User avatar
fusileer2002
Sergeant
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: UK

Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:39 am

I think forts work well as they are. Yes they can be used to slow up a Northern invasion and block waterways (as they were originally intended to) but can also prove to be massive drain. A large garrison in a fort is worthless if the enemy bypasses that fort, and then all those men and guns will be missed from the field armies. And if the fort is captured, taking it back might then be an impossible task, and the location is lost for good to the enemy. But they are a viable strategy, the opponent just needs to use a viable strategy to deal with them.

As to the naval affects, I'm happy for the odd ironclad to be sunk (rarely seen from bombardment, but does occasionally happen) as we cant place mines and torpedoes in the game - so you could view the bombardment damage as also representing mined waterways etc, which seems to have been fairly common around forts after it was seen how easily Henry and Donelson fell.

As for being able to bypass or land out of range of the forts guns I used to agree with this also. But in one thread on here somewhere theres some modern day photos of the river at Donelson (was it Gray that psoted them?). It made me realise how much of the US is still wilderness and would have been moreso during the ACW. Places suitable for landing troops in such areas may have been few and far between and the location of forts may have taken advantage of that. Also, some rivers and inlets had many shallow areas, again restricting the passages available to boats and influencing the location fo forts. Atleast, thats how I see it worked into the game.

I do agree however that units inside should be more willing to surrender when the food starts to run out. I think the chances of this should be increased in AACW2.

User avatar
TheDoctorKing
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:01 pm

I've mentioned in another thread that harbor forts should be tied to their "parent" city, so that if the city falls the harbor fort garrisons should either surrender at once or at least spike their guns and evacuate to the nearest friendly force. There are plenty of examples of harbor forts surrendering, all the way from New Orleans in early 1862 to Charleston, Savannah, and Mobile towards the end of the war. There are no historical counter-examples that I know of where harbor forts fought on after the town they were protecting was captured. Even bypassing a fort with naval forces was generally enough to get them to give in, as in Mobile and New Orleans where the forts' surrender preceded the capture of the city. In the game as it is, the attacking player needs to separately besiege these forts, which will take at least a month and a good number of troops, or assault them at high cost in casualties.
Stewart King

"There is no substitute for victory"

Depends on how you define victory.

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
TheDoctorKing
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:10 pm

And on Andatiep's EP system, the outcome of elections could be a product of EP.

Maybe you pay a certain number of EPs to win the elections in each state, variable by the number of representatives each state had. If you win enough state elections to control Congress, you get some advantages - more tax money, more conscripts, easier passage of conscription bills, etc. If you lose a state, then you can't get as much "normal" money, conscripts, and supplies out of them. If you lose the presidential elections, then this has the victory/defeat outcomes Andatiep proposes.

And there should be elections in the Confederacy as well. The CSA was a much more centralized and militarized state than the USA during the war, but popular opposition to the Davis government had an impact on the war effort. Maybe if the CSA government can remain popular they will have an easier time than historically getting and keeping recruits and mobilizing resources.
Stewart King



"There is no substitute for victory"



Depends on how you define victory.



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

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

Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:49 pm

soundoff wrote:I think this is the crux of the issue. Without the ability of being able to MTSG in 1861 the game, not just in PBEM but also in Solo modes has become unbalanced.

In PBEM it is too easy for the Union to steamroller the CSA. As Daxil quite rightly says there is absolutely no strategy you can employ to counter the hammer blow effect of amassing a huge number of troops at a single given point. It almost begs the question as to whether there should be a cap on the number of total units that a region can contain on any one turn.


In solo mode (once you get over the learning hump) it has also become too darned easy to win as the Union. I'd concede its now more challenging playing the CSA but then again there are a lot of players who like playing the Blue and after a little while walkovers become no fun at all. We all like a gaming challenge- dont we?

So yes if there ever is a AACW2 then the rules of MTSG should be amended to allow commanded Brigades and above to MTSG.....all in MHO naturally ;)


I just shortly come back to this post and discussions of the page n°9 to report that after 2 PBEM with the following House Rule :
- It can never be more than 1 Division unit in a force if this force is not a Corps.

House Rule wich was coupled with the "Long delayed battle" Option of the game (which in my opinion shouldn't be an option...).

...the Union was not in a better position anymore and the game seems "balanced" again for the defender (so mostly for the CSA), although the delayed arrival of the Corps & MTSG system to late 1862 :
Since the attacker should now split its force in middle-size ones (like few brigades around one single division), it give back a good advantage to the defender, because the different attacking forces rarely coordinated to arrive in the same time, at the same day for the same battle in the targeted region...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

Thomas Niksa
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:01 pm

My Suggestion for Improvement

Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:09 am

Well, I've said it about World War I Gold and I'll say it about American Civil War: I'd like a hotseat mode so I can play myself alternate solitare.

I just got the game for Christmas and gave it a play yesterday. After doing the tutorial for a half hour, I got impatient and started up the 1st Bull Run Campaign as the U.S. Lo and behold, McDowell under my orders marches forward with little resistance, while the Beauregard and the Rebels go southeast and try to - capture Ft. Monroe! I lose one battle below Fredricksburg, then repell a Rebel counterattack. I continue marching southward, capture Richmond even before Fredricksburg falls. Stonewall sits in paralyzed fear of - Patterson. Union victory.

Pretty impressive, I'd say, except I didn't have a clue as to what I was doing.

Heck, don't mean to be conceited, but after playing this and many hours of World War I Gold, I have the decided impression that I could get a better game solitaring than playing the AI.

User avatar
Citizen X
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:34 pm

Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:12 am

Thomas Niksa wrote:Heck, don't mean to be conceited, but after playing this and many hours of World War I Gold, I have the decided impression that I could get a better game solitaring than playing the AI.


Either


or


:coeurs:

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:51 am

deleted

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

Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:06 am

citizen x wrote:either


or


:coeurs:


:mdr:
[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]

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:42 pm

Don't forget Delaware! In the conditions you have posited for your secenario, I believe Delaware would have joined the CSA. IMHO. t

User avatar
TheDoctorKing
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

A what-if scenario

Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:05 pm

First of all, I agree with Tagwyn that the AGEOD engine needs both a hotseat mode and a network play mode. I have tried and tried to get the ARES thing to work and it is (to me) completely opaque. This should be a built-in capacity. I like to play in the same room with my opponents, so the game can be a social activity. The only way to do that now with these otherwise exceptionally fine games is to play your turn, while your opponent is sitting there twiddling his thumbs or drinking your beer, save, get out, let him sit down and load up, etcetera.

I have another suggestion. Since Revolution Under Siege has a what-if scenario, how about one for AACW? I was just working on an encyclopedia article about Zachary Taylor, US president from 1849 to 1850. He was a hero of the Mexican War and one of the most gifted commanders of his generation. The debate over the status of the newly-conquered territories in the wake of the Mexican war almost touched off the Civil War ten years early. War was averted because of the political skills of Taylor's patron, Henry Clay, Senator from Tennessee. Let's try a what-if:

Instead of Taylor dying suddenly in July, 1850, Clay is the one who dies. Taylor tries to shepherd Clay's proposals through Congress but can't get a consensus. The overwhelming numerical advantage of the free states means that no Fugitive Slave Act can pass the House of Representatives, and the southern advantage in the Senate means that the Wilmot Proviso, prohibiting slavery in the newly-acquired territories, can't pass the Senate. Fighting breaks out in California and New Mexico, while the Mormons in Utah, fiercely anti-slavery, send militia to support the free state movements in both areas. "Bleeding California" replaces "Bleeding Kansas" as a rallying cry for fire-eaters in the south and abolitionists in the north. The issue of California statehood reaches the Supreme Court in 1851, and the court issues its famous Scott vs. United States decision, which inter alia declares that no black person can be a citizen of the United States and that any person who owns a slave can take that slave anywhere he or she wants within the United States, regardless of state laws prohibiting slavery (similar to the historical Dred Scott decision).

The lower south states threaten to secede if California is not admitted to the Union as a slave state. Massachusetts and New Hampshire threaten to secede if any southerner tries to import slaves into their territory under the provisions of the Scott decision. President Taylor threatens to personally lead the army against any state that tries to secede. He also says that slavery "cannot exist anywhere where the local law and custom are opposed to it" (something Stephen Douglas said historically), calming the New England radicals. The southern states carry through on their threats, beginning with South Carolina on Christmas Eve, 1851. By March, 1852, nine southern states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America, with their capital in Montgomery. Taylor's one-time son-in-law, the junior senator from Mississippi, Jefferson Davis is the surprise winner of the Confederate presidency. Both sides begin raising troops - the New England states in particular had begun creating militias and building weapons all the way back in the summer of 1851

President Taylor seeks a political solution and delays intervention for months. He draws the line at turning over federal arsenals and forts to the Confederate states, however. In April, 1852, he sends a resupply mission to the small US Army garrison in Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and before the ships can arrive the South Carolina forces shell the fort and compel its surrender. Upon hearing the news, Taylor, wearing his uniform, addresses Congress and announces that he has no option but to compel the southern states to rejoin the Union. He calls for volunteers from the states and orders regular army units to support constitutional government in the west and send reinforcements to the east.

Game changes: there will be significant map changes required. There was a lot of development and railroad building in the country between 1852 and 1861, especially in the south and midwest. River movement will be much more important in this game than in vanilla AACW. Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Kansas, all will be at a much lower level of development.

As far as units are concerned, infantry will have shorter ranges and lower fire power numbers at the beginning of the war. Later-appearing units (and perhaps refits for existing units) will gain the values from AACW as rifles firing the Minie ball are adopted by both combatants - USA first, then CSA. Cavalry will all be "early-war" type; no repeating carbines in this war. Artillery will be all smoothbores (6 and 12-lb) to start, with rifled cannons coming in later.

The initial setup will have the border states (MO, AR, OK, KS, TX, KY, VA, NC, MD, DE) all "neutral" like Kentucky in vanilla AACW. Both sides will be able to take political actions using EPs to try to influence the border states to join the struggle, or to "declare war" on them and invade. Partisans from those border states, and California and the southwest, will play a bigger role. If we can have a full map that extends to the Pacific, that would be good, as I anticipate that there would be more fighting out west.

I see this as a much more "wide-open" struggle with a bigger role for amphibious invasions, fighting in far-flung theaters, and political battles. There might be more of a chance for foreign intervention, maybe on both sides. Mexico was having its own civil war, 1853-1855, and this could well get tied into the American struggle, with Juarez and the Liberals on the northern side and Santa Ana on the southern. Napoleon III was President of France starting in 1851 and became Emperor in 1852; he would have been more self-confident in the early stages of his rule. The Conservative Earl of Aberdeen was Prime Minister of Britain and would have been more willing to support the South than Palmerston, PM in 1861-65. The extremely conservative Nicholas I was Tsar of Russia, but like his more liberal son Alexander III who was Tsar in 1861-65, he would have been interested in balancing any French or British intervention in an American War. Nicholas historically fought the Crimean War against the French and British and might have seen a distraction in North America for them as an opportunity for him to pursue traditional Russian goals in Europe and Asia. Limited support from Russia for the USA, particularly in the Far West if that was an active theater, is not out of the question.

Another political option or issue is the fact that 1852 was a presidential election year. Taylor would certainly stand for re-election; his opponent would be a northern Democrat, probably Stephen Douglas of Illinois. The Democrats' platform would call for a negotiated end to the war if there had been no foreign intervention. There would be a "victory check" in November, 1852, with the CSA winning if USA loyalty was below a certain point in enough regions, and if FI had not yet occurred. Another check would take place in 1854, with negative repercussions for both sides (but not defeat) if the elections went badly. And then another victory check in November 1856, with Seward as the Whig Presidential candidate and Buchanan as the Democrat. And so forth. The war goes on until one side wins on the battlefield or the people of the north cease to support the war effort. Southern war exhaustion is a subject yet to be discussed - the CSA government was very dictatorial and had little patience for internal opponents; I can't imagine them letting themselves be voted out of office.

I'd like to see recruiting done more like Revolution Under Siege, with the option to raise troops and levy taxes by state, with repercussions for the attitude of the people of that state towards the government. Instead of them joining some armed "Green" faction, though, they would just resist future taxation and recruitment, furnishing fewer volunteers, conscripts (if you start conscription) and tax money the next time around, and vote against the government at election time. You would still have to select draft or call for volunteers as a political option (spending EPs) but that would not give you the recruits directly but instead allow you to do "special operation" recruitment in your states, which would respond varying in proportion to their loyalty. You would also be able to tax your states, and in addition do "national" taxation measures like an income tax, issuing paper money, or issuing war bonds - though I would limit the CSA's access to these measures as they were pretty disorganized on the financial front.

I'm open to suggestions.
Stewart King



"There is no substitute for victory"



Depends on how you define victory.



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

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

Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:46 am

Nice ideas :)

I see you open the first fire in the wishlist concerning all the RUS features/concepts that could benefit to an AACW2... :D
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

User avatar
TheDoctorKing
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:43 pm

If we ever get involved in AACW2, I'll resurrect this idea and count on your support, Andatiep.

Meanwhile, back to work on RUS!
Stewart King



"There is no substitute for victory"



Depends on how you define victory.



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Thomas Niksa
Conscript
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:01 pm

Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:09 am

I agree, the 1852 Civil War idea is intriging. It would be a more even fight than 1861. It is ironic that the pro-South "doughfaces" Pierce and Buchannan, by keeping the successionists placated until the latter year, gave the North eight years to greatly expand the railroad net, facilitating invasion; and widen its population, capital, and industrial plant advantages.

User avatar
TheDoctorKing
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:48 pm

Another point is that in 1851 the California gold rush was at full roar. Control of California should be worth a whole bunch of money to whichever side can hold it. A further inducement to campaign in the Far West.

There should be small units that are specially designed for fighting in the west - Indians, Texas Rangers, US regular cavalry - and all others who dare the Far West suffer enormous penalties in organization and supply. This to avoid the spectacle of tens of thousands of rebels pouring west across the New Mexico and Arizona deserts (hi Andatiep!) :)
Stewart King



"There is no substitute for victory"



Depends on how you define victory.



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

enf91
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:25 pm

Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:49 am

^California already gives something like 72 money/turn for the USA.

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

Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:35 pm

An idea from RUS before i forgot :

The Very Big Guns in AACW should be maybe kind of "Gun Train", like the Armored Train in RUS, with the same "locked" RR movement but of courses it would stay Artillery support units and not "armored fighting units" like in RUS.
This big guns was often on trains and was never far away from a railroad, a harbor or a navigable river.



TheDoctorKing wrote:This to avoid the spectacle of tens of thousands of rebels pouring west across the New Mexico and Arizona deserts (hi Andatiep!) :)


I'm fine with it, ...if the huge loss of cohesion when moving between the western boxes make not any attack impossible... :)
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:41 am

The 1852 idea is very cool. There could also be an interesting range of 'opening guns' situations for the 1861 campaign: e.g. Lincoln assassinated/kidnapped before the inauguration, a military coup, slave revolt, and/or escalation from Kansas/Mo rather than Sumter.

moni kerr
Lieutenant
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:34 am

What about the great flood of 1862?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862

Maybe California should not give any income for 1862 and be regarded as impassable for most of the year. Same for Oregon.

"It was climaxed by a warmer, more intense storm with much more rain that was made more serious by the earlier large accumulation of snow, now melted by the rain in the lower elevations of the mountains. Throughout the affected area, all the streams and rivers rose to great heights, flooded the valleys, inundated or swept away towns, mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, and domestic animals, and ruined fields. Early estimates of property damage was at $10,000,000.[1] However, later it was estimated that approximately one-quarter of the taxable real estate in the state was destroyed in the flood. Dependant on property taxes the State of California went bankrupt. The governor, state legislature, and state employees were not paid for a year and a half."


The extent of the flooding was widespread and the impact was quite staggering, throughout the west coast and even including parts of Arizona. Most surprising of all it apparently had nothing to do with global warming ;)

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:01 am

moni kerr wrote:What about the great flood of 1862?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862

The extent of the flooding was widespread and the impact was quite staggering, throughout the west coast and even including parts of Arizona. Most surprising of all it apparently had nothing to do with global warming ;)


Some interesting similarities with the weather pattern we're getting now on the US East Coast -- Jet stream has slipped South, unleashing a large amount of Arctic air.

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!"

Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:19 am

How 'bout a full map instead of ending at Kansas! :cursing:
Also, More options about FI! And Indians for the Union (Reinforcement). :thumbsup:

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

Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:07 pm

Supply phase every 5 days instead of every 15. Allows supply lines to be cut during turns instead of at the end.

Fix certain fort adjacencies. Most Union forts have no double adjacencies, limiting theur effectiveness.
Pre-war forts in general are too uniform. Monroe, Pickens, and Jefferson are truly massive and mounted hundreds of guns; they should be far more powerful than the small fortification thrown up in the first few months of the war, such as Fort Clark. Others, like Fort Erie, were ruins at the time of the war.
Fort Pickens was able to singlehandedly dominate Pensacola Bay and blockade Pensacola Navy Yard. It completely controlled the channel from Pensacola Bay to the Gulf, just as Fort Monroe completely controlled the channel from Hampton Roads to the Chesapeake Bay & the Atlantic.

An Irish front that could be opened by the Union by political option after FI.

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:12 pm

Cromagnonman wrote:An Irish front that could be opened by the Union by political option after FI.


