Strategic/Offensive Limitations (a suggestion)

[Stauffenberg]

I am still on the learning curve with this but have played out a few campaign games and would like to suggest an offensive limitation dynamic for both sides. Time and again, I have seen armies that just got whipped soundly, pick themselves up and carry on offensively within 2 weeks. Very few armies during this conflict were able to do this, outside of Lee's for most of the conflict, and Grant's and Sherman's later on.

I would think that a mandatory brown envelope status should be served out to most formations in a particular army that suffered a +2 Morale Point loss, let's say, for their side in a particular battle. This could be implemented for X number of turns, per Corps in that army depending upon the effectiveness of the Corps commander. If I just inflicted a +2 Morale loss on the USA Potomac army under Hooker or Burnside, with 4000 men as casualties, that particular army should pretty much be shut down and licking its wounds for quite awhile before it starts up serious offensive activities again. If I am missing something here in the game dynamics or rules, or in other threads dealing with this, my apologies in advance.

Perhaps the system relies more upon the reasonable reactions of a human player here over Athena, but it seems to me the AI here (if it truly is an "AI" as opposed to a "PO"--a Programmed Opponent) should be able to incorporate this basic function of offensive rhythm in Civil War armies.

Further to this, as has been brought up in many other threads, formations of infantry are wandering far too far and wide from their supply sources to result in a realistic model. It just wasn't feasible (or sane) to march off with 10,000 + men for "deep raids" until you had an enemy that was almost prostrate. Even large or small cavalry forces faced tremendous risks and obstacles in attempting this. In my most recent CSA campaign game I have individual Union Corps wandering around the deep south in 3 locations by July 1863, apparently with enough supply wagons along to shrug at the loss of the supply port behind them that they sallied forth from. This should devolve upon direct army control surely, and loss of a direct overland supply route to a RR or harbour should have instant effects. Really, limiting advances to 2 regions from a functioning harbour or supply depot for any and all "expeditions" would restore a great deal of reality here.

Then again overall national morale should be a factor. In the above-mentioned game my CSA morale is 140--Union is 77. Would they be marching lone corps off on deep raids in this situation? Very doubtful.

Just a few observations and quibbles--apart from that this is a marvelous ACW sim, best I have experienced, wonderfully rich and nuanced. I hope the developers and designers are able to continue with refinements and improvements in future patches.

Stauf

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Longshanks]

While I understand your comments (and disappointments), the AI is really just a way to learn the game. The best results will come at the hands of another human opponent via a PBEM, with the AI serving as more of a training tool, imo.

[Stauffenberg]

While I understand your comments (and disappointments), the AI is really just a way to learn the game. The best results will come at the hands of another human opponent via a PBEM, with the AI serving as more of a training tool, imo.

Yes fair enough. I would not have bothered to suggest improvements if I did not think it did a fair job as is in any case. It's time for a human opponent methinks.