestions but there are literally dozens of generals incorrectly placed within the game at the moment. For each of these to be spawned correctly requires research as to where they appeared historically. After determining that bit of information, then the event has to be written that places them. Each event has to be carefully laid out such that the newly spawned general not only appears in the correct location, but also appears in any one of the 5 or 6 Campaign scenarios at the proper time if necesary. After that, the event has to be tested in all of the affected scenarios to be sure that the leader does in fact appear. Each one of these events and testing takes at least a day's time for me. I've done several lately as I've worked with other items, but I'm not going to freeze all work to spend the next 2 months or more relocating generals and testing the events before placing them into the "official" game files, especially when they are currently already placed in the game albeit in the wrong location. All you have to do is move them to where you wish. Over time, I plan to work in as many of these as I can, but dropping everything for this is out of the question.

Anyone is welcome to write these events and then submit them to me, but be sure to include the historical reference on where they first appeared and also show where you tested the events to ensure that they work properly for all affected scenarios. Only then, will they be placed in the "official" files for the vanilla games.

Lensman,
I would like to to help with this and do some of the research. I have
AGEOD’s American Civil War Manual,"Leader Appearance list" as my starting source. I know this is in accurate, since it is provided with the install of the game. Atleast I hope all of the generals listed are in the game. How accurate is it?
I hope to use a spread sheet to record the info and do the research on line and library to find correct 1st apperances as Generals in ACW, with research source info. Later I hope to use the tools to add them in a Mod with help of this forum.

If my source is wrong and does not include all the generals where do I find acuurrent list? Could a current list be provided to me.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Injun]

I got the down loads. Well Check them out and set up a spread sheet this week.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

Pocus: Not to disappoint!! I am not offended by your analogy. It seems quite appropriate for the point being made. I have my buttocks kicked by Athena so often I am almost ready to propose marraige. t apy: