Less micromanagement (for no gameplay effect)

[aaminoff]

I have been enjoying this game a great deal. I have gotten to January 62 in my first real campaign as the Union.

However, I am getting tired of having to do things that in the end do not matter. First among these is units appearing in random cities. Yes, it is realistic, but it makes no difference to game play. You just go around spending 5-10 minutes each turn dragging your newly built units to a couple of marshalling centers in each theatre. I would argue that this is a waste of time: it does not add to game play and it is not fun.

By contrast, organizing your units into divisions (and re-organizing...) IS fun because it DOES affect game play. You can create an artillery-heavy siege and defense division. You can assemble all the militia in a division with a militiaman leader. You can optimize how divisions are put together in a zillion ways that actually affect game mechanics. I do not mind micromanagement of that sort (I've spent more hours than I dare think about eking the last fractional economic point out of the construction rules in Federation & Empire ).

So, imagine that it made a difference where units come from. Suppose each brigade had not just a state of origin but a city of origin. When that brigade took casualties, the loyalty in that city drops, when they are part of a glorious victory it increases. Now where a unit comes from has a game mechanical effect, and I would not mind finding and moving all those reinforcements. I'm not claiming this is a good idea, BTW, I'm saying, given that the city of origin of a reinforcement does not matter, please, let there be a mod or option to just have them show up all in one city per state. Logic-wise, it is very simple: instead of having reinforcements show up randomly in a list of cities, just rank-order the list and put them all in the first city on the list not enemy-controlled.

At the moment, it does not appear that there is any game effect (except for Militia) of which state a unit is from originally. I used to think "oh, better not recruit all from one state, the populace will be unhappy because the burden falls disproportionately on them". Other than counter mix limits, however, this does not seem to matter. So really, you could even do away with the per-state reinforcement system. I would prefer state affiliations to matter though - maybe what happens to a brigade should affect the loyalty of its home state.

In conclusion, my goal is to maximize fun over time. Micromanagement with no gameplay effect is the enemy of that.

[McNaughton]

Well, that is an opinion, and one cannot argue against opinion but with other opinion. I disagree that it is nothing but an annoyance, as it 'forces' players to regroup these newly raised troops into 'camps', and form them into (or shuttle them off to) existing higher formations. Troops were raised all over, sent by rail or ship to mustering camps, then assigned formations. Divisions weren't formed in New York or Minnesota, but in Maryland and Kentucky.

My only beef is recruiting units like signals and medics, who have no state allegiance, and can appear anywhere (ending up with 20 medics out west, 10 signals out east, with 10 of your medics in Dallas...). You have absolutely no control over where they appear, and in many cases can appear in totally dangerous situations (while you have control of all other units, you can choose not to build border state volunteer Infantry if you are afraid of advancing forces on your border states).

[Black Cat]

But McNaughton, Sir, with all due respect he is talking about the extensive, time consuming and unnecessary and Not Fun ( at least to me )mouse clicking required to find those reinforcements in the log, click on them in their small cities, click again and drag them to a camp of assembly in the East or West, where they can be formed into Brigades or Divisions early War, or forwarded to the front line mid-late war,( more clicking ) as actually occured. In the full Campaign, with lots of units coming in that clicking can take upwards of 5-10+ min. per turn, which already run 30-45 min. for the player to finish. A central " Rally Point " or better 2, that can be set up by a keystroke & mouse click as in Civilization III, one East & West would really help. Or.... just let em come in in 2 spots and move them from there.

I`m considering my 4th. Campaign Game start because of patches and my issues in being Dumb and Not understanding the Game interface, partly due to lack of hard documentation of new features ( another seperate major issue ), and how existing ones inter-relate, specifically the AI option settings.

The thing is, I`m not looking forward to it, because IMHOpinion, there is a little too much mouse clicking relating to meaningless micro-mangement that has no effect on your winning or losing the Game.

Shuffling Union fleets in and out of supply to the Blockade Boxs over and over and over each turn is another prime example of pointless non fun clicking.

I realize that it`s likely this interface is now cast in stone, but if a AACW Gold is in the cards the interface needs a facelift......

Thanks

[McNaughton]

As I said earlier, it is a matter of opinion. While you post personal reasons, they are not necessary reasons for changing an entire system. Civ III and ACW are completely different games, and aspects of one are not necessarily interchangable, as both have different goals (wargame vs empire building game). Turns in ACW are meant to take a long time, as it is a very large scale game, Civ III is a much faster paced game, getting in 500 or so turns requires streamlining, while ACW has, maximum, 114 turns.

As I said, there is historic and gamewize reasons to retain the current system. The rail system is in place, and designed to be based on this 'shipping'. If everything is so neat and clean as you desire, then the use of rail will be substantially more direct (from A to B), ignoring the true reality that in this war troops were shipped from all locations of the country to places of concentration.

Part of this game is representing the actual system of recruitment, transport and organization. What may be 'fun' to you, or 'not fun' to you, might be fun to others, or not fun to others. I personally have not found this to be much of an issue, frankly, in many situations due to where the unit appears they are deployed to certain situations. It makes me think about the risk of raising troops in Kentucky (close to the front, but could get over-run), or in New York (good sized brigades, but far from the front lines).

I don't see the need to remove a feature from the game, just because some see it as excessive micromanagement. We already lost divisional HQs, lets not lose another aspect of the game.

[Rafiki]

Shuffling Union fleets in and out of supply to the Blockade Boxs over and over and over each turn is another prime example of pointless non fun clicking.

Something that you can mostly leave out of your game thanks to the blockade box options added in one of the patches

[aaminoff]

Folks can legitimately differ in their opinions of what is fun. That is why I am asking for an option (like the blockade ships option) or a moddable thing. Does anyone who does modding know: how are entry points of units determined? Can it be set in a mod?

[Queeg]

I like the fact that new units sometimes show up in cities in danger of being overrun by the enemy. Puts a little more pain into losing territory. I don't view it as losing the unit per se, but rather losing the potential to produce the unit I ordered.

[Nial]

While I see the original posters point. One overlooked issue is that where a unit enters can seriously effect how soon it gets to the front. Some units appear in cities very close to where you would like. Others very far away from that point. It not only is historical as some have pointed out. But infuses a sense of anticipation as to where those much needed units will appear. Will it take only 2 turns to get those reinforcements to that critical city. Or will it be 4 turns. The logistical aspect is both historical and can seriouly effect many aspects of your strategy. Will it use rail or river transport? Can it use them at all.....aka.. states like Mo..or WV. Those little detail can make or break a campaign.

Nial

[Queeg]

Agreed. A little uncertainty is good.

[Toten]

I don't want specific entry locations for troops either, but what I would like is a better filter system for troops. The way the roster screen works is unwieldy and counterintuitive. Like someone else said, if you click on the the location option, it sorts by first letter of the town/region the unit it is in, rendering it virtually useless. I have grown use to it...but kinda annoying.

[bloodybucket]

I can see both sides here, and the answer that would work for both is either an option, much like naval management, to have a few rally points, or a better way to identify newly arrived units. If there were a couple keys to cycle through all newly active units that would help, or a filter for the jump map.

The random placement of units that have no state affiliation can seem silly at times, but it does add uncertainty (good for replay). I'd be happy to see an option to name a grand region desired for such units, perhaps with an increased outlay to get that specific.

Use the precedent of naval simplification and keep the current system but add an option for automation, and make the interface more efficient so finding and dispatching the new arrivals isn't as bothersome.

[saintsup]

At the moment, it does not appear that there is any game effect (except for Militia) of which state a unit is from originally. I used to think "oh, better not recruit all from one state, the populace will be unhappy because the burden falls disproportionately on them"

I don't find the 'manual' concentration of troops such a burden (with E & R shortcuts it's not so long to see all your units) but I think you have a point here. The choice of state for recruiting should/could be more of an important decision in term of game play

[Queeg]

I don't find the 'manual' concentration of troops such a burden (with E & R shortcuts it's not so long to see all your units) but I think you have a point here. The choice of state for recruiting should/could be more of an important decision in term of game play

Doesn't each state have a manpower limit?

[General Quarters]

I have been trying to get to like this game, since I really like the operational level in a strategic setting, and am a Civil War buff. But I do not like micromanagement. Some gamers do, but others do not. So I hope AGEOD will do something to accomodate those of us who do not.

I find I dread turns more than look forward to them because I spend about 90 percent of each turn on micromanagement duties instead of strategy and tactics. For players like me, the naval simplification option was a very major benefit. And the next best thing would be to create some kind of rally points for new units. My ideal would be to be able to designate certain cities as "camps" and then have an option to send each unit, or all units in a particular state, to, say, Washington DC or Cincinnati or Cairo, etc.

A similiar improvement would be to be able to designate a box to send a ship to from the menu of command choices, instead of having to drag it all the way from New York to the Gulf. I don't know how many players have to watch the condition of their hands and wrists. I know mine get achey and I have seen some gamers have to wear "braces" on their wrists and hands. The drag and drop method adds enormously to the wear and tear compared to click and drop. Some "send to ..." commands would be very helpful in this regard.

Now that I think of it, this might be the ideal way to handle newly recruited units. If there were just a "sent to ..." option, then the new unit in Utica NY could be "sent to" the designated city, indicating whether rail or ship would be used.

Whether I and, I suspect, some others are able to continue playing this game really depends on whether some simplification options can be put in place. As I say, the naval simplification option is a major step forward for players like me. Thanks all.

[Le Ricain]

I have been trying to get to like this game, since I really like the operational level in a strategic setting, and am a Civil War buff. But I do not like micromanagement. Some gamers do, but others do not. So I hope AGEOD will do something to accomodate those of us who do not.

I find I dread turns more than look forward to them because I spend about 90 percent of each turn on micromanagement duties instead of strategy and tactics. For players like me, the naval simplification option was a very major benefit. And the next best thing would be to create some kind of rally points for new units. My ideal would be to be able to designate certain cities as "camps" and then have an option to send each unit, or all units in a particular state, to, say, Washington DC or Cincinnati or Cairo, etc.

A similiar improvement would be to be able to designate a box to send a ship to from the menu of command choices, instead of having to drag it all the way from New York to the Gulf. I don't know how many players have to watch the condition of their hands and wrists. I know mine get achey and I have seen some gamers have to wear "braces" on their wrists and hands. The drag and drop method adds enormously to the wear and tear compared to click and drop. Some "send to ..." commands would be very helpful in this regard.

Now that I think of it, this might be the ideal way to handle newly recruited units. If there were just a "sent to ..." option, then the new unit in Utica NY could be "sent to" the designated city, indicating whether rail or ship would be used.

Whether I and, I suspect, some others are able to continue playing this game really depends on whether some simplification options can be put in place. As I say, the naval simplification option is a major step forward for players like me. Thanks all.

In terms of wear and tear on hands and wrists from doing drag and drop, I can offer a helpful suggestion. Click once on the unit to be moved and then scroll to the desired destination. Drag the unit's tab to the location and drop.

[WhoCares]

In terms of wear and tear on hands and wrists from doing drag and drop, I can offer a helpful suggestion. Click once on the unit to be moved and then scroll to the desired destination. Drag the unit's tab to the location and drop.

Instead of scrolling you can also click on the Minimap, so the steps would be select the unit, click on the Minimap, drag and drop the units tab to the location.

[General Quarters]

Thanks, guys, for the very helpful suggestions.

[chainsaw]

I have been trying to get to like this game, since I really like the operational level in a strategic setting, and am a Civil War buff. I find I dread turns more than look forward to them because I spend about 90 percent of each turn on micromanagement duties instead of strategy and tactics.

You hit the nail on the head! I have been feeling discouraged by this wonderful game as well...and it's because of the 15+ minutes spent each turn dealing with the micromanagement. I finally hit the "next turn" button with a sigh, knowing that I get to repeat it all again. After 3 weeks I'm losing interest just because of the sense of being swamped by the management.

The underlying engine is great, but they need to make some simple changes to the interface to allow us time to think about the strategy and not worry about missing some lone regiment left sitting by itself in it's recruitment city. Another example - I had a large Union fleet with reinforcements moving toward New Orleans (I had captured it last turn) The Rebs took it back (briefly) and the fleet just stopped dead in the water off south Florida, and sat there for 3 turns until I happened to look at the minimap. It should have continued towards it's destination, or decided to move toward the nearest friendly port, not sit at sea for 6 weeks while the troops lost all cohesion. Now I feel like I must scroll through every fleet to avoid a repeat.