AGEOD Forums

ohms_law

The problem isn't that a leader page isn't available, the problem is that it is so confusing which filters you need to click to get it. Why the heck are there two pairs of filters that use the same icons, for god's sake!? No, the problem is that none of the information that is important is there. J...

ohms_law

I still just want a ledger page for leaders.

ohms_law

Union Athena seems to always go passive in 1863, for some reason. If you outlast her to that point, then you've already won the game, it's just a question of how long it'll take you. It doesn't appear that the AI knows what to do with the middle to end game, unless she's had some major success in th...

ohms_law

That's what I'm saying.
AFAIK, all he did was enable the old(er) code that's been there for a while anyway.

ohms_law

Those aren't the types of encirclement that we're referring to here, pgr. You're talking about encirclement at the strategic level, through maneuver, which had been a principal tenant of warfare since at least Napoleon's wars early in the century. What people are complaining about here are "blitzkri...

ohms_law

Gray, you do realize, I hope, that the Union took... well, just about every port in the South other than Wilmington and Charleston, before taking New Orleans, right? Taking New Orleans lead to all but the remotest portions of Louisiana falling to the Union. Lincoln reconstructed the State by executi...

ohms_law

I wouldn't say "easily", but yea... I agree that "encirclement" isn't a Civil War thing. To be honest, I hadn't really thought of the situation(s) that are being described as encirclement (probably because it is a Civil War game), but I can see how the label can easily be applied. One thing that hap...

ohms_law

I started thinking about how EAW's War Plans could work with CW2 as soon as I saw them, myself.

ohms_law

Part of the reason to change VP's is to change Athena's behavior, though. Anyway, I agree, giving more VPs to the South would be more historical. They wanted their own territory, not the North's, after all. And, the Union needed to "invade" the South in order to impose Federal power on the seceded S...

ohms_law

Yea, it had nothing to do with Manassas itself. People just wanted to see Mcclelland and the Army of the Potomac do something. Richmond was always the goal, really.

ohms_law

Athena, as always, needs help. Especially following new rules changes. What you're saying in this reply is much different than your earlier post, though. "I feel like something is wrong and am just trying to bring that to the attention of other players & the developers" is distinctly different than ...

ohms_law

It's absolutely not "cheating" to take Matagorda. That's the whole reason that they chose to make it an RGD, rather than just have it as a decision in the ledger. Anyway, I tend to favor lots of smallish landings on targets of opportunity. That's what the Union did historically, anyway. If you conce...

ohms_law

Pocus did say "work in progress". Some details about what's going on would be nice. For what it's worth, the penalties do seem a bit steep. Sorta. I kinda like it, but I'm starting to suspect that I like a more difficult game than others do... Bumping up the cohesion recovery rate just slightly may ...

ohms_law

VP's should be measuring the PLAYERS and not the game factions. This is the most important point I have to make. If both players play equally well, they should both have about equal VP's. I disagree, and clearly Pocus does as well. In addition to what he just said, he also mentioned earlier that VP...

ohms_law

Pocus, or anybody else in the know, is it possible to have one location which will give different VP's to different factions? I'm all for adding VP locations if they are logical and not just alibi locations. But, just speculating, if adding new VP locations in the South isn't enough, maybe it would...

ohms_law

Pdox makes a pretty good WWII game, FYI.

ohms_law

I like Tripax's Southern ideas. I wouldn't make Gettysburg anything, though. The only reason that it's important is because of where it's located, which shouldn't bring VP's in and of itself. I'd definitely remove Pittsburgh as a Strat city/VP location (for the AI more than the players, but regardle...

ohms_law

I've only seen a couple of "bloodbath" battles, myself (across several different games). I'm not saying that there's nothing at all wrong with the new rules or patch. Also, I'm not really seeing exactly what different people are doing with their games and their troops. More detailed battle reports w...

ohms_law

Ace wrote:Pocus said in the change logs, he enabled zone of control checks in retreat. They were not enabled in 1.04.

Ya didn't answer the question.

ohms_law

How do you know that the ZOC rules are affecting... well, anything, really?
I'm sure that they are, but how can you tell?

ohms_law

I don't follow, Orso. I haven't really been following this thread, so maybe I missed something earlier... ? If a Corps has to cross a river, then it should take the river crossing penalty. That's what the penalty is for. Infantry can't fly over rivers, after all. all of the troops under Johnston tha...

ohms_law

albeit outnumbered

And you're surprised about this? In the Civil War era (or any era, for that matter, but the ACW era is one of the worst about force strength considerations)? Why?

ohms_law

Johnson probably didn't retreat into Humphreys because of the new retreat code, which is probably also why the battle was so bloody. Crossing a river to attack an entrenched defender is pretty idiotic, too. Johnson's force got what it deserved, it seems to me. It's no wonder I'm not seeing the supp...

ohms_law

I'll probably get argument about this, and that's ok, but I'd find that situation ("town which is garrisoned and a stack outside the town means you could win the battle with the stack outside of the town but not touch the garrison.") to be perfectly reasonable. Regardless of anything else, it's quit...

ohms_law

I was complaining about it specifically not changing, recently. I know for a fact that posture doesn't change, when it probably should.
I'l like to see this behavior all the time, incidentally. After a force succeeds in an attack or assault, the force really should switch to defensive posture.

ohms_law

None of that matters when the terrain is all muddy. Nothing moved at all when it takes 20 days to traverse a single provence.

ohms_law

El Paso can only supply about a single (undersized) division, though. Anything more than that will tend to starve, especially in the winter and spring when the whole region turns muddy and supply doesn't move anywhere.

ohms_law

There's a lot more to the "Southern 'baked-in' leadership edge" than a West Point degree. The majority of them served in the Mexican - American War, if nothing else. I agree that the Union found some of the better commanders, eventually. Remember that Grant, for example, had been an officer before t...

ohms_law

Try turning down the detection bonus. That seems to really mess up Athena, from what I've seen people say.

ohms_law

What they said.

I'd also like to add that as the Confederates, the main problem ends up being supply. Actually, that's true for the Union as well; the Union can throw more resources at the problem, though. Keep units small and fight a defense in depth, but keep the pressure on by staying engaged.

Search found 628 matches