User avatar
Heldenkaiser
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
Contact: Website

Shouldn't activation rather work just the other way round?

Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:51 am

I have recently come to wonder whether it isn't a rather unhistoric fact that we know beforehand which general will activate and which won't. We may be bothered by generals sitting idle for turns, but we can adjust for that as best as we can by using others that activate. We don't experience real problems because generals just fail to do what they were ordered to. We know in advance there is no use ordering them if they won't activate so we don't.

Wouldn't it be way more realistic if activation would be determined at the start of the turn resolution? All generals would be available for receiving orders, but we would never know which ones would be actually carried out. Corps would fail to advance, leaving neighbouring stacks in the lurch; gaps would open in the line because someone would not move to fill them in spite of orders; all kind of things would happen that would have happened in real war if someone did not act on his orders, but hardly ever happen in the game. In reality, commanders would receive their orders, even acknowledge them, but then fail to move. In the game as it is, they are just not available for (offensive) orders and that's that.

Just my two (Euro-)cents. :innocent:
[color="Gray"]"These Savages may indeed be a formidable Enemy to your raw American Militia, but, upon the King's regular & disciplined Troops, Sir, it is impossible they should make any Impression." -- General Edward Braddock[/color]
Colonial Campaigns Club (supports BoA and WiA)
[color="Gray"]"... and keep moving on." -- General U.S. Grant[/color]
American Civil War Game Club (supports AACW)

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:46 am

On a more tactical scale I would agree, but on a strategic scale, not so much.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25432
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:00 pm

Actually it was like that in an early BOA prototype. And it was very frustrating. So for the sake of gameplay and fun (yes, it is a consideration as this is a game!), we reversed the order.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Heldenkaiser
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
Contact: Website

Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:03 pm

Pocus wrote:And it was very frustrating.


I would think so! Maybe I have a masochistic strain ... or maybe being a historian sometimes gets the better of me. ;)
[color="Gray"]"These Savages may indeed be a formidable Enemy to your raw American Militia, but, upon the King's regular & disciplined Troops, Sir, it is impossible they should make any Impression." -- General Edward Braddock[/color]

Colonial Campaigns Club (supports BoA and WiA)

[color="Gray"]"... and keep moving on." -- General U.S. Grant[/color]

American Civil War Game Club (supports AACW)

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

Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:41 pm

deleted

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:45 pm

Could lead too to strange results, ie a General unactive being heavily penalized, a move in enemy region could lead to rout when in reality a General receiving an order to attack will move just a bit before stopping on the firt occasion with any pretext....or not move at all. So we would need here a real mechanism limiting movement for unactive general.
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

Brochgale
Brigadier General
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
Location: Scotland
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:37 am

Only if I can have a General shot for failure to carry out an order?

User avatar
GShock
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:30 pm

Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:26 am

Maybe a second check at beginning of resolution phase with chances of going inactive being 25% than normal.

You give him the order to move, but ...will he really carry it out? That's the nice thing :)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
We ain't going down!

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25432
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:26 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:Is it possible to make an option for choosing which way it works?


Possible definitively, but I believe it would ask for some work, and I don't see that as a top priority!
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Heldenkaiser
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
Contact: Website

Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:17 pm

While we're at it, what does the "General X issued contradictory orders and reverted to defensive posture" message do / represent? :innocent:
[color="Gray"]"These Savages may indeed be a formidable Enemy to your raw American Militia, but, upon the King's regular & disciplined Troops, Sir, it is impossible they should make any Impression." -- General Edward Braddock[/color]

Colonial Campaigns Club (supports BoA and WiA)

[color="Gray"]"... and keep moving on." -- General U.S. Grant[/color]

American Civil War Game Club (supports AACW)

MarkCSA
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: In a safe place, they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance

Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:12 pm

Heldenkaiser wrote:While we're at it, what does the "General X issued contradictory orders and reverted to defensive posture" message do / represent? :innocent:


In defence of the current system: how historical is it for generals to go: 'Hmmmmm my direct orders are to hold fast and wait for reinforcements, I think I'll move my entire army deeper into enemy territory two provinces.'

The only guy who I know of that did that was either Erwin Rommel or Hans Guderian during WW2 (in a sneaky way).
Murphy's Law of Combat: 'The most dangerous thing on a battlefield? An officer with a map'

User avatar
LMUBill
Lieutenant
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:01 am
Location: Cumberland Gap, Tennessee
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:13 pm

MarkCSA wrote:In defence of the current system: how historical is it for generals to go: 'Hmmmmm my direct orders are to hold fast and wait for reinforcements, I think I'll move my entire army deeper into enemy territory two provinces.'

The only guy who I know of that did that was either Erwin Rommel or Hans Guderian during WW2 (in a sneaky way).


What about Patton? :siffle:

User avatar
soloswolf
General of the Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:56 pm
Location: Ithaca, NY

Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:51 pm

Grant prior to Vicksburg? Sheridan at Chattanooga? Nearly the entire second confederate advance into MD/PA?

Not a comprehensive list of course, but more applicable to the game we're all playing.
My name is Aaron.

Knight of New Hampshire

User avatar
Heldenkaiser
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:32 pm
Contact: Website

Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:02 pm

Nearly every Reb general there ever was ticked that way ... :D

But how is this related to the activation question? :innocent:
[color="Gray"]"These Savages may indeed be a formidable Enemy to your raw American Militia, but, upon the King's regular & disciplined Troops, Sir, it is impossible they should make any Impression." -- General Edward Braddock[/color]

Colonial Campaigns Club (supports BoA and WiA)

[color="Gray"]"... and keep moving on." -- General U.S. Grant[/color]

American Civil War Game Club (supports AACW)

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests