Suggestions for improving the "Seeing the Elephant" scenario

[Jarkko]

Seeing the Elephant is a nice battle scenario. Nice for a newbie to get the grips of the game, fun for a fast e-mail game.

Except that the scenario is, frankly put, quite a mess

Union wins automatically if he withdraws all troops to Washington and sits there through the whole scenario. Quite different from the scenario description or the historical reality.

The reason for this passive win is the plethora of strategic cities Union side holds. Most of them make absolutely no sense in the context of this scenario.

Union has the following Strategic cities under control:
*Washington, *Harrisburg, *Baltimore, Harpers Ferry, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Hancock and Ft. Monroe. Only those marked with star (*) make in my opinion any sense in this scenario.

Confederates on the other hand have just Richmond, Fredericksburg, Charlotteville and Petersburg, which IMO are very good choices in the context of the scenario.


Also, for this scenario, the victory cities are totally messed up. Washington is a 50 point city while Richmond is just 10 points. Would make much more sense in the context of this scenario if they both were 25 point cities.


These changes would put the onus on USA, as was historically.


And if this scenario was to be changed, why not add militia garrisons to each strategic city? Would make cavalry raiding less of a no-brainer in this scenario (at least in my history books there is no mentioning of CSA cavalry taking by late October all the cities and towns between Baltimore and New York, and that without a single bullet fired...).

[Ayeshteni]

Indeed you are quite correct.

Jarkko and myself played this scenario as an 'intro' scenario for PBeM play, to get to grips with the system. Its quick (5 turns) and represents the initial start of the Civil War.

I hadn't played it before this PBeM, but I suspected it would be a little like the start of the Grand Campaign, i.e. that Little Mac would be told to get his finger out and invade.

Turns out it isn't anywhere near similar. The CSA player got his cavalry behind my lines and was rampaging in Pennsylvania, I paniced and sent my own cavalry to chase until I realised that none of my Pennsylvannia towns and cities (including Philly!) were relevant and so brought my cavalry back to DC!

After an initial battle at Harpers Ferry and Winchester on the first two turns (as Pattersons Corps and Stonewall dashed for the same place) it was very much a case for the Union player of 'If I can reinforce and hold DC I don't have to do anything and win'

I still made a few forays towards Richmond because I felt it was 'historical' and I wanted to make the game a little more interesting that just sitting in DC and then sending the results to my opponent as soon as I received his orders.

Its a nice little scenario but the Union doesn't have to do anything. Its historically inaccurate as it was on the Union to 'do' something, even though the CSA had the better troops at the time (and thus the Battle of Manasas).

edit: PS: here is a rundown of the gains and loses that were involved:

#of cities taken by the Union during the scenario: 1 (Strassburg depot)
#of cities taken by the CSA during the scenario: ~7 (Philly, Harpers Ferry, Winchester, 3 other cities in PE, 1 in DE)
#of battles won by the Union: 1
#of battles won by the CSA ~3
#of battles drawn: 1

I fail to see how I could have a 'victory' as the Union in this case.

edit2: @Jarkko, strategic cities? From my standpoint there was only 2: Richmond and Washington. Does the CSA player have more cities? is that why you raided Pennsylvannia?

Ayeshteni

[Jarkko]

edit2: @Jarkko, strategic cities? From my standpoint there was only 2: Richmond and Washington. Does the CSA player have more cities? is that why you raided Pennsylvannia?

Check http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Manual:Winning_the_game

Ie each Strategic City (which the USA has a plethora of in this scenario) are worth 1 VP each turn. In this scenario Washington is worth 3 VPs/turn and Richmond is worth 2 VP per turn if I understand correctly.

Which is why I raided down your side, to make Strategic cities go "neutral" (ie not providing VP's to either side as I held the city but wasn't able to garrison, thus because of low loyalty not providing VP's to either side) at the very least (ie cities where my loyalty was below 10% or below) and take&hold what I could (Wilmington in this case, as there the rebel sentiment is highest, thus I had my cavalry brigade there to make sure it stayed above 10% loyal to me (12% at the end of the scenario)). If you would have held Harrisburg, Wilmington and Philadelphia for the whole game (instead of me being able to hold or turn them neutral for much of the game), you would have gained 11 points more (and I would have gotten 4 points less from not holding Wilmingto), which would have indeed meant a crushing victory for you (instead of the 61-58 win for you we would have seen a 72-54 win for you).


EDIT: You can see who holds the Strategic cities by clicking the star in the lower left corner. Attached is the final situation from our test PBeM game.

[bigus]

I have reworked this scenario.

The VP's have been changed as well as the actual area of operations for the scenario. Garrisons have also been added.

I will post it later today (I'm at work right now... )

[Jarkko]

I have reworked this scenario.

The VP's have been changed as well as the actual area of operations for the scenario. Garrisons have also been added.

I will post it later today (I'm at work right now... )

ompom:

[bigus]

As Promised. Here is the reworked scenario.

One thing I did'nt get to fix was the James River (or City Point) fortifications.
I wanted to have a Fort at city point to stop any quick river assaults on Richmond....I have not got it to work just yet (the artillery will not bombard passing ships)

So as a workaround for now I locked the "James River squadron" on the James river to deter any gamey Amphibious assaults by the Union on Richmond.

As stated before, the VP's have been reworked. The area of ops has been reduced. (not by much though) and Richmond garrison has been beefed up a bit.

thats about it for now...enjoy

>newer version is out<

[Gray_Lensman]

As Promised. Here is the reworked scenario.

One thing I did'nt get to fix was the James River (or City Point) fortifications.
I wanted to have a Fort at city point to stop any quick river assaults on Richmond....I have not got it to work just yet (the artillery will not bombard passing ships)

So as a workaround for now I locked the "James River squadron" on the James river to deter any gamey Amphibious assaults by the Union on Richmond.

As stated before, the VP's have been reworked. The area of ops has been reduced. (not by much though) and Richmond garrison has been beefed up a bit.

thats about it for now...enjoy

[ATTACH]4697[/ATTACH]

Bombard won't work unless some specific Adjacency(s) requirements are met. I had the same problem when I created Fort Delaware. Send me the specific details of what you are trying to accomplish and I'll make and "officialize" the required and necessary .rgn file changes.

[Jarkko]

Thanks Bigus Once I get home from work I need to test this

[Jarkko]

Ah, what the heck, I loaded up the scenario anyway...

I like your changes

Each side now generates 3 VP's per turn. That is IMO a good thing

Washington is no longer an objective, just Richmond is. It is a very clear incentive to push for Richmond.

Banks is now free to operate from Ft.Monroe from turn one. Thus CSA can't just form up a maginot line at Manassas and wait for the game to end.

However, I am not quite sure of making both Harpers Ferry and Winchester VP cities. The scenario will most likely focus on those two cities. Of course, maybe that *is* the intention, thus USA can create a very credible diversion in this area, while in reality pushing for Richmond.

The locked CSA fleet in James River is a nice touch. However, as Banks is free to operate from turn 1, he can just mount on river boats and sail to New Kent (Williamsburg), and from there enter Richmond un-opposed. Maybe the CSA fleet could instead be locked in James Estuary (instead of James River), would remove that possibility? Banks would have to enter James City (Hampton) and from ther sluggishly move up the Penninsula. Or at the very least put a militia garrison to Williamsburg so that Banks can't use it as a supplysource immediatly, and thus would have to dig out the garrison first before moving on to Richmond? Of course then Warvick (Suffolk) would need a similar militia garrison too, as else Banks just lands there instead and use Suffolk as supplysource to Richmond.

Anyway, with some minor changes to Penninsula area I think this is now a *much* more exiting small scenario that has a historical feel too

[Jarkko]

Got home and launched the scenario.

Washington is no longer an objective, just Richmond is. It is a very clear incentive to push for Richmond.

This is true for USA side, that is. The reverse is true for Confederate it seems, ie only Washington is the objective.

Jackson is not two-star leader anymore, so can't form a killer corps around him like I did in the "vanilla" version. Good change IMO, Jackson was still only a brigade commander at this time. Still, not hard to make him a two-star general in this scenario, needs just a bit more planning.

So far I like this (still doing turn 1 ).

[Jarkko]

And there are *lots* of less of conscripts available, thus replacements require some actual thought

Yep, I like this new version a lot better Altough the AI took advantage of the situation on the Penninsula quite vigorously, thus please check if either of my above suggestions (either move the fleet to James Estuary or add locked militia garrisons to Suffolk and Williamsburg) would be viable to stop USA to immediatly on turn 1 open a supplied bridgehead right next to Richmond.

[bigus]

I originally had the Fleet on the James Estuary.

I will move the fleet back and repost later today.

[berto]

Bigus, thanks for working to make the original-release battle scenarios more worthwhile.

You have reworked the Gettysburg scenario (or are still in the process of doing so). Do you have plans to rework the Shiloh scenario, too?

It would be great if all of these scenarios were reviewed, brought up to latest standards of battle scenario design, and "officialized":

• First Manassass
• Gettysburg
• Shiloh
• Far West 1861 [already done]
• Vicksburg [ditto]
• Atlanta [diito]
• Kentucky Invasion [ditto]

(Did I miss any?)

Then onward and upward from there.

I'd love to settle the battle losses issue, put it behind me, so I can throw myself into battle scenario design and testing.

BTW, are you keeping up with posting your latest scenario work to

http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/wargame-mods/aacw-mods/

I renoticed (after losing track of) your "7 Day Scenarios" thread in the AACW Mods forum. It would be great if there were a single place (Schulte's website? here at the AGEod Forum?) where we could look to, guaranteed, find a message thread with the very latest of your scenario work, all battles, all flavors. Sort of like Gray_Lensman's one-stop-shopping, stickied Civil War Historical Accuracy MODs thread. (He manages his mod thread very well.)

Am I missing something (again)?

[ohms_law]

Here's a thought for Grey Lensman as well: It might be nice to change the names slightly by prefixing them with "Campaign" and "Scenario", or something similar (the new game list does sort the scenario's alphabetically, correct?).
Sorry for the random thought, but that just sprang into my mind for some reason.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[ohms_law]

Nope, they're not necessarily alphabetical. The current names will not be changed because of other language translations that would then have to be modified also. There is sufficient information to let everyone know which scenario is a campaign game (single or 2-theatre).

ah, forgot about the translation issue...
Good point about the info that is there. Like I said, it was just a random thought that popped into my head for some reason.

[berto]

Keep in mind, that any changes made to the smaller scenarios have to be kept historical in nature, or they can't be "officialized". i.e. changing things to make them more playable, but not actually historical, will disqualify them from being incorporated into the "vanilla" collection.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on that!

[Jarkko]

Keep in mind, that any changes made to the smaller scenarios have to be kept historical in nature, or they can't be "officialized". i.e. changing things to make them more playable, but not actually historical, will disqualify them from being incorporated into the "vanilla" collection.

This sounds very good to me, and the very reason I started this thread was because the current official "Seeing the Elephant" scenario is so horribly ahistorical it hurts... The one bigus made available is both more in set-up, has historical goals and feels when you play it much more historical. It will be perfect in all those three points when the CSA fleet is moved from James River to James Estuary

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Ayeshteni]

Point I was getting at, was that any neat new cool changes that are being made, need to be accompanied with some sort of historical references to check out in order to rationalize their inclusion in the vanilla versions.

I think the problem with the initial short scenarios is that they were primarily designed specifically around a certain regional battle, with very little thought given to to surrounding regional circumstances. In a sense they were meant as "get acquainted" battle scenarios and not as mini-campaigns. Expanding them into small mini-campaigns is a good idea, as long as the historical circumstances are kept in mind.

well this is it. 'Get aquainted' isn't historical so that argument doesn't entirely wash. I understand the point you are tryig to make, but ask yourself this: Why did the First Battle of Manasas (First Bull Run) occur?
Is that historically portrayed in this 'historical' scenario?

The answer is no.

The Union should be 'vitalised' in some way to make the move into Virginia, even though it wasn't fully prepared. The Rebs had the better motivated army and defeated them at the Battle of Manasas.

The 'vanilla' version of the scenario has no relevence to the historical scenario except perhaps initial unit placement. But the objectives do not tally with history.

A Union player can play cards and drink gin in DC while the Rebs are at the walls (and rampaging through Pennsylvania) and still win.

Fort Munroe troops can go on a sailing trip to Richmond (I know I did as the Union) for a jolly jaunt, and maybe succeed.

But thats my opinion.

Ayeshteni

[bigus]

You have reworked the Gettysburg scenario (or are still in the process of doing so). Do you have plans to rework the Shiloh scenario, too?

It would be great if all of these scenarios were reviewed, brought up to latest standards of battle scenario design, and "officialized":

• First Manassass
• Gettysburg
• Shiloh
• Far West 1861 [already done]
• Vicksburg [ditto]
• Atlanta [diito]
• Kentucky Invasion [ditto]

(Did I miss any?)

Ya.....Gettysburg and Shiloh have been updated since 1.10d I believe.
They were changed similar to this scenario. By that I mean ..VP's and area of ops were changed. OOB's for gettysburg were updated and MC was changed for some areas.

I originally had this BullRun scenario done then but did not send it to Gray for the very fact were discusing now. That being lack of control of the James and the James Estuary. So all the Union has to do is use regular transport movement and land on Richmond.

I can't seem to get forts with artillery to fire on enemy units passing through the James River Or James River Estuary even though they are using regular transport movement. Hence the addition of gunboats to block river movement.
Its a balance for now since I find it hard to believe that the Union could have sailed up the james in transports to lay siege to Richmond.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bigus]

Regarding the Bull Run Scenario

You won't get a fort to work at City Point, (because of Adjacency requirements) and since the addition of Gunboats that early in the war is ahistoric anyway, why not take some regions out of the scenario altogether by changing the "BlockState" commmands. Currently the area open for the scenario is way too large so early in the war if you are trying to focus on the move to Richmond.

Yes I seen that in the region file.
The threat from Fortress Monroe was a factor in this campaign. Thats why its included in the scenario. The Gunboats are for blocking only (they are locked for the scenario).
Your Idea is not a bad idea but I like to have operational options. we'll see how it goes.
I still have to play out the scenario a few more times myself.

[bigus]

Here is the updated Bull Run scenario.

There is a compromise. I left the gunboats on the James River and made James city a level 1 fort. At least if Banks wants to bypass the fort then he will take hits.

>updated version is available<

[Jarkko]

Wasn't Huger with his force in the Penninsula area at the time of Manassass? If he was, and his troops have Entrenchment 5, wouldn't guns under his command open fire on troops trying to sail by?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

Here is the updated Bull Run scenario.

There is a compromise. I left the gunboats on the James River and made James city a level 1 fort. At least if Banks wants to bypass the fort then he will take hits.

This is a nice mod. Some parts of it look right, other parts are completely ahistorical. If they can be made more historical or removed, then it should be considered for officialization. In the meantime ... I'd say enjoy it, as a mod.

[Jarkko]

This is a nice mod. Some parts of it look right, other parts are completely ahistorical. If they can be made more historical or removed, then it should be considered for officialization. In the meantime ... I'd say enjoy it, as a mod.

But the current official version is even more ahistorical. And not quite enjoyable either...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted