Here's a thought for ACW II (when if...)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[TeMagic]

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME...

I imagine AACW strategic model with the tactical engine from Take Command: 2nd Manassas...

I remeber an old (buggy) game Napoleon: 1813-1814 which combined a strategic engine with a tactical one... It was pretty good, but it kept crashing all the time... Also remeber the old Virgin Interactive game Civil War, but it had horrendous graphics and the play balance was sooooooo off....

[berto]

Take AGEod's large scale Mapping and Regional divisions, mix it with WCS's tactical combat engine, and apply it to a combat display similar to CA's Medieval Total War, with map features reproduced to a scale with the historic actual battleground terrain actually fought over, instead of random...

What a game that would be.

But in a strategic/operational level game (not simulation), where the opposing armies might engage at thousands and thousands of locations around the country, how would you reproduce to scale "historic actual battleground terrain"?

Given that such a game would have to model thousands and thousands of potential battlefield locations, and given the inevitable mistakes and inaccuracies that you yourself are discovering with the railroads, is this not an impossible task?

Anyway, if I want to refight actual historical battles, I'm quite happy with the HPS Civil War games (also the reissued Matrix BGS games). Especially if Pocus & co. deliver on their promised tactical enhancements (in-game, battle AARs; they already delivered on the ROE tabs), as for myself, I'm satisfied if AGEOD leaves tactical level combat out of AACW.

[Big Muddy]

Just buy TC2M, if you don't already own it, it's a superior product, I highly recomment it to everyone.

[Franciscus]

Sorry, Gray, but I have to claim patent on your suggestion
Below I transcribe my very first post in these forums, back in April 20th, 2007:

" Hello to all.
I am just starting to play AACW but would like to congratulate AGEod for a great game. My interest in ACW goes back a few years and I have been always searching for good games depicting this conflict. On a grand strategy level I seem to have found IT !!.
Now, if you will allow me, let me share a "little" dream: A game with AACW strategy level gaming plus (as an option) the possibility to fight the battles on a tactical level... And the tantalizing thing, as some of you may know, is that a brilliant tactical engine already exists - I am talking about the great "Take Command" of Madminute Games. Just imagine: OOBs are created by you and the AI already during AACW play and could be easily exported to the tactical engine; the maps would, of course, be picked among a few predrawn ones, according to the terrain; and of course playing on a tactical level would allways be an option.

Just imagine: AGEod and Madminute joining hands to create the ultimate ACW GAME"

Let me say that back then I was a bit "thrashed" by some hardcore strategy players. But I still have this dream...

And absolutely, TC2M is a superb game, constantly improving (just as AACW), specially due to a very dedicated mod community.

[Rafiki]

Let me say that back then I was a bit "thrashed" by some hardcore strategy players. But I still have this dream...

Saying that one thinks a suggestion isn't a very good idea isn't the same as trashing something...

[Franciscus]

[patryn8]

Maybe use something like the mideval total war battle engine. That would be interesting for a tactical part of ACW.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Well atm I am working on.a super detailed war "gamulation" focused around WWII that involves both operational (tactical) and strategic-level combat, on the same map, at a small scale both size and timewise (about 5 km hex-to-hex, and 1 day/turn)

The problem I am seeing is that it would take forever to finish the game. Perhaps if there was a high level of automation and ther ereally wasn't that much to be done turn-to-turn it wouldn't be so bad.

[tagwyn]

I have only one life to live in this plane of existence!! Which is rapidly coming to an end (for me.) LOL. T apy:

[Prussian Prince]

My problem with long games is that after a week or so I loose concentration with it and end up giving up, even when I am winning. So for me getting a game that allows me to finish in a weeks time period is a must. AACW is great because I can usually play a full campaign game in that time period.

Stewart

[DirkX]

I have only one life to live in this plane of existence!! Which is rapidly coming to an end (for me.) LOL. T apy:

lol

[Linenoise]

While the tactical level simulation would be awesome. I would be most happy with more data in battle logs. I would love for all the battles in a campaign to be put into a database. That way I can look at the total casualty list and be able to see where the battle took place. how many people participated on each side, the generals involved, and the number of casualties.

That's not too much to ask is it? Just need a db programmer with a ton of freetime.

[arsan]

While the tactical level simulation would be awesome. I would be most happy with more data in battle logs. I would love for all the battles in a campaign to be put into a database. That way I can look at the total casualty list and be able to see where the battle took place. how many people participated on each side, the generals involved, and the number of casualties.

That's not too much to ask is it? Just need a db programmer with a ton of freetime.

+1!

Detailed battle logs, and statistics, even unit/leader battle diaries (like the HOI2 DD tooltips) would be great for inmmersion and easier to do, IMHO

Having 3D tactical battles would be a dream but i dont feel it is realistic or feasible for a small company like AGEOD to do it. Or at least to do it "right" ( like TC2M).
And to do it badly or so-so (like FOF, Napoleon in Italy...), it would be better not to do it

Cheers!

[Pubcrawler]

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME...

I imagine AACW strategic model with the tactical engine from Take Command: 2nd Manassas...

That would be the Holy Grail of all ACW games!

[Franciscus]

That would be the Holy Grail of all ACW games!

Another convert...
Keep the faith; now we are few, but tomorrow we shall be millions

[chainsaw]

It reminds me of the story of an old grognard who wanted to play a board game of WWII with each unit representing one man - the maps alone would have covered the floor of a gymnasium and he needed a hoist to hover above the map moving 1000's of pieces, while a buddy would just roll dice all day calling out results. Now that's a commitment to gaming.

[tagwyn]

Get a gun and learn how to use it!!

[Commander Cody]

In Medieval: Total War I always thought it gamey to fight the individual battles (not to mention time consuming), as you could win battles when outnumbered. I eventually stopped fighting those battles (i.e. used auto resolve or whatever they called it) as a handicap. The same would happen with this game.

With finite resources to devote to the AI, I'd rather AGEOD focused on strategic issues. Plus, I understand there's a Civil War strat/tactical game already out there, so if people insist, they should try that one or the other games mentioned.

Cheers, CC

[chainsaw]

Get a gun and learn how to use it!!

Well then it wouldn't be a "game", would it! No "re-roll the dice" when you get shot for real.

[chainsaw]

In Medieval: Total War I always thought it gamey to fight the individual battles (not to mention time consuming),

Welcome to the boards....your sig was my on-air nickname in college (back in the late 70's). Small radio station with a weak signal that barely reached the edge of campus, but Commander Cody liked to blast out "Hot Rod Lincoln" and other CC hits. Good stuff.

Hmmm, wonder if I can find some of his music on itunes?

[GlobalExplorer]

I have played extensively the TW games, especially Shogun Total War (the best in the series by far), between 2000 and 2005. STW should be an inspiration for everyone who designs historic strategy games, the detail / athmosphere was unbelieveable, you could even enable Japanese voiceovers.

Still I'd say Ageon should stick with the current system for their game - tactical battles are nice but they don't work in such grand scale campaigns as Ageod specialize in. Workload is already very high in these games and if I have to spend most of my time commanding around individual battallions it might get too much.

Of course then there is also the danger for a small company to try to cover too many areas and in the end run out of ressources.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[GlobalExplorer]

.. apply it to a combat display similar to CA's Medieval Total War .. I would think it would have huge sales especially if done like CA's.

Sounds like you were assuming TW yourself.

Concerning your last post, if you mean we could actually see the battles or part of them in 3D and command only in a basic way, this could be a great thing for the athmosphere. Though it would require a lot of additional manpower that Ageod can not spare.

If the battle results could be exported/imported there would be a slight possiblity to play the battles in another game, lets say Empire Total War with a Civil War mod. Assuming someone writes a application that links them together.

[D_K]

How about this for an idea, instead of going down to tactical level like medieval TW(which I love but don't think woould be possible with this game) just going down to regimental level on a zoomed in map with military "unit" icons. I know it really isn't changing the scale much but if you think about it it would be kinda neat.

You could take one specific "province/area" and blow it up to 30-40 smaller "areas" which follow mainly around certain terrain features, i.e. rivers, hills, towns etc. then have a movement system somthing like HOI2 where there is a time bar that shows you how long it will take a force to move to a specific area. I think it would look really neat and add a "control" aspect to the game that it doesn't fully have now. I am not here knocking the game, I love it as is, and think that it is very realistc as it stands.

It would be neat if you had the option to have more control your forces in a slightly smaller scale though. If it was done this way it would not be as hard as you could simply have units to represent your regiments that are already there. The most work would be in making the zoomed in maps, but if you maybe cut down on the "nice"graohical pictures on the zoomed map and just have terrain features, it might not be that bad.

I think that would make the "ultimate" civil war game or any other game based on this scale!!! just imagine preserving the scale but being able to manuever you units and try to outflank etc. Imagine trying to outflank maryes heights instead of the historical direct assault. or maybe re-creating your own wilderness with stonewall's forces surprizing the union flank!!

just my 2 bits

[Banks6060]

I think melding AACW with an engine like TC2M would be a dream come true.

It would make for MUCH longer games....but I suppose the catch would be this....

The thing that makes AACW so great is the lack of control you have over your armies' performance in battle. I think melding the two would be a huge leap in playability and a really "cool" addon.

But it may just take away from the real substance of the overall strategic game. especially with people who don't have the time to sit down for a grand battle with their human opponent online....because as we all know.....playing the AI would just be a joke eventually.

HOWEVER....attaining a "multi-player friendly" combination of the two game engines WOULD be a dream come true.

disclaimor: I just scrolled to the bottom of the thread when I read the first post.....sorry if I've repeated anything that's already been said.

[CSA61-65]

How about this for an idea, instead of going down to tactical level like medieval TW(which I love but don't think woould be possible with this game) just going down to regimental level on a zoomed in map with military "unit" icons. I know it really isn't changing the scale much but if you think about it it would be kinda neat.

You could take one specific "province/area" and blow it up to 30-40 smaller "areas" which follow mainly around certain terrain features, i.e. rivers, hills, towns etc. then have a movement system somthing like HOI2 where there is a time bar that shows you how long it will take a force to move to a specific area. I think it would look really neat and add a "control" aspect to the game that it doesn't fully have now. I am not here knocking the game, I love it as is, and think that it is very realistc as it stands.

It would be neat if you had the option to have more control your forces in a slightly smaller scale though. If it was done this way it would not be as hard as you could simply have units to represent your regiments that are already there. The most work would be in making the zoomed in maps, but if you maybe cut down on the "nice"graohical pictures on the zoomed map and just have terrain features, it might not be that bad.

I think that would make the "ultimate" civil war game or any other game based on this scale!!! just imagine preserving the scale but being able to manuever you units and try to outflank etc. Imagine trying to outflank maryes heights instead of the historical direct assault. or maybe re-creating your own wilderness with stonewall's forces surprizing the union flank!!

just my 2 bits

First off, great game, there was a period i didnt have anything to play until i found this one.

I had to register to say i had exactly the same thought few days back about how the tactical level coud be implemented in the same fashion without fancy graphics.

[TommH]

A scenario generator for a TC like game would be a somewhat more doable intermediate step. The oob would be a sinch as would the current state of the units since this is directly available. The hard part would be the map and setup. Hmmm

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[kyle]

I think it would be a daunting task just to code a tactical game "engine" to something of the scale of take command or total war. And the game likely wouldn't be "AACW" anymore

I like D_K's thinking of "zooming" in, but then from a play perspective, that would take hours to play out. The Civil war generals and the talonsoft East front games always would.

Since the game focus is on strategy and operational movements, I would settle for something that provided fronts, or the placement of brigades/divisions. Something like far left, left, center, right, far right, and reserve. Then each front could become a mini simulation that could be broken down into 4-6 fight turns or phases per day. 2 morning, 2 afternoon, 1 evening. After the 2 morning, 2 afternoon, or 1 evening there is an "option/movement" phase giving the player choices to continue fighting, redeploy tired/battered troops to rear. Conceed the front (allowing now for flanking options/penalties) The march to the guns could then also be factored in with "arrivals") One could make the limiting factors to how long the battles drag on day wise be ammo, troop condition, option to "retire" but not retreat.