Some observations, perhaps more applicable to a new AACW, engendered by a current PbeM with Longshanks.
* [On Rivers]
(to LS) This has been a peeve of mine, particularly with the AI. I don't usually grouse about 'stuff', except where I was dead wrong about some movement once recently, but this one needs to be said, and, I didn't think of this beforehand, so it's not a complaint against your play. It is this: there should never be movement allowed across the lower Potomac. The game needs a 'Navigable River: Too Wide" designation. The AI is particularly egregious about this in the Chesapeake, floating a Corps or Army from the 'Tappahannock Peninsula' across to Salisbury, MD, fer cryin' out loud. One should need boats to cross the lower Potomac, Chesapeake Bay, Mobile Bay, the Great Lakes (possibly including St. Clair, except that Region incorporates the Detroit River, for example), Lake Pontchartrain, and some others. As a matter of fact, I'd just as soon see 'AutoRiver' transport canned altogether. A little research on how Morgan crossed the Ohio, etc., wouldn't be amiss. Obviously, the upper Potomac was crossed often, but, to illustrate the real problems, Burnside at Antietam had to use the bridge because, although there were fords downstream not too far away, the banks were too high; he could get infantry across, but not artillery or wagons; so they weren't really fords, as far as he was concerned. Thus, a a smallish creek that could be waded at points was, in effect, nigh impassable and a major obstacle. By extension, the lower Potomac and similar situations should be fuhgeddaboutit. (close email message)
REMARK I understand what the AutoRiver Transport function is for, but, in practice, it is much too easy for a player to run wild with it (let alone the AI perpetually sneaking Corps up the Wabash). I say this both as an offender and a victim. Perhaps there should be no AutoRiverTranspo, but, instead, a really cheap river transpo unit available that would be required. I can understand providing some functionality for the South, but I cannot recall a single significant riverine movement by CSA troops; the Union ruled the waves, and the rivulets. Again, historically, the pontoon bridge built in 1864 over the James by Grant still holds the distinction of being the longest military pontoon bridge ever built, AFAIK. There should be a similar rule/requirement in the game for major rivers and inland bodies of water.
* [On Showing Who is Attacking or Defending]
LS: sure it does! look at the combat stance of each side. The guy who is red or orange is the attacker.
GS: I don't mean the map view, nor necessarily the Posture & RoE. As far as I can tell, the actual engagement's 'profile' is not necessarily 'dictated' from these settings. Now, of course, we're talking about software and programming, so, to a large degree, of course it is 'mathematically' determined. However, this determination remains unclear to me, even though I've learned to 'study the icons' at the bottom of the Combat Screen.
To be specific, I use the full display, with the roll back & forth red 'n green semicircle. It represents the 'progress' of the battle. As a tech writer, the documentation is, ahem, somewhat unclear about this. Who's the green? The attacker (I assume so)? Red is the defender? OK, then who is who? Do the flags matter (methinks not, they are literally, window dressing)? Am I missing something on the ensuing Combat Report Screen (or Combat Screen)? I've never seen anything suggesting or stating who was the aggressor.
What if both sides are O/O? Is the force entering the Region the attacker? What about B/B? How about other combinations? Each stack can have 13 different Posture/RoE selections, thus, for two opposing stacks, 269 different and unique P/RoE interfaces for a particular fight. Some, of course, should result in no action. Then you have Evade, MTSG, weather, terrain, political conditions and how the Red Sox are doing. It's not a six sided die, nor a twelve-sided one, there's more to it.
I don't see an indication on the UI, during or after combat, on who was the attacker and who was the defender. Yes, most of the time it is not unclear, but sometimes, it is, at least to me.
So, is it me, or do I have a valid observation here?
[color="#AFEEEE"]"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!"[/color]
[color="#FFA07A"]"C'mon, boys, we got the damn Yankees on the run!"[/color]
-General Joseph Wheeler, US Army, serving at Santiago in 1898
(A) When in doubt, agree with Ace.
(B) Pull my reins up sharply when needed, for I am a spirited thoroughbred and forget to turn at the post sometimes.