One feature a day serie: #7 From armies down to regiments

[Pocus]

AACW features the concept of Chain of Command (more details later, as this is one of the major feature of the game). It simply means that the units in the American Civil War were organized more and more efficiently, within a hierarchy. With just an handful of rules, you will be able to manipulate armies, corps and divisions, each providing advantages. You can still detach units to act independently, but this will be less optimal.

Armies HQ are formed around a general. The better he is, the more powerful the bonuses given to attached corps will be.

Corps are attached to specific armies (Army of Northern Virginia, army of the Ohio, etc.). Each one is commanded by a corp commander, and receives bonuses from the parent Army.

Divisions and brigades are the fighting bricks of the corps.

Regiments, artillery batteries and cavalry squadrons are the smallest element of AACW. They are integrated into divisions and brigades, and can't be detached from them. You can still manipulate them indirectly by forming or splitting divisions into brigades.

Samples of the Union Corps available:

[Haplo_Patryn]

Very interesting! I'm looking forward this game very much.

One question. How will the combat be focused in AGEOD:ACW? Like BoA with the combat window or in a different way?.

Thank you!

[Pocus]

I see you coming, no tactical combat if this is the question

The AACW combat window is close to the BOA one, with some more indicators and details.

Remember Sun Tzu who said that a battle is already won or lost before starting (well there is always exceptions, sure!). We don't feel that once the forces are engaged the player should consistently win at 1 against 4 against the AI, and this is what is to be expected if you have total command in a tactical module. A good alternate solution would be something like the War Engine of Take command 2nd Manassas (http://www.madminutegames.com/ ) meeting Panther's Game Conquest of the Agean ( http://www.panthergames.com/ ), but as you can expect, there is years of work to do the things properly, with a competent AI (and this is always our aim...).

Another point to consider, is that the focus of our games is on the operational/strategic scales of a given war, and you already get plenty of things to do at this level, the AACW Grand Campaign being already a big thing. So doubling the time needed to play a given scenario is not really what people want.

[Le Ricain]

Very interesting. However, the badges shown are actually division rather than corps insignia. This may not matter, but if you are going to the next level by displaying the various divisions, there is going to be confusion. The device shape identified the corp and the colour identified the division.

The corp flags tended to have the device in white against a blue background usually with the corp number superimposed. An almost complete list of the corps' insignia can be found at:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/chapter8.htm

The corp's divisions were identified by the colour of the device. The first division was red. The second division was white. The third division was blue. For the few corps that had a fourth division, those divisions were either green (VI and XX corps) or yellow (XV corps). To confuse matters worse, I have found the fourth division of the IX corp displayed in both yellow and green.

As you have already done the hard work of designing the templates, it would be easy enough to have the divisions displayed the same way. For example, the first symbol shown in your post is for the 1st Division - 1st Corp - Army of the Potomac.

[Haplo_Patryn]

Thank you for the answer, Pocus. I like BoA system combat, with an operational combat mode resolution displayed in a combat window. It's ok for me!

See you

[PhilThib]

To comment on the precise info given by Le Ricain, I would say our display of corps badges is indeed a compromise and with some on-purpose errors.

We currently do not plan to display "badges" or any graphical insigna for divisions. It will stay at corps level only. Now, we graphically chose to use some colors (that were, as rightly said, divisional colors) to make things a bit varied and diversified.

Now if you feel this leads to confusion, we may well change all the Union badges with a white device on blue background...coherent but may be a bit "dull"

We have another problem with CSA and other nations (France, GB) corps: they did not have badges... for them, we used their national flags with a corps # indication.

What do you feel is the best choice ?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Now if you feel this leads to confusion, we may well change all the Union badges with a white device on blue background...coherent but may be a bit "dull"

We have another problem with CSA and other nations (France, GB) corps: they did not have badges... for them, we used their national flags with a corps # indication.

What do you feel is the best choice ?

Although it's nice to be historical up to a point, I think what is important in a game is that players can easily see the information they need when playing, without getting confused by irrelevant detail.

For instance: in the real war, the colours of uniforms were not consistent, and there was sometimes genuine confusion on the battlefield because soldiers couldn't tell who was on their own side. I don't think I'd want to reproduce this confusion in a game, no matter how authentic it is. I think displaying information that's significant for game purposes should take priority over displaying historical graphics (though that doesn't mean that all historical graphics should be removed from the game).

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Remember Sun Tzu who said that a battle is already won or lost before starting (well there is always exceptions, sure!). We don't feel that once the forces are engaged the player should consistently win at 1 against 4 against the AI, and this is what is to be expected if you have total command in a tactical module. A good alternate solution would be something like the War Engine of Take command 2nd Manassas (http://www.madminutegames.com/ ) meeting Panther's Game Conquest of the Agean ( http://www.panthergames.com/ ), but as you can expect, there is years of work to do the things properly, with a competent AI (and this is always our aim...).

Another point to consider, is that the focus of our games is on the operational/strategic scales of a given war, and you already get plenty of things to do at this level, the AACW Grand Campaign being already a big thing. So doubling the time needed to play a given scenario is not really what people want.

I agree with this, personally. My interest is in playing strategical games. I have neither the time nor the inclination to play a tactical game at the same time. In playing a game of the whole war, in effect I'm taking the part of the national government. The national government had no part to play in battles.

However, some players do want to play both the strategy and the tactics, and you can expect them to say so...

[Le Ricain]

To comment on the precise info given by Le Ricain, I would say our display of corps badges is indeed a compromise and with some on-purpose errors.

We currently do not plan to display "badges" or any graphical insigna for divisions. It will stay at corps level only. Now, we graphically chose to use some colors (that were, as rightly said, divisional colors) to make things a bit varied and diversified.

Now if you feel this leads to confusion, we may well change all the Union badges with a white device on blue background...coherent but may be a bit "dull"

We have another problem with CSA and other nations (France, GB) corps: they did not have badges... for them, we used their national flags with a corps # indication.

What do you feel is the best choice ?

I think that the confusion comes in only if the game displays the division level using the same symbols as the corps level. As that is not the case, I think that your 'compromise' on the corps' badges is better than going with only white devices on a blue background. I agree that white on blue is more historically correct, but it is also duller.

[dave]

pocus,

will we see actual numbers of troops or will this be represented by 'hits' ?

[Pocus]

we are still using the hit system, but it has been normalized: one infantry hit is 50 men, for cav its 25 and for guns its one gun and 25 crew (somehow, there is always exception, but this is the standard)

for ships most are on an individual scale basis, with many having their historical name.