I know that this was stated before, but I would like to reiterate that it would be better for the game to have HQ and Support arrive regionally, instead of at the capitol (as well as some scattered random placements). It is tough to create commands out West, because most support and all HQ starts out East, and takes months to get out west (well, slightly over a month). Also, I have had support randomly appear at some very risky towns (had some repeatedly appear at Dallas right before the Rebels took the town, as well as other frontier cities soon under seige).
Could HQ and support be divided into two regions? For example, have an Eastern and Western region. You build an Eastern Division HQ, or a Western Division HQ, support, etc.. You get the 1st Eastern Division, and 1st Western Division (Medical, Signal, Engineer, etc). This would allow for a better creation of Western Armies (as it is now, very difficult to field an army, while out East it is very easy), plus I have found that when creating support, you end up with all of your signal and medics in Washington, while all of your engineers appear in St Louis Missiouri!
Fantastic game, have spent many hours enjoying it!
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
-
Heldenkaiser
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
- Contact: Website
Sounds like a good idea, but I'd opt for at least three regions. East, West and Trans-Mississipi. I assume this would also mean separate Force Pools for those support units, generally with a smaller Force Pool in the Trans-Mississippi then out East.
In my current game I've had at least one HQ (probably division) arrive in Baltimore instead of Washington (which was neither occupied nor in danger). So there seems to be some variation for this, even though Baltimore won't be much better for the Western Theatres then Washington DC.
In my current game I've had at least one HQ (probably division) arrive in Baltimore instead of Washington (which was neither occupied nor in danger). So there seems to be some variation for this, even though Baltimore won't be much better for the Western Theatres then Washington DC.
Marc aka Caran...
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Separate forcepools may be a necessity, otherwize how will you determine if you are building a Western, Eastern or Trans-Mississippi unit in the build que? It does seem logical, to have separate pools, representing a general priority of force in the East (with the number of divisional HQs in the entire west still less than that of the East).
Still, it won't stop you from manually shipping commands around (like you can currently ship your Ohio Brigades to fight in Washington).
Still, it won't stop you from manually shipping commands around (like you can currently ship your Ohio Brigades to fight in Washington).
McNaughton wrote:Separate forcepools may be a necessity, otherwize how will you determine if you are building a Western, Eastern or Trans-Mississippi unit in the build que?
You have a number representing the force pool, whenever you build e.g. a Div HQ in one of the regions, the number gets reduced for all regions.
(Whether this is something "easy" to implement, though, I'll leave to others to say
)I am not sure I like this idea : Although I find the fact that div HQs for CSA appearing at Montgomery Al. at the beginning of the game is ridiculous, I think that getting all important support (HQs, Meds, Signal, Engineers...) at the capital makes sense, it means that eastern front is sort of the priority and gets organised quickly, while you need time to ship the units to other fronts that therefore take longer to organise... Makes sense to me.
PhilThib wrote:We could work out may be some "regional" capitals...
Why not use the same filter that is set up for buying Ocean-going Ships in the Reinforcements screen: By Grand Region.
Not sure what the Yanks have, but the Rebs are South East / South West / Deep South / Mid Atlantic.
Would be nice to have support units show up in the area you need 'em, not 2000 miles away...
veji1 wrote:I am not sure I like this idea : Although I find the fact that div HQs for CSA appearing at Montgomery Al. at the beginning of the game is ridiculous, I think that getting all important support (HQs, Meds, Signal, Engineers...) at the capital makes sense, it means that eastern front is sort of the priority and gets organised quickly, while you need time to ship the units to other fronts that therefore take longer to organise... Makes sense to me.
This is an interesting opinion. Althought it is frustating to move division HQ ,from D.C. to let say Springfield, MO, it is in fact realistic.
If you could choose where you would build your HQ's then west would get organize too quickly and you would have battles for Corinth and Memphis in 1861.
Now, I am strongly against the idea to have an option where to build your HQ.
Just my two cents
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
Well...
Regional HQs could be implemented without skewing the gameplay by script... that is, when they become available for the player to use... like the Army HQ's which overtime become availabe to use. They can also be limited in number the farther away they are from the Capital.
That said, I have no problem with how the game is setup now. There is indeed a danger that the easier you make it to form armies, the more likely you are going to see non-historical gameplay.
Ray (aka LAVA)
Regional HQs could be implemented without skewing the gameplay by script... that is, when they become available for the player to use... like the Army HQ's which overtime become availabe to use. They can also be limited in number the farther away they are from the Capital.
That said, I have no problem with how the game is setup now. There is indeed a danger that the easier you make it to form armies, the more likely you are going to see non-historical gameplay.
Ray (aka LAVA)
-
McNaughton
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:47 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
However, there are problems still in the current system. While Divisional HQs all appear in Washington, the Medical, Signal and Engineers can appear anywhere, even in cities just about to be captured! This needs fixing, as it is severe annoyance when your Signals and Medical appear in washington while Engineers all appear in St Louis!
As the Rebs, I never moved my Capital from Montgomery, AL --- yet all my major reinforcements show up in Richmond, VA. Doesn't seem right, to me.
I disagree that having all yr HQ / Support units should show up in DC / Richmond. This is 1861, not 1961 --- it doesn't take that much effort to form a divisional HQ. What --- a few couriers, some wagons, and a couple of staff officers?
If you wan't to be "historical", you could limit the appearence of support units to cities of size 3 or better. Someplace that has the educational / industrial facilities. Pretending that there were no competent doctors / engineers / staff officers anywhere but the East Coast is ridiculous.
I disagree that having all yr HQ / Support units should show up in DC / Richmond. This is 1861, not 1961 --- it doesn't take that much effort to form a divisional HQ. What --- a few couriers, some wagons, and a couple of staff officers?
If you wan't to be "historical", you could limit the appearence of support units to cities of size 3 or better. Someplace that has the educational / industrial facilities. Pretending that there were no competent doctors / engineers / staff officers anywhere but the East Coast is ridiculous.
Your capital moves automatically. Montgomery was very unsuitable to be the national capital, so there was no chance of it remaining there for long. I do wish we got to choose which of the three cities to move it to initially though. Be interesting to try and defend your capital if you choose to place it in Memphis, Nashville, or New Orleans for that matter.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
caranorn wrote:Sounds like a good idea, but I'd opt for at least three regions. East, West and Trans-Mississipi. I assume this would also mean separate Force Pools for those support units, generally with a smaller Force Pool in the Trans-Mississippi then out East.
Caranorn, you dawg, you're an old-time player of VG's Civil War, aren't you?
This discussion is not only a great one, but has significant import for the future shape of the game. Thanks, all you thinking critters out there. You're the greatest. No other forums are as good as these, gentlemen, and you are the ones who make it so.
Without going on at length (a relief, I am sure, for those of you who think I have an annoying tendency in that direction), I have a humble, fat and small analysis to offer.
The current limitation on number of armies seems to me about right. I don't see how the Union could have maintained the logistics for more than about five, and I think the Confederacy could not have sustained more than four effective field armies. These were huge, unwieldy beasts, to an extent the game doesn't really depict until you start trying to build them into an effective campaigning force. The single "army counter" does little to depict the massive structure and logistical and political investment an army of these times represented.
That said, I see the creation of new army HQs at the nation's capital as a convenient "shorthand" for what that army actually is: the most powerful immediate exertion of the national leadership's war effort. Formation of an army should be a matter of grave concern and significant difficulty (and when one considers the bother of creating its support units and subordinate structures, then melding them into an effective whole, the game is at its best in making achievement of competent organization a big pain in the butt).
Transporting the monster to the base area from which it will operate and matching it up with the various leaders and sub-units is all part of AACW's charm for me. I wouldn't change it, but I will be happy with whatever AGEod decides.
Two other minor things: formation of specialized support units (medical, signal, and so on) should not be possible in remote locations, either. These require specialized personnel and training available only at the major population centers of the east - on both sides. I do agree, though, that there should be a limitation on numbers of armies available by region, and (bless ya, caranorn), the best breakdown for that is east, west, and trans-Mississippi.
See? I didn't go on at length (sheesh, sorry 'bout that). I think that this is as important as correcting the division breakdown bug or bugs. I look forward to more discussion on the various points involved.
pasternakski wrote:Caranorn, you dawg, you're an old-time player of VG's Civil War, aren't you?
This discussion is not only a great one, but has significant import for the future shape of the game. Thanks, all you thinking critters out there. You're the greatest. No other forums are as good as these, gentlemen, and you are the ones who make it so.
Without going on at length (a relief, I am sure, for those of you who think I have an annoying tendency in that direction), I have a humble, fat and small analysis to offer.
The current limitation on number of armies seems to me about right. I don't see how the Union could have maintained the logistics for more than about five, and I think the Confederacy could not have sustained more than four effective field armies. These were huge, unwieldy beasts, to an extent the game doesn't really depict until you start trying to build them into an effective campaigning force. The single "army counter" does little to depict the massive structure and logistical and political investment an army of these times represented.
That said, I see the creation of new army HQs at the nation's capital as a convenient "shorthand" for what that army actually is: the most powerful immediate exertion of the national leadership's war effort. Formation of an army should be a matter of grave concern and significant difficulty (and when one considers the bother of creating its support units and subordinate structures, then melding them into an effective whole, the game is at its best in making achievement of competent organization a big pain in the butt).
Transporting the monster to the base area from which it will operate and matching it up with the various leaders and sub-units is all part of AACW's charm for me. I wouldn't change it, but I will be happy with whatever AGEod decides.
Two other minor things: formation of specialized support units (medical, signal, and so on) should not be possible in remote locations, either. These require specialized personnel and training available only at the major population centers of the east - on both sides. I do agree, though, that there should be a limitation on numbers of armies available by region, and (bless ya, caranorn), the best breakdown for that is east, west, and trans-Mississippi.
See? I didn't go on at length (sheesh, sorry 'bout that). I think that this is as important as correcting the division breakdown bug or bugs. I look forward to more discussion on the various points involved.
Very well said. I strongly second that.
About armies... I think that game handles that very nice. We are aware that Army HQ's are limited so nobody is crazy enough to build something like 5 armies in Virginia.
Just my two cents
P.S. I also belive that this is a very constructive discussion and it definitely should be as if AGEOD makes some changes based on this then game could change drasticaly.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
I think the whole support and HQ issue is really important to the game, as Pasternaski said. It has to be constraining enough to model the difficulty organizing an army was at the time, yet not too much otherwise it will be unbearable for players other than grognards...
I think for example that division HQs shouldn't be available before fall 61, to force players to play with big "forces" that have lots of penalties...
Same for support units other than wagons, forming med units, engineers, etc... takes time.. you shouldn't be able to organize "proper" armies befoe winter 1861...
I think for example that division HQs shouldn't be available before fall 61, to force players to play with big "forces" that have lots of penalties...
Same for support units other than wagons, forming med units, engineers, etc... takes time.. you shouldn't be able to organize "proper" armies befoe winter 1861...
pasternakski wrote:The current limitation on number of armies seems to me about right. I don't see how the Union could have maintained the logistics for more than about five, and I think the Confederacy could not have sustained more than four effective field armies. These were huge, unwieldy beasts, to an extent the game doesn't really depict until you start trying to build them into an effective campaigning force. The single "army counter" does little to depict the massive structure and logistical and political investment an army of these times represented.
There were at least 16 Union and 23 Confederate "operational organizations" known officially (or unofficially) as an Army. An army usually took it's name from the Department or other territorial organization in which it operated. The Feds followed a general policy of naming their armies for the rivers near which they operated; The Rebs for the states or regions in which they were active. (Usually headed by the same general who commanded the territorial organization).
Federal Armies:
Army of the Cumberland; the Frontier; Georgia; the Gulf; the James; Kansas, the Mississippi (there were several); the Mountain Department; the Ohio; the Potomac; the Shenandoah; the Southwest; the Tennessee; Virginia; West Tennessee; West Virginia.
Confederate Armies:
Army of Central Kentucky; East Tennessee; Eastern Kentucky; the Kanawha; Kentucky; Louisiana; Middle Tennessee; the Mississippi; Mobile; New Mexico; Northern Virginia; the Northwest; the Peninsula; Pensicola; the Potomac; the Shenandoah; the Southwestern Army; Army of Tennessee; the Trans-Mississippi; Vicksburg; the West; West Tennessee.
How many of the listed organizations bear the name of departments west of Appalachia? West of the Mississippi? I don't believe many of them began life in Richmond --- especially given the CSA's rudementary East-West rail net --- or DC.
Transporting the monster to the base area from which it will operate and matching it up with the various leaders and sub-units is all part of AACW's charm for me. I wouldn't change it, but I will be happy with whatever AGEod decides.
What, having yr HQ's sit for three turns as they draw personnel, and then wasting another 2-3 turns moving across country is "charming"? I call it unesscessarily time-consuming and a-historical.
Two other minor things: formation of specialized support units (medical, signal, and so on) should not be possible in remote locations, either. These require specialized personnel and training available only at the major population centers of the east - on both sides.
What do you consider a "remote location"? (Colorado was pretty remote --- yet it was full of engineers!) New Orleans? Cincinnati? Nashville? St Louis? These were burgeoning cities in 1860. Besides, I consider the 3 - turn delay an "organizational period" in which the required personnel/equipment are pulled in from all over the area. A month-and-a-half is plenty of time to round up what you need, where you need it.
I think you don't realize that like in many games, things tend to go very fast in AACW. the engine needs to find tricks to slow down the players, otherwise you end up with armies better organized then the mid-late 1862 ones in august 1861...
The fact that it takes 3 months to build and then ship an HQ from Richmond to Fort Smith Arkansas makes sense in that perspective... Otherwise I would have had an up and running Army of the Missouri by july 1861... This would be way out of the picture...
It might be annoying, but this game is suppose to emulate to some extent the constraints faced by the two sides... and the fact that you have to plan in advance an HQ deployment because it takes 3 month to get it there makes sense to me..
Either that or you'd have to block the constructions of many support units until fall 1861 to emulate the time it takes to organize an army for war from scratch.
The fact that it takes 3 months to build and then ship an HQ from Richmond to Fort Smith Arkansas makes sense in that perspective... Otherwise I would have had an up and running Army of the Missouri by july 1861... This would be way out of the picture...
It might be annoying, but this game is suppose to emulate to some extent the constraints faced by the two sides... and the fact that you have to plan in advance an HQ deployment because it takes 3 month to get it there makes sense to me..
Either that or you'd have to block the constructions of many support units until fall 1861 to emulate the time it takes to organize an army for war from scratch.
veji1 wrote:I think you don't realize that like in many games, things tend to go very fast in AACW. the engine needs to find tricks to slow down the players, otherwise you end up with armies better organized then the mid-late 1862 ones in august 1861...
The fact that it takes 3 months to build and then ship an HQ from Richmond to Fort Smith Arkansas makes sense in that perspective... Otherwise I would have had an up and running Army of the Missouri by july 1861... This would be way out of the picture...
It might be annoying, but this game is suppose to emulate to some extent the constraints faced by the two sides... and the fact that you have to plan in advance an HQ deployment because it takes 3 month to get it there makes sense to me..
Either that or you'd have to block the constructions of many support units until fall 1861 to emulate the time it takes to organize an army for war from scratch.
Very well said IMHO.
Forrest said something about killing a Yankee for each of his horses that they shot. In the last days of the war, Forrest had killed 30 of the enemy and had 30 horses shot from under him. In a brief but savage conflict, a Yankee soldier "saw glory for himself" with an opportunity to kill the famous Confederate General... Forrest killed the fellow. Making 31 Yankees personally killed, and 30 horses lost...
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
He remarked, "I ended the war a horse ahead."
veji1 wrote:I think the whole support and HQ issue is really important to the game, as Pasternaski said. It has to be constraining enough to model the difficulty organizing an army was at the time, yet not too much otherwise it will be unbearable for players other than grognards...
I think for example that division HQs shouldn't be available before fall 61, to force players to play with big "forces" that have lots of penalties...
Same for support units other than wagons, forming med units, engineers, etc... takes time.. you shouldn't be able to organize "proper" armies befoe winter 1861...
Interestingly enough, division organization had been around for some time. It was the corps structure that took a while to catch on:
While they existed "unofficially" in the Union army from the start of the war, they didn't take on official designations until July 1862. Prior to that, several different organizations called themselves I through VI Corps, and you had to know which army they belonged to in order to figure out what was where.
Confederate corps organizations weren't even authorized until Sept 1862 --- and none actually formed until November. Prior to this, CSA divisions were grouped for a given operation into organizations known as "Longstreet's Wing", "Jackson's Command", etc.
Corps usually were comprised of two (or more) divisions. Standard organization on the Union side was 45 infantry regiments and 9 batteries of artillery. About 5 regiments to a brigade, about 3 brigades to a division.
A Confederate division was usually 2 or more brigades --- with a brigade made up of 2 or more regiments.
The North raised the equivalent of 2047 regiments during the war; the South, 1009.
veji1 wrote:I think you don't realize that like in many games, things tend to go very fast in AACW. the engine needs to find tricks to slow down the players, otherwise you end up with armies better organized then the mid-late 1862 ones in august 1861...
The fact that it takes 3 months to build and then ship an HQ from Richmond to Fort Smith Arkansas makes sense in that perspective... Otherwise I would have had an up and running Army of the Missouri by july 1861... This would be way out of the picture...
You're making it sound like it's a fault in the game design that needs to be worked around. Maybe that needs to be looked at.
It might be annoying, but this game is suppose to emulate to some extent the constraints faced by the two sides... and the fact that you have to plan in advance an HQ deployment because it takes 3 month to get it there makes sense to me..
I guess we have to agree to disagree then, because I don't see that there is anything that needs to be gotten: It should already be there, and taken into account during the construction period.
A divison HQ is not like an ironclad: You don't have to build it in one specific location, and then sail it around the Horn.
Either that or you'd have to block the constructions of many support units until fall 1861 to emulate the time it takes to organize an army for war from scratch.
I see no problem with this. I agree, that the number of armies should be aportioned out, over time. Just limit the amount of specialized units / HQ's available in the force pool to later in the game.
I understand your point, but what I mean is that in game terms you have to slow the players down in their ability to organize their forces early on..
It would actually be interesting to debate on how to better emulate that. If there were Corps HQ, I would argue that shouldn't be able to buy them until november 1861, but since there isn't, I think the simplest way to act would be to make Div HQs unavailable until say early october 1861.
It would actually be interesting to debate on how to better emulate that. If there were Corps HQ, I would argue that shouldn't be able to buy them until november 1861, but since there isn't, I think the simplest way to act would be to make Div HQs unavailable until say early october 1861.
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests