User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:48 am

Carrington wrote:It's worth noting that by 1864 Grant was cannibalizing his artillery units to maintain his front-line strength. At some point, guns ceased to be the issue.

(Indeed, perhaps the bigger question about captured equipment in this game: where did the new crews come from?)


Grant was repurposing the heavy artillery regiments that had spent the war in the Washington defences. He needed soldiers in Virginia, rather than forts in Maryland.

New crews initially consisted of the men who captured them, until they could receive more specialized training from more experienced artillerists. At present in AACW, it does appear that the crew is captured along with the guns, and switches sides.
"firstest with the mostest"

"I fights mit Sigel"

User avatar
andatiep
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 am
Location: Grenoble, France.

Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:42 am

It's true that the capture values are maybe very low for this period (around 12-15% probability).

If you want, you can increase the chance the arty have to be captured if its force is defeated :

Open each artillery file in the /ACW/GameData/Models/ file and change this values


CapturePerc = 15

by maybe

CapturePerc = 35



but you will still need to have enemy replacements for it.... and i still wonder how do do it in AACW for now...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

User avatar
Cromagnonman
Brigadier General
Posts: 460
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:46 pm
Location: Kansas City, MO

Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:42 pm

andatiep wrote:It's true that the capture values are maybe very low for this period (around 12-15% probability).

If you want, you can increase the chance the arty have to be captured if its force is defeated :

Open each artillery file in the /ACW/GameData/Models/ file and change this values


CapturePerc = 15

by maybe

CapturePerc = 35



but you will still need to have enemy replacements for it.... and i still wonder how do do it in AACW for now...


Ah, thank you, sir. I take it this will help my boys to capture artillery rather than destroying it.
"firstest with the mostest"



"I fights mit Sigel"

redhat1968
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:56 pm

AACW2 wishlist

Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:36 pm

I was thinking of a couple of suggestions for improvement of AACW 2 if it ever comes out.

A risk taker trait for generals who historically died in the Civil War that greatly increases the chance of dying while in battle. This would include the following generals as examples:

CSA: Jackson, A.S. Johnston, Felix Zollicoffer, Earl Van Dorn (OK, the bedroom is not a battlefield), Leonidas Polk, Robert E. Rodes.

US: Nathaniel Lyon, John Reynolds, John Sedgwick, James McPherson.

This is certainly not a complete list, but a start.

redhat1968
Conscript
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:56 pm

Other Improvement Suggestions for AACW2

Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:09 pm

I have another suggestion for improving AACW2.

Historically, Grant was the only 3 star general. I would suggest to cap Army and Corp commanders to 2 stars. Division commanders would be 1 star generals. This would help to simulate the difficulties that the Union had with their command structure. Armies would suffer command penalites if they got too big as was the case before Grant took over. An event could be written to allow Grant to be promoted to 3 stars if his senority improved high enough and after a certain date (Spring of 1863 possibly).

For the CSA, create an actual 4 star general instead of an icon only. Corps commanders would be three star generals, and division commanders would be two star generals. It would need to be easier for the CSA to promote its generals. Some CSA divisions were nearly the size of US corps. Maybe the command points for the CSA would need to be slightly less than their US counterparts. The effect would be much more historically accurate.

Czert
Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:55 pm

Tue May 31, 2011 10:04 pm

Just one question - if this game will be deployed, will be based on (improved) RUS engine, or PON engine ?

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:46 am

I have a few historical points to make:




Gatling Guns in Union Service:

The Union Army did not place an order for this weapon until 1865 and they were not delivered until 1866.

General Benjamin Butler purchased 12 for his use (likely from the silver he was purported to have looted, ie. Spoons Butler). He only deployed 2 guns and put 8 on gunboats, the last 2 are unaccounted for.

The rapid firing weapon the Union Army did deploy was the Ager Gun. It fired 100 rounds per min. and had an effective range of 1000 yards. I used special ammunition and the steel cartridges had to be saved and reloaded. The projectile was also of a special type. The Union Army bought 54 of these guns.

Known Units that had the Ager Gun
* 96th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment
* 28th Pennsylvania Regiment Volunteers
* 49th Pennsylvania Regiment Volunteers
* 56th New York Volunteers


The Williams Gun was brought into Confederate service in the autumn of 1861 and 7 Batteries were fielded. It was the first Machine Gun ever used in battle. The gun had a rate of fire of 65 rounds per min. but it had a 1 lb projectile of 1.57 inch caliber. Roughly 3 times the size of the .58 Gatling Gun which would make it far more effective against fortifications, buildings, and so on.

These were 6 gun batteries . It was seemingly better than the early Gatling Guns, having only a problem with overheating at high rates of sustained fire, where as the early models of the Gatling had quite a few draw backs. Remember this is not the gun the US Army excepted into service in 1866.

It was light and usually drawn by only a single horse and was said to be an excellent Cavalry support weapon. The Williams Gun was a 40mm projectile with a 2000 yard range for area fire and an effective range of 800 yards for point type targets. It was rifled and fired shells, according to one report. There may have been some larger models and some special purpose ammunition. Some reports say they fired a fired canister round. Likely more like a shot gun shell for close range work.


I have seen by the event remark that it is the coffee mill gun they announced, which is different from the Gatling Gun and is likely the Ager Gun.

http://asms.k12.ar.us/classes/humanities/amstud/97-98/weapons/machin~1.htm

http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/machinegun.htm

______________________________________________
______________________________________________




The Indian Territory provided more than just raiders.

Almost all the Tribes took a stand often raiding one another as well as white settlements in Kansas and Colorado Territory.

Of course this brought out the Colorado militia who promptly attacked the first Indians they found. Namely the Southern Cheyenne, resulting in the Sand Creek Massacre.

Also, consider that the 5 Civilized Tribes were primarily farmers. They raised cotton as a cash crop as well as various food crops. These were shipped by steamboat from Ft. Gibson, on the Arkansas River and Public Landing on the Red River.

There were also working mines in the far northeast, mining lead, tin, and zinc. In the Choctaw areas there was also an abundance of surface coal. This was not mined commercially until there were rail lines in the region but it was well known.

As much as people may wish to think of them as near savages, they lived in towns and settlements and even had newspapers. They had written languages but also taught English in their schools. And yes they had a school system.

As the game is something of a what-if, there is no reason that it cannot have some level of industrialization. This would be even more true if we add the ability to build railways.

There were also large Iron deposits in the south western areas, leased from the Choctaw by the US Government.

While it did lack a unified government it did have an economy and provided some war supplies.

Some industrialization should be possible as well as providing general supplies.


_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________


Indian Troops of the CSA:

At the end of the war there were around 10,000 Confederate troops under arms from the Indian Territory. It is estimated that there were 6,000 Indian troops killed in the war.

In early July the Agent who had helped raise the first units ( the 1st Choctaw & Chickasaw Mounted Rifles, two battalions Choctaw & one battalion Chickassaw) estimated that those two tribes could put 10,000 men in the field.

Indian Units of the CSA:


Cherokee Units:

Indian Territory:

1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles
2nd Cherokee Mounted Rifles
Scales'/Fry's Battalion of Cherokee Cavalry
Meyer's Battalion of Cherokee Cavalry ( only a paper organization, never manned)
Cherokee Battalion of Infantry
Second Cherokee Artillery

North Carolina:
Cherokee Battalion, Thomas’ North Carolina Legion
Cherokee Artillery


Chickasaw Units:
First Regiment of Chickasaw Infantry
First Regiment of Chickasaw Cavalry First Colonel: William L. Hunter
First Battalion of Chickasaw Cavalry
Shecoe's Chickasaw Battalion of Mounted Volunteers

Choctaw Units:
First Regiment Choctaw & Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
First Regiment of Choctaw Mounted Rifles
Deneale's Regiment of Choctaw Warriors
Second Regiment of Choctaw Cavalry
Third Regiment of Choctaw Cavalry
Folsom's Battalion of Choctaw Mounted Rifles
Capt. John Wilkin's Company of Choctaw Infantry
Northwest Frontier Command of Indian Territory

Mississippi:
First Mississippi Choctaw Battalion “Mounted“ (roughly 18 men captured from training camp by Union Forces in 1862 and carried off to New York)

Texas:
Welch’s Texas Cavalry Squadron (mostly Choctaw recruited in the Texas Border region)


Creek Units:
First Creek Mounted Rifles - Col. Daniel N. McIntosh, Commanding

Second Creek Mounted Rifles - Lt. Col. Chilly McIntosh, Commanding

Osage Units:
Osage Cavalry Battalion

Seminole Units:
First Regiment Seminole Mounted Volunteers

Northwest Frontier Command of Indian Territory

Major George Washington's Frontier Battalion
Major James W. Cooper's Battalion
There were unorganized raiding parties and some organizations of Braves but as you can see there were Organized Regiments also. They fought in the regular manner of any organized army.

These are only the CSA Units. The Union units are not included. But there were more than the game includes.

____________________________________________
____________________________________________


I am also wondering what happened to all the mounted infantry units in the last game.
Quite a few states fielded them as Mounted Rifles or Mounted Infantry. They came from both Union and Southern states. While the Union soon ran short of horses, those of the Southern States were mostly able to remain mounted, particularly in the west. We know that Forrest often employed his troops as mounted infantry, and to good effect.

I see a few of them included as Cavalry but they tended to ride to battle and fight on foot.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

The Arkansas River:

The Arkansas River was regularly navigated by Steamboats well above Fort Gibson (Arkansas City, KS.) and by flatboat all the way to Bent's Fort, CO. (later Ft. Lyons).

Ft. Gibson actually is about a mile up the Neosho River.

In 1824 The 60 ton steamboat Florence brought up 100 recruits for that post.

Perhaps some of the confusion occurs because Ft. Smith was where many goods were loaded onto flatboats going up the tributaries or shipped overland but Ft. Gibson was an important port.

In 1828 The Facility, 117 tons, became the first steamboat to ascend the Verdigris. It brought Creek emigrants and departed with 500 barrels of pecans.

In 1829 The James O’Hara, 200 tons, the biggest recorded steamboat to have plied the Arkansas (dimensionally), brought recruits and 100 Cherokee to Ft. Gibson. That same year the Sam Houston arrived at Three Forks, near present day Muskogee, OK.

In 1832 the Congress granted $15,000 for snag boats to maintain the channels as far up as the mouth of the Grand (Neosho) River.

In 1833 there were 17 steamboats docking at Ft. Gibson regularly.

In 1837 The Chickasaws came up river to Ft. Coffee and trekked on to there homes in the western Choctaw lands.

There is only one year (1850) that boats could not reach Ft. Gibson, due to low water levels.

After the war steamboats were docking at Arkansas City, Kansas and you had flatboats above there all the way into CO.


There is a note that in 1868 River traffic in the Indian Territory and lower Arkansas began to decline but in 1870 there were still 20 steamboats, averaging 300 tons of cargo, docking at Ft. Gibson.

Did this get overlooked or is there some other reason why the river isn’t usable above Ft. Smith?

The Red River was also navigable farther up. Steamboats also supplied Ft. Towson with the landing being between Crest, IT and Paris, TX. On the current map.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/S/ST026.html

_______________________________________
_______________________________________

I surely hope that there is an ACW 2.

In fact, it being the 150th Anniversary of its beginning has generated heightened interest. It will be another 50 years before there is a better time.


While this is a great game, it could use some updating and the inclusion of a few other elements.

Minnesota got left out of this one. It should have at least a box and its units.

User avatar
caranorn
Posts: 1365
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:42 am

The Trans-Mississippi was really badly represented on the map of AACW. That's definitelly one area that would require looking at for a potential AACW-II.

But note, I still doubt the claim that the Confederates could raise anything like 10000 men in the Indian Territories, certainly not in 1865. As I stated before, in 1862 the IT units involved in the Pea Ridge Campaign were at something like 25% of their theoretical strength (500 men for the two Cherokee regiments and Welsh's squadron)...

Concerning the differentiation between Mounted Rifles and Cavalry. Most Confederate and Union Cavalry operated in exactly the same way, that is they rode to battle and fought on foot. This was largely due to pre war US doctrine (don't forget that the 5 US regular cavalry regiments (1st-5th) of the war were still called 1st and 2nd Dragoons, 1st and 2nd Cavalry and the Mounted Rifle Regiment in 1861. Likewise, rifles were a common weapon among Confederate Cavalrymen (less so for the Union who had some excellent carbines (less accuracy and range but more fire power)...
Marc aka Caran...

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:40 pm

The history of that war in Indian Territory is fairly plane when it comes to numbers of troops.

When the original 4 Indian Regiments were raised in 1861 they consisted of 5000 men. Those official numbers swelled to 10,000 by war’s end but almost every man had to fight at some point.

If anyplace was devastated by the war, it was the IT. I am not browsing records at the moment but the figure of 60,000 deaths due to the war and privation sticks in my mind. You can check Oklahoma history records for clearer figures.

The Indian economy never recovered and the depopulation was the cause of much of the wildness and banditry of the post war years.

Placing emphasis on Pea Ridge and the Cherokee then you should know that the tribe saw it as a violation of their treaty to go into Arkansas and I believe it was only those who volunteered that were present at the battle.

It was much the same with engagements in Missouri. Those who wished could go but it was not as an organized unit.

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:04 pm

THe game is great and doesn't need a lot of fixes.

Some wish items for AACW2:

severly limit partisans, bushwackers and Tx Rangers operating in territories with less than 50% CSA loyalty. Easiest (?) way to do this is lower their hide value to 1 or 2 in such territories and lower their movement by 50-75%.

Fix the double adjacency rule as follows: Ships moving into a zone with a fort are not fired at until they leave UNLESS they invade, in which case the guns fire at the ships first (and vice versa if the ships were set to bombard) and THEN the land combat occurs.

Eliminate "walk on water" combats. (This occurs when enemy units using river movement stumble into each other and then conduct what appears to be a land battle but which is in fact on the river.) I suggest what should happen is that movement for both units stops if they are about the same size, or that the smaller unit must retreat a la "retreated before combat"

There is something wrong with besieged units that control adjacent waterways, but cannot receive supply via those waterways. They are, of course, not really besieged in such a case. There might have been mitigating circumstances that prevented that in the cases I've seen, but I see it a lot.

It'd be nice if you could zoom in a bit more on those regions.

We need a search mechanism for "NAME OF GENERAL" "RANK OF GENERAL", "TYPE OF UNIT" and so on.

Need a better way to distinguish MUD regions from FAIR regions.

The union units moving by river appear nearly gray on my screen. This is confusing. Can they be darkened to union blue?

That's it for now.....

More:

It'd be great if the game could produce a History of the War upon completion. This would include a unit history for each (date raised, movements, battles, destroyed if applicable, divisons, corps and armies served under, leaders served under, losses, and so on)

Need to show harbor access and blockade effects more graphically. For example, I should be able to click on Beaufort SC and have the Savannah Basin flash blue to indicate that's how you get in it (a quick glance at the map appears it borders other sea areas). Also, if I were to click on the Savannah Estuary, it should flash those ports that would be interdicted if I blockaded it.

Sure would be more convenient if you could remove units from a division without disbanding it first, and then reforming it later.

Players need a notice events that are still pending, as a reminder that they're in play. For example, the Northern Papers series ....

User avatar
Ethan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: Gádir

Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:52 am

Hi Longshanks! :)

All that you have said above is very interesting, but in regard to this:

"We need a search mechanism for "NAME OF GENERAL" "RANK OF GENERAL", "TYPE OF UNIT" and so on."

You can check it on the ledger (F1 key) and then clicking on "rank" to sort generals by their rank or by unit type. ;)
[color="Navy"][font="Georgia"]"Mi grandeza no reside en no haber caído nunca, sino en haberme levantado siempre". Napoleón Bonaparte.[/font][/color]

[color="Blue"]Same Land. Different Dreams. - Photobook[/color]

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:00 pm

Good to know! thanks.... I suspect a year from now, I'll still be learning little secrets of this game. It's part of its appeal.

User avatar
Ethan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: Gádir

Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:17 pm

You're welcome! :thumbsup:

Indeed. I also learn new things about the game often. ;)
[color="Navy"][font="Georgia"]"Mi grandeza no reside en no haber caído nunca, sino en haberme levantado siempre". Napoleón Bonaparte.[/font][/color]



[color="Blue"]Same Land. Different Dreams. - Photobook[/color]



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:20 pm

caranorn wrote:
Concerning the differentiation between Mounted Rifles and Cavalry. Most Confederate and Union Cavalry operated in exactly the same way, that is they rode to battle and fought on foot. This was largely due to pre war US doctrine (don't forget that the 5 US regular cavalry regiments (1st-5th) of the war were still called 1st and 2nd Dragoons, 1st and 2nd Cavalry and the Mounted Rifle Regiment in 1861. Likewise, rifles were a common weapon among Confederate Cavalrymen (less so for the Union who had some excellent carbines (less accuracy and range but more fire power)...


As to Mounted Rifles and Cavalry generally, it seems we still disagree.

Southern Cavalry tended to arm themselves with repeating arms. Cap and ball Colts or preferably Smith & Wessons.

When the North adopted these tactics their cavalry was much improved.

Union mounted units tended to fight as cavalry using cavalry tactics whether mounted or dismounted. There are a few instances of them using infantry tactics but they are few and far between.

Conversely the CSA used infantry tactics when dismounted, for the most part.

The mounted rifles were no exception. They may have traveled mounted but on the battle field they were as effective as most infantry units.

One example, though perhaps not the best, was in the aftermath of their blistering defeat at Honey Springs, the 1st Choctaw & Chickasaw Mounted Rifles held the entire Union forces up and allowed the supply train to escape.

Under the current system that unit is a low power raider while those others that are portrayed are no different than any cavalry unit in power.

Their strength tables were the same as infantry while they had the mobility of cavalry and often the skill of sharpshooters.

User avatar
Longshanks
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:48 pm
Location: Fairfax Virginia

Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:06 am

with Additions

The game is great and doesn't need a lot of fixes.

Some wish items for AACW2:

severly limit partisans, bushwackers and Tx Rangers operating in territories with less than 50% CSA loyalty. Easiest (?) way to do this is lower their hide value to 1 or 2 in such territories and lower their movement by 50-75%.

Fix the double adjacency rule as follows: Ships moving into a zone with a fort are not fired at until they leave UNLESS they invade, in which case the guns fire at the ships first (and vice versa if the ships were set to bombard) and THEN the land combat occurs.

Eliminate "walk on water" combats. (This occurs when enemy units using river movement stumble into each other and then conduct what appears to be a land battle but which is in fact on the river.) I suggest what should happen is that movement for both units stops if they are about the same size, or that the smaller unit must retreat a la "retreated before combat"

There is something wrong with besieged units that control adjacent waterways, but cannot receive supply via those waterways. They are, of course, not really besieged in such a case. There might have been mitigating circumstances that prevented that in the cases I've seen, but I see it a lot.

It'd be nice if you could zoom in a bit more on those regions.

We need a search mechanism for "NAME OF GENERAL" "RANK OF GENERAL", "TYPE OF UNIT" and so on.

Need a better way to distinguish MUD regions from FAIR regions.

The union units moving by river appear nearly gray on my screen. This is confusing. Can they be darkened to union blue?

That's it for now.....

More:

It'd be great if the game could produce a History of the War upon completion. This would include a unit history for each (date raised, movements, battles, destroyed if applicable, divisons, corps and armies served under, leaders served under, losses, and so on)

Need to show harbor access and blockade effects more graphically. For example, I should be able to click on Beaufort SC and have the Savannah Basin flash blue to indicate that's how you get in it (a quick glance at the map appears it borders other sea areas). Also, if I were to click on the Savannah Estuary, it should flash those ports that would be interdicted if I blockaded it.

Sure would be more convenient if you could remove units from a division without disbanding it first, and then reforming it later.

Players need a notice events that are still pending, as a reminder that they're in play. For example, the Northern Papers series ....

The map needs to have the references to the historical battles. Perhaps a rollover system would work that could be turned off or on so you could see where the original battles were fought. As for game play, if a battle is fought in, say, Hanover VA, the name the game should come up with is the "Battle of Cold Harbor" instead of the incredibly pedestrian Battle of Hanover.

For fleets, have the game display the total cargo capacity of all brigs and transports in addition to the combat value.

For enemy stacks, display the total value of the stack displayed so we don't have to add them all up every time. (Tip of the hat to others who have also asked for this).

User avatar
George McClellan
Captain
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:38 pm
Location: " If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere!"

Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:15 pm

More units.
Horse drawn Gatling...
Grenadiers (They had Ketchum grenades...)


FI Campaign (start in 1863 with FI already triggered...)
George McClellan is locked in Cincinati until Lincoln admits he's a baboon.Image

User avatar
ohms_law
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:24 pm

One thing that I'd like to see in a future version is to see politics represented in the game.
Right now, all politics of note are taken care of though events, which doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. Doing it that way seems too deterministic, for one thing.

I'd love to see both the US and Confederate Congress' represented in the game. Cabinet members would also be an important aspect to model. One event that immediately comes to mind in representing this, for the CSA, is the way that Cooper is modeled. Anyway, it would add a lot to the game, and I think that it would be a lot of fun.

User avatar
Philippe
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New York

Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:49 pm

More years ago than I am comfortable remembering, SSI came out with No Greater Glory, a game that included politics as a major part of the strategic thinking process.

You had to select a cabinet and appoint ambassadors with a view towards increasing your support in particular regions or with particular factions (which were often the same thing, especially in New England). And not surprisingly, the act of firing or promoting generals also had an impact on this factional or regional power calculation. So before you passed someone over for promotion, you made sure you had read everyone's bio to know what the regional and/or political ramifications were.

I'd love to see something like this in AACW2. And if it were to be included, I'd also like to see separate options to have the Union or the Confederacy (or both) use the historical figures that were actually used to fill the available positions.

User avatar
ohms_law
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:18 am

I knew that I'd seen that done before, I just couldn't remember what game it was. Thanks for remembering, and reminding me! :)

charlesonmission
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:59 am

A couple of my ideas.

1. Rework the naval situation (I think this has been pointed out before) regarding bombardments and moving ironclads off the cost.
2. Coastal artillery has a 10% hit rate on troops.
3. Supply should be developed in all counties, not just city counties. Cities and depots still hold supply. (This is explained well in William Trotter's NC ACW books)
4. CS should be state based on not put in a national pool. (This is explained well in William Trotter's NC ACW books). Meaning, CS from MO must be recruited in MO, not VA.
5. WS that isn't connection to a line of communication should be difficult to move. Again the general pool issue.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

A couple of suggestions

Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:57 am

1. It would be great if triggered, timed events that are active like 'War Order #2' or the 'Plains Indian Upraising' were listed with a concise description in the ledger, so that you can always look up what is in affect, if anything.

2. I think it would make things a lot clearer and give the game a better feel if the 'unit' were not used as a form of measurement. For example, the 'War Order #2' event requires "12 Brigades" to be in or around Washington. It actually doesn't count brigades at all, but 'units', and by units it will count a division as a unit even though it my actually be made up of more than 12 brigades and counts militia regiments as brigades. I actually always buy a bunch of local militia regiments to meet this event

3. When measuring for NM/VP loss/gain for the loss/capture/destruction of enemy regiment/brigades that the quality of these is taken into account. I feel that capturing a militia regiment could hardly be deemed as valuable as destroying an elite brigade. It could actually be argued that regiments should be counted and not brigades as there is such a large difference in the sizes of brigades.

4. Embarking a corp onto transports should not cause the corp to be disbanded.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:38 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:1. It would be great if triggered, timed events that are active like 'War Order #2' or the 'Plains Indian Upraising' were listed with a concise description in the ledger, so that you can always look up what is in affect, if anything.

2. I think it would make things a lot clearer and give the game a better feel if the 'unit' were not used as a form of measurement. For example, the 'War Order #2' event requires "12 Brigades" to be in or around Washington. It actually doesn't count brigades at all, but 'units', and by units it will count a division as a unit even though it my actually be made up of more than 12 brigades and counts militia regiments as brigades. I actually always buy a bunch of local militia regiments to meet this event

3. When measuring for NM/VP loss/gain for the loss/capture/destruction of enemy regiment/brigades that the quality of these is taken into account. I feel that capturing a militia regiment could hardly be deemed as valuable as destroying an elite brigade. It could actually be argued that regiments should be counted and not brigades as there is such a large difference in the sizes of brigades.

4. Embarking a corp onto transports should not cause the corp to be disbanded.


2. Easy to change right now!. We can count "subunuits" (aka Regiments) in the area as the trigger. (heh, while looking at the vent, it is bugged anyway. It counts the units in the area OK, but is fulfilled if at any time in the game the 12 unit count is met. IMHO, needs to count only after the warning is given!)

3. AFAIK, VP are given element by element, not as a unit, so size matters. NM awards are not clear to me....

4. Tricky. I think it's because on ships, the Corps Commander is no longer in command. We could easily designate a few leaders as "Amphibious Experts" and give them dual Land-Naval command. Dunno if it would keep the Corps status until I can test it....
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:42 pm

I think War Order #2 has to be fulfilled every turn until mid '63, that may be why it appears to fulfill the first time it is checked.

It would be great if everything worked on regiment basis instead of units named as brigades. :thumbsup:

AFAIK you only gain NM through combat, at least no VPs are mentioned and I thought I read somewhere that you only get combat NM awarded if an entire unit is destroyed, most of the time that would be a brigade. Since I practically never hot-seat to see exactly what it looks like on the other side of the game board, I don't know if this is actually true. It's something I've been assuming for a while though :wacko:

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:21 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:I think War Order #2 has to be fulfilled every turn until mid '63, that may be why it appears to fulfill the first time it is checked.

It would be great if everything worked on regiment basis instead of units named as brigades. :thumbsup:

AFAIK you only gain NM through combat, at least no VPs are mentioned and I thought I read somewhere that you only get combat NM awarded if an entire unit is destroyed, most of the time that would be a brigade. Since I practically never hot-seat to see exactly what it looks like on the other side of the game board, I don't know if this is actually true. It's something I've been assuming for a while though :wacko:


WO2 has to be fulfilled 4 times betwen announced and mid-63.
Problem was that the "unit check" had no dates set, and so could be triggered any time since turn 1. If it is triggered once, then WO2 is failed and you take the VP loss....
...soooooo, if you moved away from DC in 1861, you'd fail WO2 before it was announced!!!

Destruction in combat (or by voluntary self-destruction) of elements should give VP, as they have a VP value assigned. (example: VPValue = 4 in model 1CSAInfantry.mdl)
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:00 pm

So if if I understand correctly, if the Union 'accidentally' puts 12 active units into and around Washington before the event actually triggers, the event-checking basically triggers checking for 12 units from that point-in-time on until Jul-63 :blink: But in real life that is a rather unlikely occurrence *whew*

I don't really keep track of VPs that closely that I would notice a few VPs gained or lost. When I look at the log from the preceding turn, the battle reports only state that NM are gained or lost, so I assumed that only they are affected. Always something new to learn :neener:

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:28 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:So if if I understand correctly, if the Union 'accidentally' puts 12 active units into and around Washington before the event actually triggers, the event-checking basically triggers checking for 12 units from that point-in-time on until Jul-63 :blink: But in real life that is a rather unlikely occurrence *whew*


Not quite:

The event that tests for a "failure" due to lack of troops starts looking in 1862 as WAD.

However, the "check" event is only looking to see if at any time there are less than the required units. So, if in 1861 there goes by one turn with less than the required count, the "failure" Event will see this as a "miss" when it activates in 1862. All I needed to do was constrain the "check event" so it doesn't start until 1862 announcement of WO2...

Clear as mud, eh? :blink:
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:28 pm

Uhh .. yes .. no .. uh, what? :blink: Right from the start of the grand campaign it would trigger as failed because it must trigger on one of the first turns when the US has practically no unlocked units on the board Image

I think there must be some piece code that you're over seeing, for as long as I can remember I always manage to fill the DC area with militia to prevent this event and cannot remember ever getting a message that I failed to do so :confused:

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Yet another music option

Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:29 am

This is just a very minor suggestion.

After doing a fresh install of the game to upgrade that to 1.16rc5 I had all the optional settings on default including the music option, and I ran across the game music again. I like that when the game starts that it plays White Stockade, but I don't really want to listen to the music throughout the game.

It would be really nice if you could select that an intro-song plays when starting the game only, and maybe even which one or random, but I've always found to a shame to not have White Stockade play during the startup.

BTW the ID3 tag of that song lists White Cockade :neener:

User avatar
Coldsteel
Sergeant
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:52 am
Location: Saint Louis, Mo

Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:04 pm

Just wondering, have they ever actually annouced an AACW 2?
Or is this all just stipulation on our part?

Thanks,
CS

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7616
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:07 pm

Coldsteel wrote:Just wondering, have they ever actually annouced an AACW 2?
Or is this all just stipulation on our part?

Thanks,
CS


It's a wishlist.

AFAIK, no announcement....

Having said that, there are occasionally ideas here that can actually be implemented in AACW :D
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]

[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]



[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests