AGEOD Forums

Now this is entirely aimed at....if there is ever a AACWII but it picks up on several recent posts by various players.

Firstly I'm totally in agreement with Franciscus...the more flavour the better. Thus I dont care whether the game engine works in hits...misses....wiggetts or duberrys but if there ever is a version 2 I do so hope it translates hits into actual numbers in a meaningful way. To have, as was recently highlighted in an entirely different post (apologies to the poster for not remembering their name) an instance where 330 men were attacked with the result being that the 330 were defeated resulting in 500 being captured makes a mockery of actually using any 'flavour' numbers at all. Its about as accurate as having a picture of Adolph Hitler for R.E. Lee and then saying...well its only flavour.

I also find myself in agreement with Caccio.....you should be able to easily tell which Corps and Divisions were engaged in a battle and when. You should not have to second guess or access some obsure log files to work it out. Similarly which divisions retreated and which attacked should be self evident and not have to be guessed at. Its not about having a 'say' in who attacks or how they attack its just basic strategic/tactical information that ought to be automatically available in a game of this scope.

I know it cant happen in the current version and I understand and accept why hence I've deliberately aimed my comments at an AACWII if there ever is one

I would love to see these changes in an AACW II as well (as well as more information about supply - like where a unit is drawing from).

I don't really care much about the main thread topic (the battlescreen), although I certainly wouldn't object to an improvement. It's just that the current screen is adequate.

However, this:

as well as more information about supply - like where a unit is drawing from

Is something that I can entirely support. I'd go so far as to say that something along these lines can and should be added to the current game. Nothing complex or really new is required, just an added line to the supply tool tip, naming the depot where supply is coming from, would be fine.

All units draw supply from the region they are located in and/or from the surrounding regions; it can even be a combination of several regions. Do you need something that emphasizes which region a unit is in? In what way does the supply overlay filter fall short of being what you need?

(I'm genuinely wondering, since I have a feel I don't quite grasp what you're looking for )

I don't think the game can tell you in the tooltip where the supply is coming from at the time of "mousing" over. Supply forwarding is done in a part of the game during turn processing itself and once the supply has been moved via the "supply" bounds, it's done, and what you have for information in the "mouse" over tooltip is what is there at the time of the "mouse" over.

To try to add some sort of interface during the turn processing itself would be an overly redundant requirement that is much more complicated than it's worth and also slow down the turn processing considerably.

Adding information to tooltips is indeed simple. It's the gathering of the information itself for the mouse tooltip that makes this idea a non-starter.

That's what I thought, but I've had situations occur where the unit(s) are in a "green" area and yet end up unsupplied.
(this has occured mostly out west, in Missouri, for example)

Supply seems to be... fickle, is all. Usually it works exactly as expected, but occasionally it doesn't. I guess that I'd just like a better understanding of what went wrong in the cases where unit(s) end up being unsupplied.

deleted

Rafiki wrote:All units draw supply from the region they are located in and/or from the surrounding regions; it can even be a combination of several regions. Do you need something that emphasizes which region a unit is in? In what way does the supply overlay filter fall short of being what you need?

(I'm genuinely wondering, since I have a feel I don't quite grasp what you're looking for )

I would want to know where they unit drew the supply from (or maybe the most likely location). Currently, I have to mouseover each supply depot in an area to find changes to values. I would like to see some sort of graphical representation of supply flow. I realize that the flow is automated, but I would also like to be able to determine where it is flowing from/to in an easy format. As Gray said, this is a non-starter (unless for AACW II). Put this down to more of a wish/desire for the future.

soundoff wrote:Now this is entirely aimed at....if there is ever a AACWII but it picks up on several recent posts by various players.

Firstly I'm totally in agreement with Franciscus...the more flavour the better. Thus I dont care whether the game engine works in hits...misses....wiggetts or duberrys but if there ever is a version 2 I do so hope it translates hits into actual numbers in a meaningful way. To have, as was recently highlighted in an entirely different post (apologies to the poster for not remembering their name) an instance where 330 men were attacked with the result being that the 330 were defeated resulting in 500 being captured makes a mockery of actually using any 'flavour' numbers at all. Its about as accurate as having a picture of Adolph Hitler for R.E. Lee and then saying...well its only flavour.

I also find myself in agreement with Caccio.....you should be able to easily tell which Corps and Divisions were engaged in a battle and when. You should not have to second guess or access some obsure log files to work it out. Similarly which divisions retreated and which attacked should be self evident and not have to be guessed at. Its not about having a 'say' in who attacks or how they attack its just basic strategic/tactical information that ought to be automatically available in a game of this scope.

I know it cant happen in the current version and I understand and accept why hence I've deliberately aimed my comments at an AACWII if there ever is one

Obviously and enphatically +1

Raf, you asked in another thread to enumerate those changes that make the learning curve of the game tough. This is one. Supply. It's truly elegant in its application, indeed. It's also lacking some means for the player to understand and blend its operation with their play. AGEOD has truly taken logistics in gaming to the next level. It took me awhile to understand its nuances and in the meantime I stewed about it as a new player. This could be ameliorated with a thoughtful approach to reporting that offered both understanding to the underinitiated, glee to the bean counting grognards like me and ease of correcting spotted deficiencies to the developers. I understand this may be no easy "cut and tried" task to consider.

When the computer code is moving with lightning speed to resolve multiple conflicting supply needs, including the a depot's/wagon's/unit's need for "end of turn minimal supply retention" it can provide aggravating confusion for the player to sort out, given what they can see. The player can't see in-between turn processings where the supply is going.

I have seen situations where a large unit, next to a known supply depot with seemingly adequate supply, goes unsupplied. It takes a lot of deductive detective work to discover that during processing there were numerous OTHER supply needs that overran the depots capacity of existing supply and left the large unit partially unsupplied even tho depot resupply filled the depot right back up. Quite simply the depot started (visibly) with a large amount of supply and the player next sees (visibly) the depot beginning the new turn with a similar amount while, in the interim machinations, an adjacent unit goes unsupplied.
Let me illustrate.

Depot A has 500 supply at the end of a turn. In a region next to depot A, the 5th Destitute Army needs 100 supply to keep from starving. It looks like all is well. But "other needs down the line" including higher priority supply wagons, or in surrounding areas (including the depots requirement to keep some supply for itself) cause much of the 500 supply to be already spoken for at other locations, ie....there is more supply need than supply in the local or semi local areas. The 5th Destitutes get little and starts to starve when it looked like all was well at turn end. The player is left cursing the system saying "but there was more than enough supply for the 5th right there next door.......and there still is, see????".

Depot A, meanwhile, invisible to the player, drains to alternate destinations and refills invisible to the player.

Result?

Depot A, visibly to the player, ends turn with 500 supply, and visibly begins the next turn with 500 supply and the 5th Destitute gets little or none and starts to starve.

The player ends up scratchin their head cursing the game system as what seemed as obvious "supply-covered units" go begging. Closer investigation by the player, which often, in the emotional angst that follows is lacking, would show that the concentration of need in a locale is heavier than what the system could possibly provide ALL destintions.

In my experience I find this happens in two situations most often. One is a player who overloads a given portion of the supply grid.....say the USA in the Eastern corridor with half his entire army in a small area of concentration. The other is at the "outside of the supply circle grid". If one thinks of the supply grid as a circle and there is an excessive concentration of forces just "outside the circle" near an outside locus, the forces can get undersupplied while the circle, seemingly, has plenty. It takes watchfulness AND UNDERSTANDING to craft a correct player response.

Newer players, not used to AGEOD's elegant but rather intricate supply considerations, I would think, might curse the system and, their being used to games that only emphasize the tactical genius of R.E. Lee, give up on investigating what could have happened and maybe, move back to older more simplistic models.

A simple but thorough report/compilation of some thoughtful construction could provide the player with understanding that could lead to overcoming the frustration inherent in not understanding and blaming the game system as faulty. Logistics is NOT an easy subject. Yet I find the logistical system you have provided as quite elegant and provides a multifaceted rich fabric over the top of an already elegant tactical/strategic blend WHEN UNDERSTOOD.
And still, it hurts to mis-guess as a player and watch your troops starve.

Perhaps it would be a good tool to consider in addressing any changes for AACW II. Along with the already considerable interest in refining battle reports, that Caccio invented a work in progress tool for, this might prove a key that proves worthy of us grognards investing again in a second edition. You would have to weigh the energy required versus the economic dollar return to the company. Seems to me the dollar return could be quite positive.

Sequels offer increased enjoyment but possibly to a smaller circle of buyers. This issue seems to require a low cost beta team effort approach that taps into the considerable appetites and energies of AGEOD's admittedly larger than normal following.

Still please be aware, this game system is elegantly crafted and please know that criticism of this facet is only an effort of constructive and expansive admiration not derision nor detraction from its creators and current devotees' level of commitment to its much appreciated ongoing refinement.

ditto. Very nicely worded sir, congratulations.

Agreed

Thanks for your complimentary responses Ohm and Mr. T.
Sorry, I didn't mean to threadjack this thread from its noted author, and gamer of such renown AARs, Soundoff, from his initial presentation of the need for a refining in battle reporting. His offering and the multiple responses birthed, simply inspired my quick knee jerk reaction in the area of supply as equally worthy of consideration as potential battle reporting changes. Both indeed, could provide equally more illumination that leads to enhanced understanding and gameplay. I apologize for my hijacking digression.
I now return this thread, with my apologies, to its original channel and content.

i enjoyed reading your post, very well written and easy to understand.

SkyWestNM wrote:Raf, you asked in another thread to enumerate those changes that make the learning curve of the game tough.

INdeed I did, and it's well thought-through feedback like the one you posted that helps us improve good games to become even better. Thanks!