AGEOD Forums

Non-activated commanders cannot move, nor can the units with them. This setting can be made in the Options/Game menu.

A quick question: has anyone tried a full campaign game with this game setting in place? Would this not be more historical given the 2-week time frame?

Various games I have played see the US far more active than was historically the case. The penalty for non-activations seems rather low, especially in winter. Given the disparity of quality between the Union and Confederate pool of generals, especially in the first two years of the war, this seems to be a real benefit for the north serving to blunt the south's advantage somewhat. I'd be interested in hearing views on that.

That's how I play the AI as the Union all the time now. I have to make it as hard as I can 'cuz I have done poorly against people. I'm still in training.

That would come down to a Union sitting around untill a second army commander with considerable strat rating pops up. Because you don't only need to consider what is immobile now but also what MIGHT be immobile next turn, thus making campaigns over several turns too unpredictable.
And talking about historical, the Union army DID move. Just not in the right direction ^^

Citizen X wrote:That would come down to a Union sitting around untill a second army commander with considerable strat rating pops up. Because you don't only need to consider what is immobile now but also what MIGHT be immobile next turn, thus making campaigns over several turns too unpredictable.
And talking about historical, the Union army DID move. Just not in the right direction ^^

Perhaps apply this just in winter months...
Ideally, it would be great if you could select on separate movement penalty % for non-activated leaders for either side in Game Options.

Stauffenberg wrote:Perhaps apply this just in winter months...
Ideally, it would be great if you could select on separate movement penalty % for non-activated leaders for either side in Game Options.

That's supposed to be what the strategic rating represents during "normal" play. I've never tried the harsh activation setting.

The problem is, generals never refused to move when they were behind enemy lines or anything. Rosecrans might sit for months waiting for the perfect moment in Tennessee, but he stayed active once he finally got going.

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:That's supposed to be what the strategic rating represents during "normal" play. I've never tried the harsh activation setting.

The problem is, generals never refused to move when they were behind enemy lines or anything. Rosecrans might sit for months waiting for the perfect moment in Tennessee, but he stayed active once he finally got going.

Yes you would need the equivalent of some sort of "desperation breakout" override. This might be used sparingly perhaps--early part of the war only, or winter turns only etc.

I'm playing the CSA from April against Athena and actually, so far quite a few of the CSA 3-1-1 leader stacks are getting activated; or at least it doesnt look like they are getting pinned for more than 2+ turns at a time too much.

There was an emergency activation (don't know about 1.16). If you units are taking supply hits, then your general is forced to be active.

I had posted about this a while back, and I will never play with the hard activation rules because of what has been stated here/there. You can have an entire army wiped out due to being locked (if they don't unlock in time to escape - which happens in winter).

As I recall, there were 3 activation levels:
Active
Inactive
Inactive-Locked

I've played PBEM with this setting as US. It is a totally different game. Such setting does force a more cautious/slower/duller game in the beginning which may be called "more historic".
But as Jim-NC has noted in his posts frustrating situations happens now and then when your forces lock down in the middle of nowhere. Or even worse - the main army locks down in, say, Manassas and doesn't even flinch when isolated corps in Alexandria are decimated by the whole CSA army (no MTSG while locked), which then is free to go for Washington if it so desires in the next turn - and you are still fully locked down... And these situations doesn't look more historical at all.

That would come down to a Union sitting around untill a second army commander with considerable strat rating pops up. Because you don't only need to consider what is immobile now but also what MIGHT be immobile next turn, thus making campaigns over several turns too unpredictable.

US still may be very active in '61 with Lyons, Hooker and Grant in command of independent divisions (and then corps after promotion in '62).

Anyway my PBEM experience with high activation setting was quite interesting, I don't mind if my opponent wishes to try it. But in my personal opinion middle activation setting is working good enough - inactive forces move slower, get huge penalties in combat in enemy territories. For me those are reasons enough not to advance with inactive generals.

It was a good idea that was, as so many other features in the game, not properly tested. Another problem starts once corps structure is activated. You can have a portion of your army active while the other is not. I just never found this feature to be historical nor much fun.

I only play with full activation. It really makes the game more realistic and historical IMHO. My current AAR is with full activation and it is 1865 and still working fine! The actual war took 4+ years to end. I think some players want a quick 1 year war and win. I prefer the slow march though. I just read all the comments above though and it seems I'm in the minority. I don't think Mortar in my PBEM game has lost any forces to being locked and starved, nor have I. To each their own, I suppose.

Charles

Stauffenberg wrote:Non-activated commanders cannot move, nor can the units with them. This setting can be made in the Options/Game menu.

A quick question: has anyone tried a full campaign game with this game setting in place? Would this not be more historical given the 2-week time frame?

Various games I have played see the US far more active than was historically the case. The penalty for non-activations seems rather low, especially in winter. Given the disparity of quality between the Union and Confederate pool of generals, especially in the first two years of the war, this seems to be a real benefit for the north serving to blunt the south's advantage somewhat. I'd be interested in hearing views on that.

I don't know if you're actually in the minority or not, but I agree with you at least. Gimme a nice long, hard fought war.

charlesonmission wrote:I only play with full activation. It really makes the game more realistic and historical IMHO. My current AAR is with full activation and it is 1865 and still working fine! The actual war took 4+ years to end. I think some players want a quick 1 year war and win. I prefer the slow march though. I just read all the comments above though and it seems I'm in the minority. I don't think Mortar in my PBEM game has lost any forces to being locked and starved, nor have I. To each their own, I suppose.

Charles

This is what I thought I might hear more of, but most seem to prefer to avoid it because of a few extreme situations they cite. However, whatever bad situation you get with some general doing nothing, is sure to be offset by the fact that the other side is just as liable to get the same, and it is a long war as Charles points out.

Most of all I was inclined to argue it historically. There were numerous situations where a particular general on either side "inexplicably" failed to move, or react at all (even the talented Jackson in the Peninsula campaign). These aren't monthly or bi-monthly turns afterall, it's 2 weeks.

What caught my eye in the first few pbems I have played as the CSA was the extraordinary amount of initiative evident in union forces in 1861 and '62... as opposed to the historical. Union generals may be almost entirely 3-1-1s, but because they can move each and every turn (albeit with the MF % penalty), a resourceful union player will start hitting you everywhere with everything knowing he can move everything, every turn. In chess terms it's a sort of "pawn storm" strategy. Why not? It's what you would expect a good player to take advantage of. As a Russian general said in WWII: "Quantity has a quality all its own."

I wonder if a future patch (looks like this will miss the recent one) might include a sliding scale of % penalties. For myself I would be inclined to see winter turns with full activation and double the MF penalty for inexperienced 3-1-1 generals otherwise.

Stauffenberg wrote:<snip>
I wonder if a future patch (looks like this will miss the recent one) might include a sliding scale of % penalties. For myself I would be inclined to see winter turns with full activation and double the MF penalty for inexperienced 3-1-1 generals otherwise.

Probably only in a brand-spanking-new AGE game, and only as a "side effect" in any updates for the "Elder Games". Developer time is the constraint.

Somewhere around here is an explanation of the probability formula of "Locking" for a leader who is inactive...

..IIRC, it has to do with the level of MC in the region....

If someone can find it for me, I'll add it to the Wiki for posterity!

lodilefty wrote:Probably only in a brand-spanking-new AGE game, and only as a "side effect" in any updates for the "Elder Games". Developer time is the constraint.

...and I am sure there are more critical issues than this. It's nothing that player preferences can't solve, as is, anyway thanks.

I still want the submarines though.

Haven't really been following this so apologies for its going over my head.

Aren't submarines in the ACW single use weapons (you attack with them and they sink whether they damage the target or not)?

Was it more or less expensive to build an experimental submarine as opposed to say, an ironclad reinforced with bales of cotton?

Philippe wrote:Aren't submarines in the ACW single use weapons (you attack with them and they sink whether they damage the target or not)?

If they are actual units in ACW I have not come across them yet myself. The other discussion was about them as event hits to avoid the issue of having them move all over the map etc. In that sense they would function more as mines.

Sorry, should have been clearer.

Whenever I use the abbreviation ACW I mean the real historical thing (the one in the 19th century where people got hurt).

When I use AACW I mean Ageod's ACW game.

So no, I wouldn't expect you to have seen submarines in the game.

As for in-game submarines acting more as mines, I can't help but remember that that is what the word 'torpedo' actually meant back then.

This came up recently on another thread and it was concerning the CSS Hunley the first sub to actually sink an enemy ship in history (after many previous mishaps). There was also the union sub Alligator that sunk being towed to Charleston, which was the first I had heard of it. I thought it would be some great chrome to have a sub research build costing supplies and a conscript, that arrives over large variable time--one use and removed as you say.

As you say, great chrome that would be entertaining to see in the game.

But probably not as a unit. The idea of a die-roll determing whether it damages anything in its target harbour would probably be the way to go. As for how much it would cost and how long or likely it would be to develop it, I have no idea since I don't know the game well enough to know what would be appropriate.

Another possibility would be to have it show up as an event that has little or no effect on the game, but that when you click on it you see the famous photograph and get to read a short paragraph describing what the Hunley attempted to do. This would add flavor and color, and wouldn't run the risk of diverting resources for chrome.

If it's going to cost something there should probably be a slight chance that you could get two uses out of it (or something like that) to give the Southern player a gambling incentive to divert resources.

Is the possibility of mounting the Dahlgren cavalry raid on Richmond late in the war modeled in the game? That would be another intriguing chrome event.

The Hunley and mines were talked about quite a bit in this thread.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23119

According to the AACW coordinator, the Hunley already shows up in a message.

Charles

Philippe wrote:As you say, great chrome that would be entertaining to see in the game.

But probably not as a unit. The idea of a die-roll determing whether it damages anything in its target harbour would probably be the way to go. As for how much it would cost and how long or likely it would be to develop it, I have no idea since I don't know the game well enough to know what would be appropriate.

Another possibility would be to have it show up as an event that has little or no effect on the game, but that when you click on it you see the famous photograph and get to read a short paragraph describing what the Hunley attempted to do. This would add flavor and color, and wouldn't run the risk of diverting resources for chrome.

If it's going to cost something there should probably be a slight chance that you could get two uses out of it (or something like that) to give the Southern player a gambling incentive to divert resources.

Is the possibility of mounting the Dahlgren cavalry raid on Richmond late in the war modeled in the game? That would be another intriguing chrome event.

Very well said Stauffenberg.

By the way, I'm playing my first PBEM game as the Union (first Union at all actually) against greenalien. We are using full activation; and it is impacting the Union just the way I would expect. I don't think there are that many game problems with full activation. Basically, in AACW2, I would say there are more interesting things to expand on before really changing this up.

Charles

Stauffenberg wrote:This is what I thought I might hear more of, but most seem to prefer to avoid it because of a few extreme situations they cite. However, whatever bad situation you get with some general doing nothing, is sure to be offset by the fact that the other side is just as liable to get the same, and it is a long war as Charles points out.

Most of all I was inclined to argue it historically. There were numerous situations where a particular general on either side "inexplicably" failed to move, or react at all (even the talented Jackson in the Peninsula campaign). These aren't monthly or bi-monthly turns afterall, it's 2 weeks.

What caught my eye in the first few pbems I have played as the CSA was the extraordinary amount of initiative evident in union forces in 1861 and '62... as opposed to the historical. Union generals may be almost entirely 3-1-1s, but because they can move each and every turn (albeit with the MF % penalty), a resourceful union player will start hitting you everywhere with everything knowing he can move everything, every turn. In chess terms it's a sort of "pawn storm" strategy. Why not? It's what you would expect a good player to take advantage of. As a Russian general said in WWII: "Quantity has a quality all its own."

I wonder if a future patch (looks like this will miss the recent one) might include a sliding scale of % penalties. For myself I would be inclined to see winter turns with full activation and double the MF penalty for inexperienced 3-1-1 generals otherwise.

Oldman wrote:I've played PBEM with this setting as US. It is a totally different game. Such setting does force a more cautious/slower/duller game in the beginning which may be called "more historic".
But as Jim-NC has noted in his posts frustrating situations happens now and then when your forces lock down in the middle of nowhere. Or even worse - the main army locks down in, say, Manassas and doesn't even flinch when isolated corps in Alexandria are decimated by the whole CSA army (no MTSG while locked), which then is free to go for Washington if it so desires in the next turn - and you are still fully locked down... And these situations doesn't look more historical at all.

I'll have to wait until I can test how much of an issue no MTSG for inactive Corps will be, but this is not something you can 100% count on in any case (the greater the distance and lower the Strat of the general, the less likely it is to occur basically). Full activation would add realistic uncertainties... for both sides.

In my own test against the AI with full activation it does make for a slower game at first but it feels much more realistic. The north is not going to have the luxury of pushing numerous stacks forward turn after turn along a multitude of axis--at least not so early in the war. He still can of course, but with the attendant risk of getting seriously pinned deep in enemy territory.

Even with a talented general in command the effects here are so-far good in my test game. Kirby Smith with 13,000 troops has managed to invest St/ Louis in early December '61, having cut all RR to the east (with cavalry led by CSA generals as per deep raiding house rules used). The confederate force with 3 supply wagons has launched one assault and been rebuffed, and with 3-1+ odds would like to launch more and either take the place or retreat before the inevitable arrival of strong US forces. But activation is up for grabs: so far the CSA force is totally locked 1 in 3 turns, and able to assault every second turn on average (this could improve as A.S. Johnston and an army HQ are setting up with Smith for next turn).

Lyon's unionist forces out in the MO hinterland are in the same situation and their march towards St Louis from Springfield (which Athena just captured from S. Watie's command--essentially a cavalry division of his Cherokee troops, MO cavalry and some horse artillery) has obviously run into CC snags and stalled near Rolla last turn. All in all it adds some really nice uncertainty and drama for both sides, as opposed to knowing in advance that everything can move, every turn, albeit with penalties.

I'll post more results from my game against the AI now and then.