Fun. But talk about opening a can of worms! At the very least, that'd require a much more detailed map of Canada.

But given the 1866 Fenian raids, not too far-fetched.

(I wonder if that might end up as part/scenario within PrON)

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

Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:26 pm

I was not aware Canada was attached to Ireland. :p

I do wonder at the size of the FI armies. The Brits start with over 30k men in Canada, plus their several unlocked corps in England itself. The British army only had 80k regulars at the time, and they were mostly tied up in world-wide colonial commitments (eg India). On the other hand, the French contribution is rather smaller than I expected, though I understand they had some uppity Prussians milling about their front door, too.

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:08 am

I'd like to see it be possible to recruit militia in any state, provided a certain loyalty threshold is crossed.

I'd also like to see leaders be more equal while regional loyalty becomes more important. I'd wager that the Union generals tended to look a lot worse than they really were because they were fighting on hostile ground. The rebels did very well on their home turf with a cooperative populace. You'll note that even McClellan was able to beat Lee north of the Potomac. Lee was only able to turn Chancellorsville into a major victory by using local knowledge kept from Hooker. Then there's the morale element. Clausewitz pointed out that the strateguc defense for these and other reasons.
"firstest with the mostest"

"I fights mit Sigel"

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

Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:38 pm

Artillery is far too difficult to capture. Perhaps it's because artillery men and guns are accounted together as strength. Historically, you could wipe out the manpower of a battery while its guns would be intact. I'd be surprised if the number of artillery pieces destroyed in action during the war was anywhere close to the number captured.
"firstest with the mostest"



"I fights mit Sigel"

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

Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:34 pm

Cromagnonman wrote:Artillery is far too difficult to capture. Perhaps it's because artillery men and guns are accounted together as strength. Historically, you could wipe out the manpower of a battery while its guns would be intact. I'd be surprised if the number of artillery pieces destroyed in action during the war was anywhere close to the number captured.



Give me a hammer and a nail ...and you can bring back your captured gun to the foundry and start again the production process...

Besides this, the ammunitions calibers of each sides are not always the same.

But that's true that you at least get the mass of metal.

Maybe to find a way to increase the WS bonus when a side destroyed even few artillery units...
REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:56 pm

andatiep wrote:Besides this, the ammunitions calibers of each sides are not always the same.


Definitely depends on the guns -- ACW is the tail-end of an era where cannons were not all that picky about the caliber of ammo fed into them... especially if you're talking grape-shot.

I'm hazy on it, but I suspect the watershed is mass-production of HE ammunition and pre-packaging of propellant with warhead.

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

Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:52 pm

andatiep wrote:Give me a hammer and a nail ...and you can bring back your captured gun to the foundry and start again the production process...

Besides this, the ammunitions calibers of each sides are not always the same.

But that's true that you at least get the mass of metal.

Maybe to find a way to increase the WS bonus when a side destroyed even few artillery units...


I have to disagree. First, a spiked gun was relatively easy to repair. The point of spiking was to prevent immediate use by the enemy, not to destroy the gun (which after all could be recovered by friendly troops). Second, in the AACW both sides essentially used the same guns and re-use of captured guns was common on both sides (though less for the Union simply because they could produce newer guns and had no need for obsolete captured guns)...

I'm not entirely satisfied with how captured guns are treated right now (they are not as useful as historical, as late as in WWII captured guns were commonly used (entire German divisions were armed with polish, french, czech or russian weapons), but the issue has been raised), but the point has been raised in some other discussion iirc (RUS?) and Pocus (again iirc) offered to take a look at it sometime...
Marc aka Caran...

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

Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:15 pm

andatiep wrote:Give me a hammer and a nail ...and you can bring back your captured gun to the foundry and start again the production process...

Besides this, the ammunitions calibers of each sides are not always the same.

But that's true that you at least get the mass of metal.

Maybe to find a way to increase the WS bonus when a side destroyed even few artillery units...


Artillery was frequently captured, recaptured, etc. Both sides in the game use the same guns- Napoleons and Parrots, for the most part. I find it rather odd when my soldiers destroy cannons in an assault. Are they that strong, or are they lugging around sledgehammers? Either way, I might have some use for those guns.

I am going to go on to claim that all captured elements should be eligible to receive replacements from the pool if those types of elements exist in the captor's reinforcement pool.
"firstest with the mostest"



"I fights mit Sigel"

User avatar
Carrington
Captain
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:53 am

Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:12 am

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?)

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests