Would Grant have gotten promoted after Vicksburg in AACW?

[Captain_Orso]

I've asked this question once many moons ago, but never got a reply, so I'll take a second shot at it.

I besieged a CSA corp under the command to T.J.Jackson until they surrendered. I gained 1NM and some VPs (and the color message of so-and-so many rifles, etc.), but the **General in command of my corp didn't get suggested for promotion even though he was promotable.

My question is, is getting suggested for promotion something that ever happens due to winning a siege, or was it just chance that my corp commander didn't get suggested?

On a side question, Jackson and all the other generals with him at the time of surrender were removed from the game (IIRC I hot-seated temporarily to check their status and they were not to be found in the unit roster) and there was no message on either side to their being killed or captured. Is this WAD?

[Philippe]

Out of curiosity, what patch version were you using?

Things that were amiss several versions back may no longer be an issue.

[Captain_Orso]

Umm .. eh .. I don't know anymore?

Unfortunately I don't have any saves of that game.

My original question was posted on the 22-July-2010.

Looking into my inventory of patches I see that
1.16b2 is dated 8-Jun-2010,
1.16b3 - 25-Jun-2010,
1.16b4 - 3-Jul-2010 and
1.16b5 on 22-Jul-2010.

Those are the dates that I downloaded them, which was probably pretty close to their release dates.

I know that I have been playing practically only the betas since over a year, so it would be probable that the game in question was played on 1.16b4.

[lodilefty]

Umm .. eh .. I don't know anymore?

Unfortunately I don't have any saves of that game.

My original question was posted on the 22-July-2010.

Looking into my inventory of patches I see that
1.16b2 is dated 8-Jun-2010,
1.16b3 - 25-Jun-2010,
1.16b4 - 3-Jul-2010 and
1.16b5 on 22-Jul-2010.

Those are the dates that I downloaded them, which was probably pretty close to their release dates.

I know that I have been playing practically only the betas since over a year, so it would be probable that the game in question was played on 1.16b4.

I strongly suggest:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=220939&postcount=1

I have no desire to try to debug a long obsoleted beta version

[Captain_Orso]

Agreed, though the first question is, what should be occurring. If my description sounds like withing the normal parameters of the game, I'll just chalk it up to a learning experience. If not, I'll download the latest beta and create a small scenario and test this a few times to see what outcomes I get.

I'd not like to send you out to .. well you know what I mean

[Jim-NC]

Cute horse.

I don't believe that a general will get promoted for winning a siege. The game handles it as if there was no combat (during/at the conclusion of the siege). So no combat, no chance for promotion.

It's one of the quirks of the game, if a 1 element unit surrenders, you get 1 NM, if an army surrenders you get 1 NM (maybe 2). Usually, destroying a corps/army stack nets 6-10 NM during a battle, while destroying a 1 element unit gets you ZERO. But capturing them (the corps/army) gets a small pittance. I don't think the game takes into account the size of the force surrendering, but just that it happened.

[Captain_Orso]

Hi Jim, thanks for the reply

That could explain why I only got 1NM even though I captured an entire corp


I guess I have a suggestion for AACW2

[Captain_Orso]

Okie-dokie, I've tested this now in 1.15 and 1.16rc5. In both revisions it is the same.

If you capture a stack you get 1NM regardless of it's size, be it one brigade with 3 regiments or 2 18 element division.

The number of VPs you get is relative to the size of the force surrendering, so a division brings about 70 VPs.

All the generals who surrender are removed from the game without any notification of their loss to either side.

You also do not get any captured equipment from the surrendering side.

I also tested what it looks like if you wait until the defender had run out of supply and then attack. The problem in a real game is that there is no way to tell exactly when that is. It depends on how much supply they are carrying (supply trains) and the amount of supply in the location where they are (depot, city with supply).

If you catch them right at the edge (not difficult when you are playing both sides by hot-seating :w00t you can expect to get 1NM for each actual counter being destroyed. So if a defending division is made up of 4 brigades and commanded by 2 generals, if you actually kill both generals and destroy all the brigades you get 6NM and can expect a number of your generals to get a sizable boost to their seniority which if it pushes them to more than 4 above their original seniority will allow them to be promoted.

A number of times when actually attacking I also captured a battery of artillery, decimated to about 50% their original strength though.

What I find a bit unrealistic is that you get absolutely no equipment from the surrendering side. This is just my un-expert opinion. But thinking about Donelson and Vicksburg where 48 and 172 artillery pieces were surrendered respectively, it seems an oversight that in-game nothing is to be had from the surrendering side.

[Jim-NC]

Unfortunately, I believe this is a game engine design limitation (I hope not).

We can always hope for this to change in AACW 2.

[Captain_Orso]

Well it's certainly not a game-breaker. In about the 20 games I've played from start to finish, I've only done this once, and that was just to see what would happen.

I don't have the patience to sit around and wait long enough for a siege to succeed when the game is progressing. I don't go in for an attack unless I have good odds from the start, so if the structure in which my target is holed up has been breached and my force is in good condition I just assault.

The results the time I did wait it were just so irritating. Plus I didn't want to risk one of my decent corp commands assaulting Jackson as IIRC that was the game in which Meade as commander of my best army in the east was killed while assaulting one of the old coastal forts with just the standard garrison allocated at game-start. I could just see ol' Stonewall smashing into my flank while my troops moved forward and then skedaddling and leaving me with a bloody mess of a wrecked corp with a dead corp commander oke:

[lodilefty]

Next update will have Siege parameters that should shorten sieges somewhat (will need a lot of gameplay to fine tune the values).

Any element destroyed gives VP. If they surrender to a siege, IIRC the VP are reduced. If they "self-destruct" VP are reduced.

I have a vague memory that some WS are awarded when you destroy a unit. Maybe it was a lump of gruel...

Capture possibility is set in the Model (element detail). Ranges from 5% gor Horse Artillery up to 50% for Fort or Coastal arty (generally higher % for "heavier" guns). Gunboats, Transports, River Transports and Bateaux have 10-20% capture probability.

Of note is that Columbiad (CSA) and Rodman (USA) are set at 12% capture, same as 6lb, 10lb and 20lb Field arty.... Aren't Columbiads and Rodmans BFF (Big Fat Fellas)??? Experts to the fore, should we raise capture % on these BFF's??

[Citizen X]

Of note is that Columbiad (CSA) and Rodman (USA) are set at 12% capture, same as 6lb, 10lb and 20lb Field arty.... Aren't Columbiads and Rodmans BFF (Big Fat Fellas)??? Experts to the fore, should we raise capture % on these BFF's??

Certainly. After all they move at 70% pace.

[squarian]

Aren't Columbiads and Rodmans BFF (Big Fat Fellas)??? Experts to the fore, should we raise capture % on these BFF's??

I'd be happy to see it raised - it's not entirely clear what these types represent (not real Columbiads, apparently) but whatever they are, they are big and should certainly not be as hard to bag as a 6-pdr.

[Captain_Orso]

Actually it was Columbiads that I captured. At least the unit says that. They were also the only independent batteries the CSA had. All the other were those integrated into brigades and were 6pounders. The strange thing is that the medium artillery that I put in with the CSA were 10pound Parrots and not Columbiads. I have no idea what that should mean

I think that one of the things that could make besieging also take rather long sometimes is that you have to literally cordon off the entire area to prevent any supply from coming in at all. And if the city that is besieged has a harbor that too has to be blockaded. But the larger the force that is bottled up is, the faster it goes through supply and the quicker it's ready to surrender.

Basically just about every time I've taken Richmond that's how I did it, just not with besieging; just by starving them out As a Russian general during WWII once said, "a huge quantity has it's own quality".

[charlesonmission]

Jim, I would assume it's a game engine design limiation, otherwise it would have already been modified by now..... one would assume. Basically, I think one sort of has to play around the game enginge a bit. If you want to get promoted, be prepared to attack. Who knows, AACW2 could work this out though.

Charles

Unfortunately, I believe this is a game engine design limitation (I hope not).

We can always hope for this to change in AACW 2.

[Longshanks]

Of note is that Columbiad (CSA) and Rodman (USA) are set at 12% capture, same as 6lb, 10lb and 20lb Field arty.... Aren't Columbiads and Rodmans BFF (Big Fat Fellas)??? Experts to the fore, should we raise capture % on these BFF's??

Not so sure... wouldn't those be #1 with a bullet on the "spike these guns first" chart?

[squarian]

If there were such a list, I'd certainly think the "Columbiads" and "Rodmans" (whatever they actually are - is there any reason not to rename these models "Whitworths" or "Armstrongs"?) would rank high on it.

But all artillerymen are expected and required, in the last resort, to attempt to destroy their gun rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the enemy. And presumably the average crew of a 6-pdr would be just about as effective at spiking their gun as the crew of a "Rodman". So it seems to me that the relative value of the gun to it's possessor and therefore that possessor's willingness to see it spiked rather than fall into enemy hands is pretty much a wash. The capture chance should probably have more to do with the piece's ability to evade capture (it's speed and agility), and in that case these large/powerful guns (whatever they actually are) should probably be easier to capture than lighter pieces.

[charlesonmission]

Armstrongs were not manufactured in the US, but came from England in very small numbers; only a few I believe. Whiteworth cannon were field pieces, also English, which were breech loading. Both Rodmans and Columbiads were primarily used for seascoast fortifications.

Basically, Armstrongs shouldn't be allowed to be built, and Whiteworth cannon, the same rule should apply. These cannon are quite different than the columbiads and rodmans and were imported from England.

http://www.civilwaracademy.com/whitworth.html

http://www.cannonsuperstore.com/armstrong.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodman_cannon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbiad


I don't think columbiads and rodman should be renamed, but in AACW 2, coastal artillery could be replaced by columbiads and rodmans (with limiations on firing on troops). It might be an idea to buy Armstrong and Whiteworth cannon in very limited numbers (CSA only).

If we all get our way, AACW2 would be one of the most complex, yet, accurate war games ever designed.

Charles

If there were such a list, I'd certainly think the "Columbiads" and "Rodmans" (whatever they actually are - is there any reason not to rename these models "Whitworths" or "Armstrongs"?) would rank high on it.

But all artillerymen are expected and required, in the last resort, to attempt to destroy their gun rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the enemy. And presumably the average crew of a 6-pdr would be just about as effective at spiking their gun as the crew of a "Rodman". So it seems to me that the relative value of the gun to it's possessor and therefore that possessor's willingness to see it spiked rather than fall into enemy hands is pretty much a wash. The capture chance should probably have more to do with the piece's ability to evade capture (it's speed and agility), and in that case these large/powerful guns (whatever they actually are) should probably be easier to capture than lighter pieces.

[squarian]

Armstrongs and Whitworths were indeed British-made rifled breech-loading guns (RBL), and neither were manufactured in the Americas.

The problem at the moment is that we have two models which function as heavy field arty but which are named for pieces, Columbiads and Rodmans, which were emplaced fortress and coastal guns. That is to say, these models function in-game nothing like their real-life namesakes.

I suggest renaming them after these two British-made RBLs simply because the increased rate of fire of an RBL would justify the models' higher stats, and because the Armstrong and Whitworth guns were actual field guns in existence at the time. The Armstrong was hardly used in the ACW at all and would therefore be something of a counter-factual option (like, say, lots of Gatlings). The Whitworth, on the other hand, was used in numbers large enough to be included in the game.

"Constructing" them needn't be taken absolutely literally - one might imagine that if a player "constructed" an Armstrong bty, he in fact is arranging in the UK for purchase and delivery to a particular location, where they will be joined by their crews for training.

Alternatively one might simply eliminate the Columbiad and Rodman models from the game entirely on the grounds that "Coastal guns" actually represent the Columbiad and Rodman pieces.

A last point: since this question pertains only to model definition, it isn't something which necessarily needs to wait for AACW2 - it could easily be done as a mod to the present game.