AGEOD Forums

LSSpam

I'd love to play a game. I've currently got Struggle for the Vast Future installed but I can scrub that pretty easily. Play with 1.16?

LSSpam

For the sake of my sanity, I will not answer that. :grr: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/George_McClellan_Signature.svg/328px-George_McClellan_Signature.svg.png McClellan arrives at Antietam on Day 15 (September 15th). Player sets McClellan's stance to Attack / All - Out Mc...

LSSpam

1) Are you better off to "stage" in an adjacent region and wait until the next turn to attack when you will have 13 or 14 days to battle? 2) Are casualties directly affected by days of battle? 3) Is there an attack cutoff point y'all use? For example, "I never attack after the 12th day". Thanks, Jo...

LSSpam

Provided the division limit is expanded to keep pace with strategic flexibility needs, I don't think it's an issue. The only thing I can think of being a concern is maybe it being more of a disadvantage for the Confederacy then the Union. Signal units and division activation costs are pretty irrelev...

LSSpam

It's worth noting that the raids of Forrest, Wheeler, and Morgan out west, while important, also carried associated risks that need to be properly represented. Everyone likes to focus in on the romance of Forrest whipping Sturgis near Corinth, but you have to keep in mind 1) Forrest generally conduc...

LSSpam

A small thought on cavalry raids too. Is it possible to tie the ability to occupy a structure into Military control? If so then that simplifies things. Not allowing individual cavalry units or partisans to control structures and therefore destroy them, but allowing properly sized raiding units to do...

LSSpam

LSSpam: :thumbsup: This is the type of feedback that I'm interested in. There are also other ways to introduce more conscripts (examples: specific timed events) during critical periods other than allowing for an "earlier" partial mobilization, but your information concerning game play force balance...

LSSpam

Let me take this further. So far as I can tell the primary problem in allowing USA access to Full Mobilization immediately is it allows for deep penetrations (beyond Tennessee) in 1862, shortening the game. The problem with the current KY setup is that the USA has trouble getting local manpower supe...

LSSpam

Right...so the programme deals in hits not men.... big deal . But and its a mindblowing but ....unless those hits translate in someway back actual casualties ....then I'm sorry but the game becomes as historical as 'Star Trek' Hits translate into actual hit casualties. I'm not grasping your entire ...

LSSpam

It's both of our first PBEM games but I have an opinion on the draft changes 1) Drawing out the deployment of manpower for both sides is good, it extends the game. 2) However the Union is extremely hard pressed to maintan even localized manpower superiority in mid-late 1862, which is a critical peri...

LSSpam

Its July 1861 and I'm in the process of building up an army or 2. I am interested in taking New Orleans. but there seems to be several ways. One is passing through the two forts at the mouth of the mississippi, the second is the fort at the big lake (please don't make me spell it) and the third is ...

LSSpam

I'd like to see an option added to the game options where units can only enter non-controlled (less than 50% military control) territory if lead by a leader who has passed his activation roll for the turn. This would go a long way to preventing these crazy 400-800 mile deep raids we see. Then make ...

LSSpam

No, I agree. The few times I've played as the U.S., not even talking about partisans, raids have been carried out by Jackson, J. Johnston, and others to Philidelphia and New York City. I was like what? Raids with brigades of infantry no less too. Never would have happened. Now if a 60000 army were ...

LSSpam

My point is that at no time during the rework process was it ever comtemplated to restrict the destruction of RR lines themselves since it was an historically documented behavior. I can't believe you fundamentally cannot grasp the basic premise being presented. Let me try again, with bold letters t...

LSSpam

Wrong. I suggest reading some good Civil War history books or at least Shelby Footes' 3 vol. narrative. I've read them. I strongly suggest reading my post and actually addressing it. Forest and Morgan disrupted Rail traffic for most of the war in Kentucky/Tennessee especially Forest. So much so, th...

LSSpam

I like 1.14 better, but I raid much less often. No more hurrying along to Grafton or Cairo to blow up those depots. Plus I want to play a long game and want the Union to stay in the game as long as possible, so I hold back. See I defended those early on. I'm not talking/complaining about fullscale ...

LSSpam

Just shows you different strokes for different folks. Me I hate 1.14. I'd rather have raiders rampaging over all of the continent chewing up rails at will than have the current situation where depots are virtually impervious to attack until 63 so players now have little need to worry about garrison...

LSSpam

There's really not a whole lot you can do as far as engaging them. The best course of action is to clean up their wake and, like DaemoneIsos said, attempt to stop river crossings. The problem used to be a lot worse in 1.13b. Now, because of cohesion loss, I don't see raiders as nearly a big of thre...

LSSpam

just sends wave after wave of partisans into the old Northwest?

They're not overly dangerous, but it's kind of annoying to lose 3 or 4 rail lines a turn because West Tennessee or Arkansas "partisans" are traveling into central Illinois.

LSSpam

That's the first time I've ever heard of someone describing McClellan as 'smashing' anything. Whatever you're on, I want some of it. Yeah i'm just floored that somehow the mark of success in leading a well-equipped/supplied army with an established chain of command and a 2-1 advantage in numbers is...

LSSpam

All there was to do was go into winter quarters and wait after letting Lee get back down South. Or use his relatively fresh corps (Franklin and Porters) to finish off Lee's army, shortening the war by who knows what. You should remember (you probably do) that technically Meade was still the command...

LSSpam

I disagree with you that McClellan wouldn't have crushed Lee's army though. We don't know that. No. We have a very a good idea. He had two opportunities, better chances then any other general got in the war except for Meade at Williamsport after the Gettysburg retreat and Grant at Petersburg after ...

LSSpam

Besides, if I remember right McPherson said the heavy casualties suffered had mainly to do with disparity in weaponry - most of the CSA units were still equipped with smoothbores while all the Union forces had rilfled muskets. It had more to do with the disjointed command structure Lee was imposed ...

LSSpam

General Lee must have realized the importance when he made attempts to take it on day 1 and 2 What's critical to understanding this however is that the orders Lee issued to take it on Day 2 were issued in a far different situation then which they were carried out. The I and XI corps were largely or...

LSSpam

"A House Divided" would probably be the most marketable name possible outside of something involving "Civil War".

LSSpam

Maybe you lacked enough military control on the region to use the rail?? You need more than 25% IIRC or the guys will have to walk ;) Also, IIRC there is no rail bridge across the river there, so if you were crossing it can take takes quite a lot of time, even if you move by rail. By flipping US I ...

LSSpam

W.Barksdale wrote:I consider pure militia type units as those that are placed by event. They are already locked in place thus ensuring that they stay instate. I think the game models this very well already....

That's a fair point.

LSSpam

The point is, since it would probably require a game engine change it's not going to happen for AACW1. Why? Because I'm tired of troubleshooting game engine changes for AACW1 and I'm not participating in that type of troubleshooting nor providing any more database support for game engine changes go...

LSSpam

Would not be just a database mod. Also, this would not be historically correct since there were various Militia units absorbed into the armies of both sides. Would imagine those were better represented by "volunteer" brigades. There would need to be some distinction between what one would refer to ...

LSSpam

After a reinstallation, if you are still seeing a penalty of some sort, you will have to post a saved game with the previous turns as part of the saved game files so we can explain what you might be seeing. For sure, it CANNOT be the movement penalty events associated with an invasion. It may have ...

Search found 75 matches

So what do you do about a CSA player that