AACW2 wishlist

[TheDoctorKing]

Yes, this seems to be the standard approach. I play a wide variety of games multiplayer and they either use Java, like VASSAL, or one machine hosts and the others are clients, like Freeciv. I'm thinking the second formula is the best way to approach the problem. VASSAL works nicely but clearly takes a whole lot of work for the programmers. The server-client setup is more generally used technology; all sorts of games use it.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[rattler01]

Would it be possible to have elements just drop to like a 1 man force, like when you move units into KY when your not supposed too? While I don't know the historical aspect has well, would seeing bde's just disappear be realistic? I'm sure some people chose to re-enlist or were stuck somewhere on the CSA coast and couldn't just walk off into the country side. And this would allow units to be replaced with the replacement pools rather then rebuilding. And should it effect art, support, or Naval elements?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[caranorn]

Would it be possible to have elements just drop to like a 1 man force, like when you move units into KY when your not supposed too? While I don't know the historical aspect has well, would seeing bde's just disappear be realistic? I'm sure some people chose to re-enlist or were stuck somewhere on the CSA coast and couldn't just walk off into the country side. And this would allow units to be replaced with the replacement pools rather then rebuilding. And should it effect art, support, or Naval elements?

Well those 3-month volunteer units were usually brought back to the place they'd been mustered at and then released from service. So that would include any units on the CSA coast as you say (Fort Sumter for instance). Whether that should include artillery is a tough question as a number of volunteer artillery batteries disbanded like that left their guns behind for new batteries...

And yes, quite a few regiments reenlisted en-block, so did individuals soldiers. But in all cases those units seem to have first returned to their place of muster. So for all intends and purpouses those units were first disbanded and then reformed...

Still one question remains. If we use the historic brigades (in a mod for instance) than we often end up with mixes of 3-month and 2-/3-year volunteers, often with regular army artillery batteries. It would be nice if there were a way to disband individual elements and not just antire units...

[truth is life]

What I'd most like to see in AACW2 is an improved ability to manage your armies, in the sense of being able to see what they are doing. The current ledger design is through, but makes it difficult to separate your various forces, such as militia forces preventing random raids, units mustering-up, rear patrols, armies in different areas, etc. I would suggest at least a filter by Department option (so I could choose to look only at armies in the Mid-Atlantic, f.e.) and the ability to filter by multiple options at the same time...eg., Mid-Atlantic unfixed forces led by generals (ie., my Eastern front divisions, corps, and armies). Also maybe a filter for larger formations, so you can look at just your divisions, corps, or armies, or perhaps divisions of x army, y corps, or so on. Being able to rename stacks, armies, corps, and divisions would also be useful for this.

Some expanded political and economic options would be nice too...someone a while back mentioned managing a Cabinet and other subsidiary offices, and I think that would be a pretty neat idea. You might be able to choose different secretaries (with VP and NM cost, of course, similar to promoting low-seniority generals; you might prefer waiting for your current secretary to lose the confidence of Congress), each with different bonuses and penalties. For example, you might have a Secretary of State who impose bonuses or penalties to your FI score, or a Secretary of the Treasury who affects the various monetary options, for example by making it easier to sell bonds.

Another thing might be changing this...

Q: Why can't I 'brown-water' blockade Richmond by placing a fleet at Hampton Roads?"
A: To blockade a particular port, you need to place a fleet of sufficient strength in each of the river/sea areas that harbour connects to. Blockades "further out" don't count, even if you close off an area that ships to/from the port in question "must" pass through on their way to sea.

...though that would definitely require AGE2.

[andatiep]

Here is my wishlist of the summer


Please have a good seat, i wish you a good reading :


----------------------------------------
Role of the Great Book

I would like the Great Book to have much more pages as an "historical" book, with all historical events and options the players (alias the US and CS governemnts) can have in the game (with all the usefull explanations on it in short articles), listed somehow :
1. The USA political options and events
2. The CSA political options and events
3. The common events
4. A various bibliography and videography of the ACW


-------------------------------------------------------
New Victory Conditions

- If Lincoln is re-elected, the game should now be over in early 1865 and lost automatically BY THE CSA if there is still no NM victory. Simply because a re-elected Republican government already involved in a total war policy since years have no reasons to be defeated if not beaten on the battlefields or in the elections. Except if there is a Foreign Intervention :
In this case, the game may continue untill late march 1869. If there's no National Moral victory in late march 1869, we check if the FI is still with the CSA (As already proposed in this thread, if Mexico is French free and Canada is British free, then each FI should be removed for the rest of the game). If there is still FI in late march 1869, the CSA win, if not, the USA win.
If delayed by a FI, the game could also propose to the players a "shorter" game with such a check of the FI in the next partial Congress election (late 1866), if Republicans loose this elections.

- If Lincoln is not re-elected, then the game should be over and lost automatically BY THE USA if there is no NM Victory untill late february 1865, when Democrats takes office. If there is a FI after Lincoln wasn't re-elected, USA loose immediatly.


----------------------------------------------------------
About the NM, VP and an EP point system

I suggest the introduction of an Engagment Points (EP) system (somethink like in ROP) in AAACW2. This could simulate the credit of political actions the Government can do before he can't control the situation anymore because of its unpopularity (especially among the ruling classes with a political influence).

The more the towns/regions have a % of loyalty, the more they could give each turn some EP (e.g. if we want to link it with the Martial Law and Habeas Corpus suspension policies : 15% loyalty gives 1 point, 30% => 2pt, 51% => 3pt, 71% => 4pt and 86% => 5 pt). Some events or policies in the Great Book could give some EP too.

Most of the current policies available in the Great Book should have a political cost in EP according to their importance.
Some events could cost EP, placing specific generals on the map could also cost EP and of course, after all, switching the seniority promotion of leaders too (instead of loosing VP).
AACW2 could also have a new feature which give to the player the possibility to pay EP to choose now its ministers in the government with special global economical & political abilities.

The NM concept is already very good. It determine the Victory.

But the VP concept is questionned with the new Victory Conditions proposed above. Even currently, what does it represented anyway ?
Since it is growing thanks to the control of main regions/towns and since it is mostly used to increase the amount of conscripts and money you can get when you choose some policies in the Great Book, i suggest to rename it with somethink more adequat like, let's say here "Productivity Points" (PP).
Then it is logical that after rising a lots of troops and/or taxes, the population loose productivity because there is suddenly less workers and less money for the civil economy. Then we can explain this PP given each turn by the main strategic cities as a simulation of an economy of war which is organized step by step by each side and globally keep the regular improving of the productivity during the war.

I will thus suggest this use of EP and PP in many of the following articles.


--------------------------------------------
1862 partial Congress election

According to the situation on the field and the policies choosed by the US player which may improve the opposition to the war (Pacifist Democrats branch), the partial congress election event(s) may give benefits or problems to the US player.

First, the event check :
1) if not enough strategical objectives (7 or 8 towns with a star ?) controlled by USA AND not enough NM won in the battlefield during the last months, the USA loyalty decrease by -5% in the Northern & Border States.
2) if Emancipation was proclamed before this election and not after, the USA loyalty decrease by -10% in the border States and by -5% in the northern States.
3) if the Draft policy was first activated before this election, USA loyalty decrease by -5% in the border States and by -15% in the northern States (It was a big reason why US government waited for early 63' to do it).
4) if there is a Foreign Recognition or a Foreign Intervention, the USA loyalty increase by +15% or +25% in the Northern & Border States (Patriotic union).

Then the event check :
- In all controled Northern States (up to KS, MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 75% of loyalty.
- In all controled Border States (KS, MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 15% of loyalty.
If the addition of all this points is superior to the current amount of the USA National Moral points, then the Republicans win the partial congress election. USA get or loose a big amount of EP if Republicans losse or not the elections.

NB : As far as i know, currently, to improve the loyalty to the government, players can apply Martial Law, suspend Habeas Corpus or send generals which special abilities can affect the loyalty in a region (and of course occupy new war objectives on the map...).
If Martial Law is applied : it guaranty a minimum of 30% but a maximum of 70% loyalty.
If Habeas Corpus is suspended : it guaranty a minimum of 15% but a maximum of 85% loyalty.
So let's say, if the US player have only 85% loyalty in NY, he may choose to avoid, before the elections, a policy like the Martial Law (which should bring now more drafties from a Draft Mobilization policy, See related articles after) to stay up to 75% loyalty and to get the 1 point per level of controled town in northern States...
Let's say now that if the US player have also only 10 % loyalty in St Louis (MO) and other towns around, he may choose here to just suspend the Habeas Corpus in the Missouri State to be sure to reach the minimum of 15% loyalty which will give him the 1 pt per level of controled towns in border States.


----------------------------------------
1864 Presidential Election :

The military victory in the South are not the only thing to care about. The Democrats Copperheads' opposition to the war should be limited in the northern states so that A.Lincoln be re-elected. Like for the partial congress election, i do prefer to use the loyalty for this event rather than the NM like currently : The National Moral points represent more the moral of the troops/workers, the loyalty represent more the moral of all the population in the backside which actually vote for elections. This make also the control of regions were the population is loyal more important too, at least before the elections.

First, the event check :
1) if not enough strategical objectives (7 or 8 towns with a star ?) controlled by USA AND not enough NM won in the battlefield during the last months (2 NM ?), the USA loyalty decrease by -5% in the Northern & Border States.
2) if the "Emancipation as a war objective" policy was activated before this election and not after, the USA loyalty decrease by -5% in the border States and by -5% in the northern States.
3) if the "General Abolition of Slavery in the USA (13th Amendment)" policy was activated before this election, USA loyalty decrease by -10% in the border States and by -10% in the northern States (It was a big reason why US government waited for early 65' to do it).
4) if there is a Foreign Recognition or a Foreign Intervention, the USA loyalty increase by +15% or +25% in the Northern & Border States (Patriotic union).

Then the event check :
- In all controled Northern States (up to KS, MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 75% of loyalty.
- In all controled Border States (KS, MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 15% of loyalty.
If the addition of all this points is superior to the current amount of the USA National Moral points, then Abraham Lincoln is re-elected (if not see then the new Victory Conditions above). USA get or loose a big amount of EP if he is or not re-elected.


-------------------------------------------
1866 partial Congress election

This event is designed if war continue till after 1865 because of a Foreign Intervention. It could be also the victory condition for a "shorter" game.
Like for the other elections, according to the situation on the field and the policies choosed by the US player which may improve the opposition to the war (Pacifist Democrats branch), the partial congress election event(s) may give benefits or problems to the US player.

First, the event check :
1) if not enough strategical objectives (7 or 8 towns with a star ?) controlled by USA AND not enough NM won in the battlefield during the last months, the USA loyalty decrease by -5% in the Northern & Border States.
2) if the "Full citizenship for the "colored" peoples (Black Vote)" policy was activated before this election and not after, the USA loyalty decrease by -5% in the border States and by -5% in the northern States.

Then the event check :
- In all controled Northern States (up to KS, MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 75% of loyalty.
- In all controled Border States (KS, MO, KY, WV, MD, DE) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 15% of loyalty.
- if the policy "Full citizenship for the "colored" peoples (Black Vote)" was activated, in all controled Southern States with huge slave population (Mississipi, LA, AL, GA, SC, NC and VA) the USA count 1 point for each level of towns controled where its region have at least 15% of loyalty.
If the addition of all this points is superior to the current amount of the USA National Moral points, then the Republicans win the partial congress election. USA get or loose a big amount of EP if Republicans loose or not the elections.


-------------------------------------------------------------
About the "Lincoln Calling for Volunteer" event

This event happen in early july 61. It say that because of this Call, VA, NC, TN and AR immediatly join the confederation and give +20% CSA loyalty in VA and 5% in other states.
I guess there is a subtile difference between exiting the Union and joining the Confederation, but this should be better explained in the text. Next to this :
- If those 4 States still didn't join the Confederation, why is it possible since several turns to recruit and gather CSA troops in this States ?
- Why +20% CSA loyalty in VA when VA have already 100% loyalty in all its regions ?
- If Lincoln had really a choice on that issue, maybe let the US player to choose or not to do this Call. In fact, this is a Call for volunteer policy like in the Great Book, so maybe the event could be change like this : As soon as the US player decide to activate its first "Call for volunteers" policy, this 4 States became available on the map. This way, the US player could try to start the war in a different way : if he don't call for volunteers during the first months, he could try to create a headbridge in South Carolina or Georgia with the tiny basic federal army available, without crossing Virginia. But i suppose that, anyway, this States would have join the CSA before the end of the year...


---------------------------------------------
About the 36th states event

I really don't see why this event (evt_nam_USA_36thState1864) should change the minimum NM before loosing from 60 to 40.
It's better to simulate why is it politically so important to transform a Territory into a State.
Since it did happen like this, maybe let the USA player to decide himself to transform a Territory in State when it have enough loyalty % so that it became usefull for the elections...: e.g. if West Virginia, Kansas, New Mexico (?) become States, they bring new areas/towns with good USA loyality which help Lincoln to win the election (see the "1864 Presidential Election" and "partial congress election" articles above).
And this way, it give also good reasons to the CSA player to occupy/raid this areas (that give Quantrill at least a "good" reason for burning Lawrence (KS)...).


--------------------------------------------------------
New "colored" replacement in the pool

Next to the Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery replacements, etc. , a new type of replacement in the replacement pool should be created and used for all the "colored" units of the game. This pool will only increase according to events and to specific situations and policies the USA player choose in the Great Book (see after) ; the CSA get a big amount of replacements at the start of the game (200), because they will need it only for "Slave unit" (see after). It should not be allowed to buy them like the other US and CS replacements (actually, like Mexican, British or French replacements).


---------------------------------------
New Slaves/Contrabands units

I suggest to add a new unit in the unit pool to simulate in the game all the slaves or former slaves which were mobilized for military duty by both sides and which had an important role during the war to build and maintain the entrenchements (and the roads, railways and bridges) in a region. This unit could :
- have the ability to hurry the works : to next level of entrenchement, to repear railroads and to buid a depot (instead of the Ingeneers unit, which could instead be absolutly needed to build modern fortress and to reach the level 5 to 8 entrenchements in a region).
- would be a "Support Unit" type, so it could be easy to capture by the enemy, like chariots.
- Each time the USA player capture such units, it get 1 "colored" replacement bonus in the pool (to be used for creating fighting units...).
- Each 6 months, some of this units pop up in the CSA side (up to 15 units, maybe).
- Each time it activate some policies (e.g. "Runaway slaves are allowed to work for the Army and the Navy", "Emancipation Proclamation", etc.), some of this units pop up in the USA side, mostly in US controled southern States regions.
- Since this units are free for both sides, the players will use them to build and keep the trenches in the second lines instead of many Milicias units which had to do it till now (BTW, unlocking all this local milicias would be better).
- This units use of courses the special "colored" replacements in the replacement pool.


-----------------------------------
New "Draft Riots" events

This kind of event should now potentially happen each turn somewhere in all the northern and border States if a Draft policy was activated in the Great Book (but not more than 6 events a year anyway...) :
- The basic probability could be 15% chance each turn.
- In each State, this probability increase by 1% for each infantry or cavalry element bought in the State's unit pool, the colored unit elements are never counted (or we can also say that each colored element reduce the probability by -1%). NB : The turn after, if no units where bought, the probability is set again to the basic one.
- In each State, if the Habeas Corpus is suspended, this probability decrease by 10%.
- In each State, if the Martial Law is applied, this probability decrease by 15%.
- the probability and the degree of dammages (food/ammo/War supply) on the regular structural production in a region (+ the plunt icon) or of the loose of VPs (alias PP), could also depend on the enemy loyalty in the region where it happen (e.g. stronger up to 40%).
- The player should loose some EP each time such an event pop up
- remove the events evt_nam_USA_DraftRiots1863 and evt_nam_USA_NewYorkDraftRiots1863, keep the texts for the random
events.


--------------------------------------------------------
New "Massive desertions in CSA" events

CSA didn't had such Draft Riots events (AFAIN) but maybe had instead a lots of desertion or temporary desertion (soldiers going back to the familial farms to help and joining again the army later).
So we could also design random events functionning like above for the probability and its relationship with the Habeas Corpus and the Martial Law but which only :
- reduce the CSA EP amount each time such an event pop up
- reduce the regular production of conscripts available for the next turn.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again about Draft Mobilization, Habeas corpus suspension and Martial laws

As long as a State is invaded (at least with one middle size force, not by single units), he should get a better conscripts production from a Calling for volunteers or from a Draft policy than at the start of the war.

The game should start only with "Call for volunteers" policies. The draft policies should become available randomly with a % of chance added by each of this criterious : how many states are invaded/occupated by the enemy, NM situation, how many losses, Foreign Recognition of the CSA, Foreign Intervention, strong defeat(s) on the field (at least 1 NM lost in a battle)...
...and if the concept is adopted : the amount of EP !
Or this Laws could also be a political choice in the hands of the players :
- Players can choose to vote this Draft Laws from early 1862 BUT at a huge cost in EP. This cost will reduce each time one of the same criterious listed above is completed.

Finally, The Call for volunteers (6 month policy) should cost only some money and some VP (Alias Productivity Points (PP)), not anymore NM at all. The more NM you have, the more conscripts you get. The more EP (so indirectly, the more % of loyalty) you have, the more conscripts you get too. The more you paid for volunteers, the more conscripts you get also, like currently. Once Draft policy is lunched, the Call for volunteers Option should be disable for the rest of the game...

Draft policy (it should be a permanent policy), should cost many NM, many Productivity Points (VP) and a huge cost of EP ; no or very few money.
The draft policy bring automatically each 6 month always 2 times more conscript than a Call for volunteers policy.
The more NM you have, the more conscripts you get. The more EP (so indirectly, the more % of loyalty) you have, the more conscripts you get too. The more you paid for drafties, the more conscripts you get (like for the Call for volunteers).
Once Draft policy is lunched, it is activated for the rest of the war, but you get 3 political options (6 months policies) to set how hard will be your draft policy (There is no more this "partial mobilization" or "Total mobilization" options) :
- If you suspend the Habeas corpus in a State (6 months policy), you get 50% more conscript than the basic draft policy gives you from this State.
- If you apply the Martial Law in a State (6 months policy), you get 100% more conscript than the basic draft policy gives you from this State.
- A new option could also be available, the government can change the amount of dollars the rich drafties could pay to avoid the mobilization : If he choose a more democratic mobilization, the government will loose the support of the rich classes (many loose of EP) but will globally improve the NM (the war will be less seen as the war of the rich done by the poor).

NB : It means that the global amount of conscript the player get from the Call for volunteers and the Draft policies is based on the addition of the 1860's estimated population of each controled State. Then, let's say after the Draft policy was decided by a player, if he decide also to suspend the Habeas corpus only in Illinois, it would increase the basic number of conscript he get only from this States.


--------------------------------------------------------------
The 7 stages of a Total War policy

As we know, to win this conflict, the USA should step by step go into a total war.
If we summarize, it means :
- a military strategy with a strong occupation of all the southern main cities and scorched earth policy sometimes around.
- a political strategy : political reforms which will radically change the southern society and destroy the "Slavery Institution" and the rebel southern ruling classes.
- in its own side, a more powerfull federal government able to draft conscripts and if necessary to suspend Habeas Corpus or apply Martial Law.

The Total War political strategy could be simulated with 7 policies in the Great Book the US player can only perform chronologically, one after one :


Stage 1 : "The Confiscation Act"

- USA player can decide when he do this policy from early august 1861.
- it cost few EP.
- it give 10 NM to the CSA (like currently).
- it should bring some money to the USA (300 M$ ?), as simulation of the southern accounts/goods in the North being confiscated.
- This policy choice replace of course the current scripted event "Confiscation Act".


Stage 2 : "Runaway slaves (alias "contrabands") are allowed to work for the Army and the Navy"

[SIZE="1"]Quoting the wikipedia : "the U.S. Congress passed a [other] confiscation act in July 1862 that freed slaves of owners in rebellion against the United States, and a militia act that empowered the President to use freed slaves in any capacity in the Army and the Navy. President Abraham Lincoln, however, was concerned with public opinion in the four border states that remained in the Union, as well as with northern Democrats who supported the war. Lincoln opposed early efforts to recruit black soldiers, even though he accepted their use as laborers."[/size]

- USA player is allowed to performe this policy only 6 months after he did the previous stage "Confiscation Act".
- it cost few EP
Concerning the Navy :
- it give a regular +1 conscript production in this naval/fluvial ports : NYC, Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, St Louis, Cairo, Louisville and in each of the 12 southern main naval/fluvial ports IF under US control.
- It give a +5% CSA loyalty in NYC, Baltimore & Washington (or in ports were historically black dockers and seamens were very unpopular)
- Remove the event "evt_nam_USA_RunawaySlavesNavy1861".
Concerning the Army :
- it give a regular global +1O conscript production (more "white" soldiers are avalaible for the fighting regiments).
- it give to the US player one "Slaves/Contrabands" unit (see article about above) in all towns he control in the southern States (NOT in the border States).
- It increase the amount of "coloured" replacement in the replacement pool by 5.


Stage 3 : "Emancipation Proclamation"

Lincoln should have the power to apply its policy of Emancipation. It means that he should reply to the "pro-peace and pro-slavery" Democrats with victories on the battlefield and that he should concretly allow the desertion of the Deep South slaves by moving the federals lines close enough to the great plantations. E.g. in the History, at the end of 1862, when the Emancipation was proclamed, the Union did win 2 major battles (Shiloh and Antietam) and occupied Norfolk, Memphis and New Orleans.

The USA player is only allowed to performe this policy :
- 3 months after he did the "Runaway slaves are allowed to work for the Army and the Navy" policy.
- if he win at least 2 National Moral points in one or two major battle from the begining of the year.
- if he occupate 3 strategic towns in confederated States with a large population of slaves among this list : Memphis (TN), Savannah or Atlanta (GA), Charleston (SC), Mobile (AL), Wilmington (NC), New Orleans (LA), Norfolk or Richmond (VA), Vicksburg (Mississipi).

Once activated, this policy :
- Decrease the USA loyality by -5% in all Northern States (Democrat Opposition)
- Decrease the USA loyality by -10% in all Border States (Democrat & Slave owners Opposition)
- Increase the USA loyality by +10% in all Southern States (Slaves start to hope from the Union).
- Increase the amount of "coloured" replacement in the replacement pool by 10.
- Takes from the CSA 100 VP (alias Productivity Points (PP)), because the slaves are less and less productive after the news is spreaded.
- Cost a big amount of EP
- Give to the US player one "Slaves/Contrabands" unit (see article about above) in all towns he control in the southern States (NOT in the border States).

NB : It DO NOT decrease the FI since the UK and France waited for the Emancipation Act to count seriously this proclamation.


Stage 4 : "Emancipation Act"

The Emancipation of all the rebels' States slaves is signed.
Once activated, this policy :
- Decrease the USA loyality by -5% in all Northern States (Democrat Opposition)
- Decrease the USA loyality by -5% in all Border States (Democrat & Slave owners Opposition)
- Increase the USA loyality by +15% in all Southern States (Slaves start to fight for the Union).
- Takes from the CSA 100 VP (alias Productivity Points (PP)), because the slaves are less and less productive after the news is spreaded.
- Push European countries to take now the Emancipation Proclamation as serious. The FI points are reduced by 25 points.
- Allow the army to enlist volunteer colored troops : the first "colored" units (only milicias) became available in the Unit pool (around 20 units, NB : place always only 20% of them in the Northern States boxes, none in the border States, and 80% in the southern States, placable if controled), around 5 milicias units pop up directly among the 10 main southern towns if controled by the USA.
- Increase the amount of "coloured" replacement in the replacement pool by 10.
- Give to the USA 50 VP (alias PP).
- Cost a big amount of EP
- Remove the "Chasseur d'Afrique" event
- Give to the US player one "Slaves/Contrabands" unit (see article about above) in all towns he control in the southern States (NOT in the border States).


Stage 5 : "Emancipation as a war objective"

The implementation of the Emancipation Act became officially a War objective, together with the "Salvation of the Union".
Once activated, this policy :
- Give more "colored" units available in the unit pool (distribution with the same proportion as Stage 4) : milicias (20), infantry (20) and cavalry (5) units.
- Increase the amount of "coloured" replacement in the replacement pool by 10.
- give to the USA 50 VP (alias PP).
- Cost a big amount of EP.
- Decrease the USA loyality by -5% in all Northern States (Democrat Opposition)
- Decrease the USA loyality by -5% in all Border States (Democrat & Slave owners Opposition)
- Increase the USA loyality by +5% in all Southern States (Slaves start to fight for the Union).
- Allow a new "Plunt" special order for the US forces (see article after) which can now performe a "scorched earth" policy in the South.
- Give to the US player one "Slaves/Contrabands" unit (see article about above) in all towns he control in the southern States (NOT in the border States).


Stage 6 : "General Abolition of Slavery in the USA (13th Amendment)"

Once activated, this policy :
- Allow the US government to recruit "colored" troops in the Border States. It give more "colored" units available in the unit pool (especially in the border states boxes) : milicias (20), infantry (20) and cavalry (5) units.
- Increase the amount of "coloured" replacement in the replacement pool by 10.
- Increase the USA loyality by +5% in ALL States (this universal event is mostly seen as a consensual event that improve the glory of the Nation...).
- Give to the US player one "Slaves/Contrabands" unit (see article about above) in all towns he control in the southern States.


Stage 7 : Full citizenship for the "colored" peoples (Black Vote)

Republicans are now ready to use the black vote to stay on power.
Only available from january 1866, for the 1866 partial congress election, this policy :
- Decrease the USA loyality by -5% in all Northern & Border States (Democrat Opposition)
- Increase the USA loyality by +10% in all Southern States (Slaves start to vote for the Union).
- Help a lot the US Republican government to win the 1866 partial congress election thanks to the support of the "colored" people (see the article about this event above)
- Give more "colored" units available in the unit pool (in all States) : milicias (40), infantry (40) and cavalry (20) units.
- Increase the amount of "coloured" replacement in the replacement pool by 10, each year till the end of the war.
- Give to the US player one "Slaves/Contrabands" unit (see article about above) in all towns he control in the southern States.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About "colored" troops costs and proportions in the US Army

All "colored" units cost in M$ should be only 2/3 of the amount of a similar "normal" unit, to reflect that "colored" volunteers were less paid and had less good materials during the first years of their recrutment. They also cost only 1 conscript each, because they are not supposed to use the basic "white" global conscript stock (the 1 conscript cost could simulate anyway the "white" officer staff).

The number of colored units available in the unit pool should fit to the historical situation :
- 25% of the colored units available should be available in the northern free States, not more. The rest should only be available in the deep South States (and of courses only when USA control enough strategic towns there to rule this States). Not at all in the "Border States" unless the 13th amendment was voted.
- Check again in the game if the total number of "colored" units available is close to the historical situation : the union player should be able to reach 10% of colored troops in the US army in 1865 (around 100 actual regiments, i don't know if it means also 100 infantry or cavalry elements in the game), and maybe 15% in 1866, etc. up to 25% if the game continue after till 1869 because of a FI.


---------------------------------------------------
New "Political general" abilities

Most of the generals remain neutral in politics during the ACW, but few of northern generals did act on the field as "black republican" or as "soft Democrats" and it had an importance in some sectors. To simulate this, i propose two "political general" abilities : "Political general (republican)" & "Political general (Democrat)".
Like Lincoln, it's up to the player to choose to send or remove this generals in/from areas where they could behave politically and create interesting events with bad and god effects.

1. "Political general (Republican)"

In its areas of command (if he have the best rank/seniority in a 3 regions range around him or in the whole State if he don't have any superiors in it), this general will implement a strong Total War policy, sometime even before the government ask for it. Which means :
- if in a region with more than 25% CSA loyalty, this general will always apply the Martial Law (as usual all VP (alias PP) from strategic towns in the area of command are given to the enemy).
- This general have a random possibility to make troubles if there is less than 25% USA loyalty : pillage/riots events, increase the probability that CSA partisans pop up.

Next to this, if its area of command cover one of the 10 following southern regions (in areas with a large population of slaves) under USA military control - Memphis (TN), Savannah (GA), Atlanta (GA), Charleston (SC), Mobile (AL), Wilmington (NC), Norfolk (VA), Richmond (VA) & New Orleans (LA), Vicksburg (Mississipi) :
- This general can allow the US player to recruit and place there "colored" milicias from the reinforcemnt pool on the map (like in ROP). This way, the USA player don't have to wait for the Emancipation Act and/or to wait to control a whole southern State to start to recruit "colored" troops there.
- This general give also +1 "colored" replacements in the replacement pool each turn.
- BUT he cost some EP each turn to the USA player (The Democrat opposition is unhappy with this designations in the South)

2. "Political general (Democrat)" :

In its areas of command (see above), this general will refuse to follow the Total War policies of the government, which means :
- The new special order "Plunt" (see article after) became NOT available to him and its local subordonates.
- The Martial Law do not apply. Only the suspension of the Habeas Corpus.

Next to this, if its area of command cover one of the 10 southern towns/region with a large population of slaves listed above :
- He will not enlist "colored" troops and will give back runaway slaves to their "owners" in the southern and border states, so USA losse -1 "colored" replacement each turn untill the Emancipation Act of all the rebel States' slaves is signed (not proclamed, but signed... which is stage n°4 of the total war policies).

BUT he give to the USA player a good amount of EP each turn (The Democrat opposition is happy with this designations) and he have the ability to give +1% USA loyalty each turn in the region were he is (up to 80%), so it is also interesting to garrison him in northern towns if they have less than 75% loyalty before elections.

NB : This abilities replace or modify this events : "evt_nam_USA_ChasseursAfrique1862", "evt_nam_USA_Fremont1861" and
"evt_nam_USA_ButlerNewOrleans".


-------------------------------------------------------
About "States' financial policies"

I add to my previous contribution on that domain (http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=164846&postcount=176) :
- Players can't use the Income tax policies till the Law wasn't voted by the Congress, so when the proper event is displayed.
- The Paper Money Printing policy can NOT be activated more than 1 time per month (maybe 3 month).
- Remove the 5 events "evt_nam_USA_FirstIncomeTaxLaw1864" which each give 200 M$. The Players should activate himself this policy or not (not means the government choosed to fix very very few income taxes this year).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
About "Commercial & Territorial concessions" policies

- I really don't see why this policies have a chance that the players LOOSE FI points.
- If this policies didn't succeed, the players should only loose a part of what they already have cost to be tried.
- Commercial concessions should cost few NM, a big amount of EP and a lots of VP (alias Productivity Points) and if it succeed, it give an average amount of FI points. If it didn't succeed, it only cost a lots of EP.
- Territorial concessions should cost a lots of NM, a huge amount of EP and few VP (alias PP) and if it succeed, it give a big amount of FI points. If it didn't succeed, it only cost few NM and a lots of EP.


--------------------------------------------------
About USA "Total Embargo" policy

- The both Blockade Boxes feature SHOULD NOT work if this policy is not activated by the US player !!
- Whatever it succeed or not, this policy should give few NM and an average amount of EP to the USA but also cost a lots of VP (alias Productivity Points).
- The "Territorial & Commercial concessions" policies should be also available in the same time. It is not linked.
- It should be displayed in the text of this event the maximum of ships/blocus points the US player can put in each of the blockade boxes.


-----------------------------------------------------
About CSA "Cotton Embargo" policy

- Idem. Whatever it succeed or not, this policy should give few NM and an average amount of EP to the CSA but also cost a lots of VP (alias Productivity Points).
- It should be a 24 months policy for the first time and then 12 months policy, because the UK and France had a large stock when the ACW started and they really need cotton only a year after the CSA auto-embargo started, in summer 1862 !! Or let it be only available in spring 62 with a 12 months policy if its more simple to implement, anyway, as far as i know, the CS government didn't really controled the 61 "auto-embargo", which was mostly a spontaneous action from the (white) population.
- If this policy is activated, the blockade runners should bring much less incomes and WS, because the CS government officially forbid to sell cotton...
- The "Territorial concession" policy should be also available in the same time. It is not linked.


------------------------------------------
About the Trent Affair

As already proposed in this thread, this event (actually this potential kind of events) should be a choice for the US governement. It could be :
- If the US player choose to apologize, the USA loose a big amount of EP and few NM. The CSA get only few FI points.
- If the US player choose to NOT apologize and to keep the CSA diplomats, the USA get a huge amount of EP, some NM and is almost sure to win the next elections thanks to the patriotic union which decrease the opposition to the government (see the elections articles above). But the CSA get a lot's of FI points AND the event lead to the International Recognition of the CSA (see the next article about it).

Note that this event should happen randomly (till a RI or FI happen) AND ONLY IF the US player have activated the policy "Total Embargo" in the Great book (which should be a 6 months long policy, if not already). The probability that the event occure should increase with the amount of blocus points of the US fleets in both Blockade box.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Foreign Recognition stage before the Foreign Intervention

Divide et Impera (Divide and Rule) : The British government was very interested to let the USA be devided and to limit the growing of a new occidental Power. It wished to try to establish normal commercial links with the CSA and was waiting for an opportunity to recognize them without having to start a war against the USA. So a Foreign Recognition without a Foreign military Intervention was an option that could have been tryed by the British government.

If the amount of FI points reach 80 (or 65 if FI "Easy" game option checked), or if the USA choosed the last option in the Trent Affair event (see above) it lead now to the international recognition of the CSA by Great Britain and France. They do not declare war immediatly to the USA but, untill there is an official war with France and Great Britain :
The USA player is not allowed anymore to use the foreign policy "Total Embargo" in the Great Book (because it would lead to a Casus Belli). Since the European Powers do want to deal with the CSA, they allow them to navigate in the international waters with their flags to reach Europe. The remote blocus became useless, both "Atlantic Blockade" and "Golf Blockade" boxes are now forbidden for the US fleets.
Of courses, the Union fleets still can performe a close blockade on the coastal region (CSA "national waters"), in front of the main ports.


---------------------------------------------------------
A French Intervention (without the UK) option

If (and only if) the Foreign Recognition of the CSA did happen (see above), it eventually helped Napoleon III to decide to performe its own american foreign policy without the British. When its Archiduc entered in Mexico, he realized that he would keep more safely such a remote puppet Empire with an alliance with the CSA ...if they show in the battlefield that they are strong allies enough and willing to share a bit their "Manifest Destiny" in the West.
Note also that if the Emancipation Act did reduce the probability of a British intervention (since Great Britain had an abolitionist public opinion), it wouldn't reduce the probability of a French intervention if Napoleon III had decided to performe its own foreign policy without Great Britain, because he didn't had an abolitionnist policy at all (he restablished slavery after the 2nd French Republic abolished it in 1848, like his uncle the first did after the 1st Republic abolished it too, what a nice familly spirit ).

From the begining of may 1863, whatever is the number of the Foreign Intervention points, the French troops and fleets became available to the South if :
- CSA win at least 2 National Moral points in one or two major battle during the year 1863. (e.g. it need a victory at Gettysburg). If there were National Moral losses in battles since the begining of this year, it should be substracted to this amount (e.g. it need victories in the battles before Gettysburg).
- The CSA decide to give to the French-Mexican empire commercial and/or territorial concessions and rights on Mexico, New Mexico and California with its gold mines. It have of courses a huge cost in EP and some few NM.

NB: Since Great Britain had a parliament which decide about war & peace, it is still not possible to move the British troops and fleets or to attack them unless the Foreign Intervention reach as usual 100 points (or 75 pts if "Easy" FI option checked).


--------------------------------------------
About French related events

I don't see why it is displayed in the event report (at least in the French version) that the CSA should loose NM because of this events.
More the French are involved in Mexico instead of China or Africa, the better it is for them :
- evt_nam_CSA_FrenchInterventionMexico1862
- evt_nam_CSA_FranceReject1862
- evt_nam_CSA_FrenchMexico1863No
- evt_nam_CSA_FrenchMexico1863Yes


-------------------------------------------
Close blockade improvement

To make it more usefull to organize close blockade (which is currently a very expensive and difficult operation) in front of the CSA (or USA) ports, now all the towns under naval blockade should :
- produce only 25% of their M$, WS, food & ammo supply regular production.
- give their VP (alias PP) values to the ennemy (BTW, maybe also do not count the VP (alias PP) value for strategic towns besieged by troops).


--------------------------------------------
Confederates' "Political" deep Raids :

Remove the Albans raid event (evt_nam_USA_StAlbansRaid1864) and instead create this kind of event wich appear each year in early january from january 1863 :
"The CSA can try to organize a strong symbolic raid this year which objective is less to destroy or plunt than taking a objective deep in the North to show its weakness to the public opinion : If 4 cavalry elements/units take the control of any town deep in the North-East (Indiana, Ohio, Pensylvania, NY, and up), then the USA loose 1 NM and XX EP."


-----------------------------------------
Galveston map's bug :

It is impossible to set a blocus on the harbor of Galveston (TX) because it display two exit coastal region (Galveston Bay & Godwill Landing) but there is in fact only one which exist (Galveston Bay)...


------------------------------------------------------
About the Andersonville prison scandale

- The amount of NM the USA get from this event seems too much. 2 NM would be enough. But if USA control the region of the camp (before the winter 1864/1865 ?), it could then get 2 NM more.
- This event should NOT occure if there is a Prisoners exchange policy activated (6 month policy)
- This event should NOT occure if the FI is activated (CSA woulnd't be such short of supply and its prisoneers would have much better living conditions).


-------------------------------
About Industrialization

Industrialization is already enough expensive (but it's OK), but when the type of industrialization (supply, WS, ammo, or money) is randomly choosed AND randomly placed in the map, it is a feature of the game that is let aside by almost all the players.
I suggest that the player should be able to choose which town he can industrialize and what type of industrialization so that he can calculate when it became rentable after the invest is paid. e.g. : I should spend 18 WS to industrialize a town to product more WS, i want to be sure that i will get a regular +3 WS each turn, which means my industrialization will be rentable in 6 turns (3 months) ...if i still hold the town at this time... :-)
I suggest also that the map should have less production at the start of the game and that's it's up to the player to buy and organize a part of its war industrialization on the map.


---------------------------------------------------
Some supply system improvments

1. To improve the long line supply difficulties inside enemy territories it would be good to fix a maximum of stockage for the depot :
- depot level 1, could never stock more than 80/80 supply/ammunition
- depot level 2 : max. of 160/160
- depot level 3 : max. of 320/320 (This values here are illustrations, it need to be tested...)
- it would be now possible to increase the level of a depot by constructing again a depot in the same place (till level 3 only).
Towns up to level 5 behave as usual like depot but can't welcome more supply/ammo than = their level x 80/80.

With this limit of capacity, if the line of supply is cut, then the invading troops will really have to restablish it because the headline depot where they are will not have enough stock to hold the position for months like now.
Players will have to build more little depot in a sector sometimes if needed (keep the price of depot to a supply/transport unit with 4 element). So more places to garrison, and if not, more places to be raided...

Other point : All the supply which can not be stocked all around in the country should disappear ! But it could bring some money or some EP because we can say that some of it is sell/distribute to the population, the big rest is actually what was never produced because it wasn't possible to stock it somewhere. This finally avoid absurd astronomical stocks in few main towns and the global surproduction of supply in the hands of the players. This way, the South may lack GLOBALY of supply, not only localy in some sectors like now.

2. Chariots' supply units should appear :
- empty of any supply and amno stock
- only in a region with a depot
This will avoid the trick which is to build chariots already full of supply in remote areas just to get supply when all the sector is not producing any/enough supply.


--------------------------------------------------
About stacking strategical options

A general which order a single Corps to size one valley per day will take much more time to get the military control of a region than the one which will order 10 brigades to patrol ten different valley a day.

Because you have to spread many forces in a whole region so that this 2 actions could be efficient, i suggest that :
- The more you have different stacks in a region, the more you get police points to take the military control of the region (e.g. the police value of a single stack is never counted after, let's say, 5 police points (whatever is the total number of police points of its units/elements), so a single corps with 3 divisions won't take the control of a region in one turn, but 3 stacks with each a division will do the job).
- Then the more you have different stacks in a region, the more you get chance to find food in it while foraging (see article after).

After invading a hostile region, the players will then have to choose strategically beetween a good defense in one stack or a weakest defense but getting a speed full control of the region and its ressources.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
About foraging/plunting game's feature and abilities

I think this feature is not enough important in the game, it happen too rarelly and its effect is marginal. It could be linked with a strategical option for the players which miss in AACW : the scorched earth policy.

- First, the production on the map should be more spreaded : each basic "empty" region should now produce some supply (the current situation is absurd : e.g. there is only ONE region in all Louisiana which produce supply, this is the swamp around New Orleans with a ...+200 supply production !).
All regions with a town on the map should also produce some ammo, and sometimes some WS and/or money. The supply/ammo
overproductions are automatically sent to the nearest town, which send it automatically to the nearest depot, etc, according to the stock limit of each structure like said above.

- When a force is out of supply, it automatically try to forage : the chance of foraging depend on the % of military control (so if you have 25% military control, you have 25% chance to forage each turn, some Leader's ability give also a bonus of 25% for foraging, in this case it would give 50% chance to forage...)
- If a force succeed its forage, it is supplied for this turn. There should be a report in the event report screen and the current icon and delay before it could be used again like now with the plunt feature.

- A special "Plunt Order" (like Forced March), available only in the second part of the war, could be created for Plunting a region. The chance of plunting depend on the % of military control (so if you have 25% military control, you have 25% chance to plunt each turn, some Leaders' or irregular units' ability give also a bonus for plunting.

- If a force succeed to plunt, all the forces in the region are supplied, but only for this turn. The region loose ALL its supply production for the time the plunt icon is there, so till next summer, and also 2/3 of its other kind of regular productions if there is a town in it are definitly destroyed (it should be re-Industrialized). It can't be plunted again while there is the icon.

- A small force can get supply from foraging/plunting any terrains.
- A middle force should never be able to get supplied from foraging/plunting in Mountains, wild areas, swamp, etc.
- A large force should never be able get supplied from foraging/plunting a region.

Thus, like in the reality, a big invading force having problems with its supply lines to its States, will have interest to split its troops in middle or small forces to forage around in enemy territory.


---------------------------------------------------
About vanishing troops

Sometimes, during a siege or/and when troops lack of supply, the stacks simply vanish without news. The enemy have no event reports on this, how many losses, no NM losses also, even when this is an entire division which disappear. Is it also displayed in the Great Book casualities statistics ?


-----------------------------------------------------------
To avoid tiny single units deep invasions

A minimum of elements and a minimum of population support and/or of military control of a region should be needed for deep little raids to be efficient :
- if a force is in a region were the addition of the loyalty and military control is less than 35%, its special orders "Destruction of depot" and "Destruction of railroads" should not be available.
- if a force is in a region were the addition of the loyalty and military control is less than 15%, the towns are not captured.


-------------------------------------------------------
About troops fighting in their own State

I think not only the Milicias but all kind of units desearve a fighting bonus if they are in the State they are from.


--------------------------------------------------
About the tiny battle NM bonus

Currently, there is to many little battle which give (and take) 1 NM. E.g. If you get killed an entire milicia which was locked and placed inside a little town, you will loose 1 NM for a tiny marginal affair. Get 5 losses like this during raiding parties and you loose 5 NM, give 5 NM to your opponent and have already 10% difference between the strongness of all the both armies. It is not realistic.


-------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions of the contribution

I note that i found many new conbinaison of policies for the USA but very few for the CSA. I hope you people will find more...


Thank you for your attention,

The ones sleeping in the last rank can now wake up

[PhilThib]

Ouch

[andatiep]

Ouch

Oui, c'est un peu indigeste, comme ça, d'un coup...

It's a lot's of stuff in one shot, but this was ideas from PBEM i stock step by step since months when they came and i was afraid to loose everything because of a PC crash. So now i know it's published on the forum wishlist, i can sleep well

[Mickey3D]

Great job

It just seems to me that the increase in USA loyalty in southern states due to the "7 stages of a Total War policy" (great idea :coeurs is excessive (+ 45% after the seventh stage).

Also I don't remember receiving NM for destroying a lone militia unit.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

Great job

It just seems to me that the increase in USA loyalty in southern states due to the "7 stages of a Total War policy" (great idea :coeurs is excessive (+ 45% after the seventh stage).

Most of the values i proposed are illustrations... it need to be tested and balanced. Especially the ones to win or loose elections...
But 45% of USA loyalty in 1866 in some parts of southern States were the slave population were much more than the whites, it could be not so excessive.

Actually, loyalty is a mix of electoral support, passive resistance to the occupant/opponent or active resistance (spoting the FOG, upraising).

Also I don't remember receiving NM for destroying a lone militia unit.

This happen several times in the PBEM i played, and with the patch 1.15 too.
But especially if :
- The defender is inside the town.
- The attacker have a force which succeed to assault and destroy totally the defender in one fight.

It could be avoid by experienced players if they put all their locked garrison milicias outside all their towns, but not for the units they just bought the turn before and which pop up in the bad town. Few turns ago, i loose 3 units under construction like this...+1or2NM...

Gray, i don't think it is the process of "automatical balance to 100 NM". Those lost of NM are clearly displayed in the event report in red, as a result of a battle.

If necessary, we could try to look for PBEM saved turn were it happened, but i think you can reproduce it all the time with your installations.

[DooberGuy]

Hey everybody, I had a thought the other day about something that I think would be entertaining to add into the game, and I know that AACW is done so I guess this is a suggestion for the future AACW 2.

So without further ado let me get to my idea: As things stand now there are fixed unlock times for the main armies in the east. So the army of the Potomac unlocks on turn X and the army of NVA unlocks on turn Y. But what if that wasn't the case? What if instead of unlocking on the same turn every time the armies in the east unlocked on an unknown turn.

In case I am not clear let me make an example: So lets say that as things are now the army of the Potomac always unlocks on turn 5 and the army of NVA unlocks on turn 6. Everyone knows exactly when they are going to unlock and plan accordingly. This occurs in every game, without fail, and everyone gets used to the same couple of starting moves.

Now lets try it my way: In this alternate AACW the army of the Potomac can unlock on turn 5 or 6 and the army of NVA can unlock on turn 5 or 6 as well. In this chaotic alternate AACW, both players have to plan for the uncertainty of when their army will unlock, and when their opponents army will unlock.

I believe that this would make the opening sequence of moves much more entertaining, and more accurately reflect the unknown circumstances of actual warfare.

Just so no one gets me wrong I'm not complaining about how things are now, I just think it might be entertaining to add some uncertainty to the first half dozen turns or so, where things are currently rather predictable.

Any thoughts?

[andatiep]

[...]
In case I am not clear let me make an example: So lets say that as things are now the army of the Potomac always unlocks on turn 5 and the army of NVA unlocks on turn 6. Everyone knows exactly when they are going to unlock and plan accordingly. This occurs in every game, without fail, and everyone gets used to the same couple of starting moves.

Now lets try it my way: In this alternate AACW the army of the Potomac can unlock on turn 5 or 6 and the army of NVA can unlock on turn 5 or 6 as well. In this chaotic alternate AACW, both players have to plan for the uncertainty of when their army will unlock, and when their opponents army will unlock.
[...]
Any thoughts?

That's true that the first turns are strange somehow.
But this could be solve with the new feature of ROP which allow to place precizely units in main towns or depots.
Like other player did, i would then propose that the players be allowed to build and place themself their AoP and AnV and start the fight when and were they wish.
Only the Strasburg, Manassas, Harper's ferry and Alexandria depots and few locked milicias in border towns would be here at the start of the game.

By the way, i would change the events which make each loose 10 NM if USA don't control Manassas in 61 or don't stick to Richmond in 62 : replace the NM by a big amount of EP (political points, see up in the thread) because 10 NM each is too huge and it seems that many players don't like to be absolutely forced to move to and to attack this objectives instead of others.

[caranorn]

By the way, i would change the events which make each loose 10 NM if USA don't control Manassas in 61 or don't stick to Richmond in 62 : replace the NM by a big amount of EP (political points, see up in the thread) because 10 NM each is too huge and it seems that many players don't like to be absolutely forced to move to and to attack this objectives instead of others.

But that's exactly what happened historically. McDowell was forced by the president, who in turn was forced by the media to launch an offensive. Had they not done so they would have lost of lot of popular support (national morale)...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

But that's exactly what happened historically. McDowell was forced by the president, who in turn was forced by the media to launch an offensive. Had they not done so they would have lost of lot of popular support (national morale)...

Anyway, the loose of EP (instead of NM) would be painfull too for the USA to activate very important policies coming in the Great Book.
I was just pointing that the NM is very a direct handicap for troops which may loose 30% of strenghtness in the first year of the war, just because of unhappy papers in the background.
The Potomac Army didn't show such decrease of moral and strongness because of the papers, but because of the situation on the battefields.

Angry Papers could be feed with maybe other "positive" news that "occupied Manassas !" (it could be "Shenandoah valley Occupied !" (especially if the supply production in this part of the map is modified and much important like it was), and thus, the CSA players will maybe not anymore systematically always leave Strasburg depot and join the AnV in Manassas to be sure to win, as THE first moove of the game...).

And anyway, with Papers, this is after all the government which loose credits, not really the Army, here is a big part of the EP concept.


As i said more up in the thread, other game's departure could be done, also, if Lincoln choosed not to call for volunteers in 61 and get around Virginia to land directly deep south. I don't know if it is really a realistic one, but we should explore all the realistic and possible options the US and CS governments had.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

So, what is too huge? 22 FREE USA points for doing nothing all through 1862 OR the possibility of the CSA canceling them out with IF the USA player doesn't do anything?

You really need to take in ALL the factors and NOT deride only one side of the equation in the design.

Replace all this 22 NM bonus in EP and you will have resolved a part of this equation...

I don't pretent to take ALL the factors for the final version here, remember Gray that this thread IS the "sandbox" of the game !

I feel that this Manassas and Peninsula Campaign events make people nervous , it's true that they were a lot's of discussions about it in the forum.
But cool, guys, i like this events, too... i just proposed to add more of them and to switch them to EP instead of NM.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[wsatterwhite]

As mentioned here, I'm pretty sure this has already been mentioned here but if not, I think there should be at least two boxes used to represent California (assuming an AACW2 doesn't include a full US map)- a new Southern California box to create an easier path into the state from the Southwest box with the current California/San Francisco box becoming Central/Northern California. I think the current representation creates a situation that's realistic (it is actually easier/faster to get to just San Francisco from Oregon than it is from Tuscon) but as andatiep points out in his thread, it doesn't create a very realistic historical situation- for a CSA player, the most logical route into California should be via Tuscon through SoCal.

[TheDoctorKing]

I don't think Napoleon III actually reinstated slavery in the French empire. They brought some "engagés" from Africa to the French Antilles but these were people on temporary labor contracts who did not pass on their status to their children. A big difference from what had been before.

I like most of these ideas; we've been playing with many of them. I think actually that much of this could be implemented in AACW as it now is, through modding. You've done a lot of this already. Maybe we could try to come up with election events.

I like the idea of the midterm elections being important. Don't forget about state-level elections. On both sides, state governors were very important figures. One of the things Lincoln had to do in 1862-63 was subsidize state governments with federal tax money and supply federal officials to run things in states where the government was unwilling to fully support the war effort. So maybe election events could take place in each state (CSA too) and if the level of support for the government was low then anti-war governments would be elected there, lowering $ and EP/VP production from that state.

The "political general" rules could go along with a new role as military district commander. Both sides had officers in charge of regions and their actions had big political implications. This would require some coding changes, but maybe the senior officer on each side in a particular state could have some effects on the whole state depending on his political orientation, administrative skills, militiaman status, etc.

[Aurelin]

My wish list:

1: Remove the events forcing the Union to move on Richmond.

2: If not, force the similar constraints on the South.

Very little historical flavor when the South is streaming North with every mobile unit he has handy. Especially given how poor US leaders are.

Which would cause a bigger howl? Not moving on Richmond? Or not taking back Harrisburg/Annapolis/Delaware?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The pressure was on the north to move South and end the rebellion. The Souths main goal was to maintain it's territorial integrity. There was actually alot of internal resistance to a southern invasion of the north. Those events are a decent way to showcase the different challenges facing the commanders of each side.

[Daxil]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but an history tab that shows key battle, promotions, deaths an maybe a running casualty count with destroyed unit names. Kind of like HOI does with ships, but include everything and casualties taken per battle per element. Could really get in detail, which I think we could all agree would be neat.

On that note, battle reports could be more descriptive., What exactly happened? Why are some units damaged and others not etc Were they bombarded?

Also, I hate having to use the mouse scroll wheel to see results. I'd suggest the arrow key and a way to bookmark a spot so you an return to the list if you have to go and manipulate something and be in the same spot.\

Also, an easy way to copy/paste results and events for AARs. Maybe make everything text based instead of read only so we can copy it.

[Njordr]

It would be nice to add user-modifiable "placeholders" to find quickly certain relevant places on map through keyboard shortcuts.

And as stated in this post, engineers should also speed up the construction of forts. Maybe they could add a bonus while besieging a structure, too.

[TheDoctorKing]

Forts are very powerful tools in this game. I just wrapped up a grand campaign against Andatiep (hi!) in which he basically completely stymied my USA offensive by building many forts as the CSA (Paducah, Nashville, Norfolk, Mobile, New Orleans, and probably others that I never got close to). I was only ever able to get into one of his forts, Norfolk, and that after a siege that lasted almost a year. Moving around forts is very difficult, because of their high zone of control. If you have to cross a river to get at them, they will bombard you and cause huge casualties - even if you are moving to an adjacent area (very long-range guns, these rebels have! They can shell your boats up to 60 or 70 miles away!) In order to cut off supplies to the fort, I think you need to control all the surrounding areas (military control level 50% plus), though in the case of Norfolk they finally did starve although the CSA had control of one adjacent region. You must also control neighboring river/sea areas with your ships, which is a problem since the fort's guns are very deadly to passing ships. In our game, the CSA forts sank literally dozens of USA ironclads. Even entering/leaving port in an area across a river/harbor from a fort can prompt deadly shelling by fort cannons, preventing even a quiet withdrawal from in front of a fort by a depleted fleet. And be careful about your own supplies as the presence of the fort will prevent movement of supplies across those water areas even if you have the place besieged (as I found to my sorrow in Mobile).

Unlike in ROP, forts don't seem to surrender, or at least not very easily. In our game, no CSA fort surrendered to its USA besiegers, even when the garrison was hugely outnumbered and had no supply wagons inside.

I recommend very strongly that the CSA build as many forts as possible. My opponent stripped his armies of artillery and supply wagons so that he could build these forts but it sure paid off for him. I was unable to advance into CSA territory after mid-1861.

And then when the forts finally do fall, you don't get any NM for the guys who starved inside. I don't know what happens with NM if a fort surrenders because that never happened.

I would make some recommendations to fix what I believe is a weakness in the game system:

1. Units that die through attrition should still cost their owner NM. In fact, troops who die in general, even if they don't cause actual elements to disappear, should have an NM effect. Many's the time I've had a big battle with thousands of casualties on either side result in no change to NM because no actual units were destroyed. This probably requires a coding change and can't be implemented in this version but it should certainly go on the wish list for AACW2.
2. The bombardment potential of forts needs to be reduced, perhaps by increasing the minimum range for bombardment of passing fleets so that only very heavy guns (naval guns and Columbiads) can bombard. The CSA will probably build only a few such pieces. This will enable the very powerful USA riverine navy to blockade supply to forts more easily. Also, the historically fairly easy time USA fleets had bypassing CSA fortifications would be more closely simulated. I wouldn't mess with the defense values of forts, however. Ship's guns had little impact on forts either, especially on newer construction ones.
3. Similarly, the defense values of ironclad ships should be higher. Almost no ironclad ships were sunk by gunfire in the course of the war. CSA ironclads were mostly destroyed by their crews to prevent them being captured in port, while the few USA ironclads that were lost were sunk by mines or hazards to navigation.
4. It should be much easier to force a fort to surrender; the values should be similar to those in ROP. In ROP, a fort with a small garrison and no supply wagon inside will normally surrender if the besieger gets a breach, and even without a breach if the besieging force is large and has plenty of artillery. As I say, in our game despite an aggregate of probably 50 turns of sieges, no CSA fort surrendered.

[andatiep]

I do stand with DoctorKing for this proposals...

And especially about this :

Moving around forts is very difficult, because of their high zone of control. If you have to cross a river to get at them, they will bombard you and cause huge casualties - even if you are moving to an adjacent area (very long-range guns, these rebels have! They can shell your boats up to 60 or 70 miles away!)

I would ask if it is possible to find a way so that the players could see before they give the order to move which region (river or ground) are under the fire of a fort.
Maybe something like the colored lines which appear when you maintain Shift on the keyboard when selecting a units ?

In order to cut off supplies to the fort, I think you need to control all the surrounding areas (military control level 50% plus), though in the case of Norfolk they finally did starve although the CSA had control of one adjacent region. You must also control neighboring river/sea areas with your ships, which is a problem since the fort's guns are very deadly to passing ships.

No, you don't need to control the adjacent(s) region(s). Your Norfolk siege finally succeed to starve my troops thanks to your naval blockade ! Your troops besieging the fort in its own region did really cut the supply of the fort. This WAD.

Unlike in ROP, forts don't seem to surrender, or at least not very easily. In our game, no CSA fort surrendered to its USA besiegers, even when the garrison was hugely outnumbered and had no supply wagons inside.

But i did have always a supply wagon with my 8 artillery standard fort garnison division, sir !


By the way, this is also a question to let in some case so many troops in such tiny places. It should be forbidden to be able to place 3 divisions in old/small forts like Island 10. One brigade should be the maximum.
I don't know how to manipulate the frontage feature and to "localize it" differently on the map, but it should also be impossible to attack such small forts which are so remote and difficult to reach with more than few brigades or one division.
But it's OK fort modern forts in big towns to welcome 2 or 3 garrisons' divisions and to be attacked by much more.

In an other hand, i don't see why players could not build a modern fort instead of the "old" one at Henri & Doneldson.