Perhaps 14 day turns are too much??

[Banks6060]

I brought this up, foolishly as it were, in another thread....I'll post it forthwith in THIS forum for discussion.



Sometimes movement in AACW ends up getting really bogged down by entrenchment. I don't know how you remedy that in the early part of the war, but sometimes it gets a little dull..."All quiet on the eastern front....in March of 1862".

I would prefer the ability for battles to take place in the field like they actually did early on.

Matter of fact....it might be worth pointing out, While I'm not sure of the actual area covered by any given region in the game....I was recently reading of General Jackson's famed sweep around Pope's rear prior to the battle of Second Mannassas. he marched 56 miles in 2 days. Looking at the map of the game, it seems like he would have covered the distance from "Charlottesville region" all the way to "Manassas Region"...something that with the game engine would be completely impossible. I didn't know if that could be remedied in any way....or if the 14 day game turns are at all flawed....sorry to bring that up now.

Perhaps a 7 day game turn would be more appropriate? Similar to NCP....while it would require a likely overhaul of the entire game and some re-balancing...I think it would help prevent the deadlock you witness in many parts of the game.

Another thing....that would be hard to simulate I'm sure, but is worth noting....the inclusion of some kind of intel on where the enemy is planning to move?? I know that's a tall order being that the game turns are WEGO....but just a thought....while there WAS guesswork involved in actual decisions, there was also intelligence on the direction the enemy was moving. Perhaps this is taking the game out of its Operational context, but i thought i'd mention it.

[MarkCSA]

I brought this up, foolishly as it were, in another thread....I'll post it forthwith in THIS forum for discussion.



Sometimes movement in AACW ends up getting really bogged down by entrenchment. I don't know how you remedy that in the early part of the war, but sometimes it gets a little dull..."All quiet on the eastern front....in March of 1862".

I would prefer the ability for battles to take place in the field like they actually did early on.

Matter of fact....it might be worth pointing out, While I'm not sure of the actual area covered by any given region in the game....I was recently reading of General Jackson's famed sweep around Pope's rear prior to the battle of Second Mannassas. he marched 56 miles in 2 days. Looking at the map of the game, it seems like he would have covered the distance from "Charlottesville region" all the way to "Manassas Region"...something that with the game engine would be completely impossible. I didn't know if that could be remedied in any way....or if the 14 day game turns are at all flawed....sorry to bring that up now.

Perhaps a 7 day game turn would be more appropriate? Similar to NCP....while it would require a likely overhaul of the entire game and some re-balancing...I think it would help prevent the deadlock you witness in many parts of the game.

Another thing....that would be hard to simulate I'm sure, but is worth noting....the inclusion of some kind of intel on where the enemy is planning to move?? I know that's a tall order being that the game turns are WEGO....but just a thought....while there WAS guesswork involved in actual decisions, there was also intelligence on the direction the enemy was moving. Perhaps this is taking the game out of its Operational context, but i thought i'd mention it.

If you are the CSA, this one is pretty easy. The Yankee is always coming straight for you........

[AndrewKurtz]

I brought this up, foolishly as it were, in another thread....I'll post it forthwith in THIS forum for discussion.



Sometimes movement in AACW ends up getting really bogged down by entrenchment. I don't know how you remedy that in the early part of the war, but sometimes it gets a little dull..."All quiet on the eastern front....in March of 1862".

I would prefer the ability for battles to take place in the field like they actually did early on.

Matter of fact....it might be worth pointing out, While I'm not sure of the actual area covered by any given region in the game....I was recently reading of General Jackson's famed sweep around Pope's rear prior to the battle of Second Mannassas. he marched 56 miles in 2 days. Looking at the map of the game, it seems like he would have covered the distance from "Charlottesville region" all the way to "Manassas Region"...something that with the game engine would be completely impossible. I didn't know if that could be remedied in any way....or if the 14 day game turns are at all flawed....sorry to bring that up now.

Perhaps a 7 day game turn would be more appropriate? Similar to NCP....while it would require a likely overhaul of the entire game and some re-balancing...I think it would help prevent the deadlock you witness in many parts of the game.

Another thing....that would be hard to simulate I'm sure, but is worth noting....the inclusion of some kind of intel on where the enemy is planning to move?? I know that's a tall order being that the game turns are WEGO....but just a thought....while there WAS guesswork involved in actual decisions, there was also intelligence on the direction the enemy was moving. Perhaps this is taking the game out of its Operational context, but i thought i'd mention it.

I've had this same thought. It would improve the manuever and also ability to react to things such as raids etc. Right now, you have a potential two-week delay to react to a raid.

Finally, it would mean that possibly two RR regions could be repaired/destroyed in a 14 day period instead of the current one.

[Clovis]

I brought this up, foolishly as it were, in another thread....I'll post it forthwith in THIS forum for discussion.



Sometimes movement in AACW ends up getting really bogged down by entrenchment. I don't know how you remedy that in the early part of the war, but sometimes it gets a little dull..."All quiet on the eastern front....in March of 1862".

I would prefer the ability for battles to take place in the field like they actually did early on.

Matter of fact....it might be worth pointing out, While I'm not sure of the actual area covered by any given region in the game....I was recently reading of General Jackson's famed sweep around Pope's rear prior to the battle of Second Mannassas. he marched 56 miles in 2 days. Looking at the map of the game, it seems like he would have covered the distance from "Charlottesville region" all the way to "Manassas Region"...something that with the game engine would be completely impossible. I didn't know if that could be remedied in any way....or if the 14 day game turns are at all flawed....sorry to bring that up now.

Perhaps a 7 day game turn would be more appropriate? Similar to NCP....while it would require a likely overhaul of the entire game and some re-balancing...I think it would help prevent the deadlock you witness in many parts of the game.

Another thing....that would be hard to simulate I'm sure, but is worth noting....the inclusion of some kind of intel on where the enemy is planning to move?? I know that's a tall order being that the game turns are WEGO....but just a thought....while there WAS guesswork involved in actual decisions, there was also intelligence on the direction the enemy was moving. Perhaps this is taking the game out of its Operational context, but i thought i'd mention it.

1) entrenchment: there's now a possibility to alter by events the maximum entrenchment level. But that's only a part of the problem. The second part comes from a too large allocation at start of ressources then during the game of manpower leading to ahistorically very large armies that can deploy over several contigous regions, when less troops would give much room for maneuver.

2) Move is a little too slow in vanilla. Don't forget howewer Jackon's move to be really exceptional and the existence in the game of the forced march stance which can be coupled with a fast mover leader ability...

3) Turn duration... Dunno if more is better, first because player would have to wait more to see the results of their moves and too because AI being limited to "one-turn thinking" could possibly be yet more bouncing units...

4) intel about direction would be great.

[GShock]

I would love to have it weekly too...and probably Clov, the problem with too many resources could be tweaked in scenario. It just is terribly wrong that conscripts are handled on the national level rather than on state-by-state...that's the only resource that a scenario can't tweak i guess...

[Jabberwock]

If you are the CSA, this one is pretty easy. The Yankee is always coming straight for you........

LOL

[Jabberwock]

AI being limited to "one-turn thinking"

I think this is the most important consideration. The AI is restless, bouncing around and leaving entrenchments too much. She focuses on a long-term goal, and then loses the focus, picking a different goal one turn later. That would only get worse with shorter turns.

Going to a one week turn would be wonderful for a hardcore PBEM civil war simulation, but not as good for a civil war game that needs to sell.

[Banks6060]

I suppose I would agree about the overall AI experience Jabberwock, but I happen to be one of those hardcore PBEMers (which I strongly reccommend be the ONLY way you play this game...it's a pretty poor experience against the AI overall.)

I wonder if just cutting all movement penalties, rail bonuses, everything...in half to 7 days would be a start. Is there a movement mod of any sort out there?

I've done some more reading...for instance....In AACW it would be impossible to recreate Jackson's valley campaign as either side with 14 day turns. In 14 days that guy would cross the entire length of the valley 5 times....again I realise I'm speaking of a "fast mover", but still....

The Sharpsburg Campaign,

Hell even Gettysburg.

I suppose the issue is that EVENTUALLY....later in the war...the 14 day game turns would probably be more appropriate since armies got large enough and technology became advanced enough to cause everyone to just dig in tight and hope for the best. I dunno....I just think there may be a better way to approach movement....

One idea would be that the ONLY way any units begin constructing works is if they are in "Defend" or "Passive" posture....and severely penalize the uptick in military control of a region if a formation decides to maintain either of those postures??

What I often times get frustrated with is the seemingly unrealistic idea that an army which has dug itself into entrenchments can either assume an aggressive posture, or carry out the mobil types of operations necessary to fully secure a region....I would think any opposing force which moved into the area could do it without automatically slamming itself against the works courtesy of the rule regarding Military Control at or below 5%.

I hope that's not too confusing. What I mean is that if a guy wants to dig in....he can dig in, but the other guy's virtual generals....simply because they don't have full military control of a region....aren't going to throw their troops at formidable entrenchments...

[Banks6060]

Perhaps the inclusion of an initiative value that would dictate how Military Control is adjusted for either side when two opposing forces occupy the same region. I feel it would better simulate some of the sweeping moves that are made through any given region that are unseen in the game,

[runyan99]

Shorter turns are a tradeoff between greater control and a game that is twice as long. Wargamers always want more and more control, but often at the expense of being able to actually finish a game.

All things considered, probably best to leave it alone in my opinion.

[pepe4158]

I vote for patch that makes the turn time shorter...fustrating when an offensive bogs down due to inctive leaders n winter sets in

[Coregonas]

I disagree.

The feeling this game gives to us is good just because we have NOT all the EXACT control of the events.

So 14 days long allows for some surprises arise to force "bad" counter reactions !

Please, dont change this.

Sorry... the generals can sometimes be in disagree with the president......!!!

[lodilefty]

I disagree.

The feeling this game gives to us is good just because we have NOT all the EXACT control of the events.

So 14 days long allows for some surprises arise to force "bad" counter reactions !

Please, dont change this.

+1

[pepe4158]

I think this is the most important consideration. The AI is restless, bouncing around and leaving entrenchments too much. She focuses on a long-term goal, and then loses the focus, picking a different goal one turn later. That would only get worse with shorter turns.

Going to a one week turn would be wonderful for a hardcore PBEM civil war simulation, but not as good for a civil war game that needs to sell.

I have to disgree and say it would improve her skills, part of whats causing her erratic behavior is inctive generlas for soooo mny turns coupled with huge losses due to weather related problems (eka planning an objective then not being able to carry it out due to shortness of turn durtion in terms of actual time of year)
Where you n I can make contencency plans and forsee things ahead, Athena CANT n simply needs more time of year to accomplish her AI goal.
While yes her entrenchment problem would worsen, her other skill would improve which is to pick target n plan n stay the course, which is a much better trade-off.
Besides Jabb it was a common (in reality) for the south too entrench too long and loss everything......(eka Vicksburg)

[pepe4158]

I disagree.

The feeling this game gives to us is good just because we have NOT all the EXACT control of the events.

So 14 days long allows for some surprises arise to force "bad" counter reactions !

Please, dont change this.

Sorry... the generals can sometimes be in disagree with the president......!!!

BS a difference n exact control n losing control of my plan completly due to lack of time to accomplish anything....ive litterraly waited a frickin year for a general to activate which is lunacy!
Disagree my but$ their in open rebellion like the confederate states!!!!!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Banks6060]

It is rather interesting that the game that directly followed AACW, uses 1-week turns. I'm referring to NCP of course which uses the same game engine as AACW. I think that most persons purchasing this particular Civil War game don't particularly care about the length of the game itself. They'll play it thru with 1-week turns just as they would with 2-week turns.

On the other hand, 1-week turns would really enhance the individual battle scenarios, such as Gettysburg, Atlanta, etc. Also, there are the somewhat shorter theatre based scenarios to play through.

Other than lengthening the actual game itself, I really don't see any valid downside issues to 1-week turns. If so, NCP would have had 2-week turns also.

Thanks for the support there Gray.

I just think that in terms of scale...7-day turns would be a little more plausable....like another poster mentioned about inactive leaders...I mean what leader...(Besides McClellan of course) would remain "inactive" for two whole weeks?? By that time, you've gained enough intelligence and formulated a plan and are probably carrying it out.

It doesn't give more control...it just makes things a little more realistic...and IMHO doesn't detract from the game's playability at all. Like Lensman said, they did it for NCP, why not for AACW. Yes it will double the length of a full campaign....but I doubt anyone, on this forum at least, would object to playing MORE AACW!

[GShock]

It is undoubtedly a good thing to have a weekly turnation.
All the objections rising towards this shift are good ones in my opinion.

Construction/destruction of depots and railroads, the forwarding and disrupting of supply lines, the movement and combat of armies and sieges, the management of guerrillas and the counterreactions required are some examples of what would be definitely better in a 7-day turn.

Just to take one of the many things that would add greater depth to the game, some battles last long than just a single day. With the 7 day turn, at the end of the current one, both players would have a chance to move more armies into the combat zone in preparation or response to combat.
Right now you find the beaten one out of it and there's no way the player may intervene at all. (it's either march to the sound of guns or nothing).

Adding more manual options would also unload heavy calculations on deep thinking from the engine which never hurts. We know the hardest thing for the AI is to plan a long-term attack strategy.
How about a siege...in 14 days you can win with an immediate assault but in 7 days the opponent has a chance to decide whether to send relief party or not...

What, as i said before, is a possible downside is athena.

As usual...all would have to be rebalanced and with rebalancing come months and months of testing. Perhaps if this ability was given (as option) some of our modders would take the matter into their hands and proceed on this path while still leaving the possibility to everyone to play 7 or 14 day turns. The problem is with choices, opportunities and drawbacks company-wise.

I think the game has higher priorities than this one.

The whole economic system being simplified and unhistorical (CSA being unable to buy a single supply cart at the beginning while essentially the CSA was ahead of Union in war readiness while the lack of resources cuts out any possibility of real diplomatic options to CSA), along with the fact this game is terribly complex for the AI (which still can't make amphibious assaults), the fact we deal with national manpower and not state manpower and the same goes with national transport upgrades/mantainance and not state by state one, make me think that the only real game is the PBEM and that very important resources are being committed onto an AI which, despite being the very best i ever saw, can never be as good as a human player.

Should these resources be committed onto planning a total MP-oriented game, where the AI is prized as a sparring partner and teacher whereas the best visibility and options were given to the Grand Campaign (sort of 1vs1, 2vs2, NvsN players with ranking system, webpage producing results and Screenshots, logs describing the ongoing of each campaign on website, etc...) while the team focuses on other priorities, this game would be the best thing in the world.

I am dreaming eh, still these are the reasons why despite thinking 7-day turns are a good thing, they shouldn't be a priority (but just an open option to be given to modders) leure:

[Coregonas]

There are very very interesting comments here, but...sorry I disagree again.

Just I like this Lack-of-Control, as never could find a serious grand-Strategy WARGAME in wich ORDERS from the HQ are not always executed as done.

You are right with all the explanations asking for more control (7 days means you can give all your colonels more orders)...

But remember we are giving PRECISE orders, without nearly a chance for mistake, (AND viewed from the perspective of the GENERAL of all armies) to a lot of colonels, brig captains, hidden, 600 miles ahead from the main HQs, unsupplied... Surely that was not really posible. Stonewall-style Raids would be even more difficult, a lot more ability to react would arise in the defenders.

About the "activation" being fustrating -> Remember USA Army during 2 + years didnt move more than 2 or 3 areas ahead! This is again reallistic.

If you feel like you have not time to advance, as USA perhaps you must sacrifice your men lives versus the time you need.

If double activation chances, war (on average) would run at a unrealistic speed, although yes.. some questions could be solved (sherman´s march for instance could be easily attainable).

Perhaps I am in a mistake of course, and playing -de facto- in a 7-day mode as you say could change my mind. But I think some big changes to the orders should be done, more mistaken orders and the such.
NCP doesnt seems too me a better game due to this, I prefer the AACW style clearly.

[Coregonas]

I can also understand some extra customers are needed. But surely those arent interested in hard-engine questions.

Turn this into fantasy wargaming... Lots of people likes the Orc, Elf & Magic world... (I myself yes !!!) and perhaps could learn about serious wargaming this way...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Coregonas]

Oh I dont know the why´s..

Sure Designers have the truth...

Just express my believe the feeling is ok just as it is.

If more control is given, i believe game resulting could be no better... leure:

Dont played NCP, just a few pips, but perhaps it should go 14 days long or even 28 (due to telegraph not existing)

Anyway... Dont take me too seriously!

Read edit--- Well perhaps after going 7 days it could result a even better game of course!

[GShock]

Undoubtedly it's easy for AgeOD to make it last 7 days and could be something to be done in retrofitting. However, in case there were specific reasons, that can still be done as option...more or less as redeployment works: enable/disable.
Surely 14/7 doesn't change a thing. Generals could still not be active, they could still misinterpret orders and so on.
Interestingly enough, i always thought that the movement rates of stacks are too easy. 2 days to occupy a region, arriving to cav units being able in a week to occupy 3 towns and back like they were using highways...That's also something needing a tweak imho.

The problem coming next is the rebalancement and testing of the AI and resource handling but i think the modders can take care of that.

[Banks6060]

I'm lovin' the discussion here....it's something that I've wanted to bring up for quite some time.

Honesly I think a nice compromise would be to allow an option within the game to either go 7-day turns.....or 14-day turns.

I think it is agreed that with the AI...7-day turns would probably be bad. However with PBEM they would be better. I'd challenge either the developers or modders to develop something...I'd be first in line to test it.

[pepe4158]

yeah dunno....if they did go to a 7 day turn just cut movement speed in half right?...Is that a possible coding solution?

Hmmm I have to disagree tho the AI woud be worse...think better actually

As Jab pointed out, one of Athena's weaknesses is to run around like a troubled child on crack with no clear direction
I really think this is in part beacause of the variables confusing her, (from the quick passage of time) eka..... weather n attr. hmmm slowing these affects down will confuse her AI objectives less IMO

[Jabberwock]

We don't know what the effects would be on Athena, but my guess is that she would just lose track of what she's doing every seven days, instead of every fifteen.

Don't get me wrong, I think a seven day turn would be great, but I think it would work best along with AI improvements and a slight change of scale (larger more detailed map with smaller regions). More a revolutionary change than an evolutionary one. As in AACW2.

That is just my opinion. I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from modding this, I look forward to any efforts in that direction.

[Jabberwock]

Coregonas:
If the reasons you cite for 2-week turns was so important to AGEod, tell me why they opted for 1-week turns in the Napoleon game? I suspect it was a design decision concerning AACW, that if AGEod had it to do over again, they would have made AACW a 1-week turn game.

Compare the 2 games. One is Napoleon before the advent of telegraph messages and the other is the Civil War with telegraph and Railroads, yet they give the 1-week turn control to an earlier time period game and not to AACW... There is still a lot that can happen in a 1-week turn beyond player control also.

edit> Once the RR Mod is complete, this particular MOD (1-week) turns is pretty high on my interest list. At least we can then test it to see if it still "feels" right historically. If the historical performance doesn't work out, then we can give it up.

NCP is a game with slightly better defined objectives when compared to AACW. One uses the word War in the title; the other, Campaigns. I'm also thinking the RR may complicate goal setting for the AI, enough that the abstraction of a longer turn is beneficial from a design standpoint.

I personally prefer a war over a campaign. Just ask my ex.

Anyway, I hope these musings are more helpful than not.

[Banks6060]

Another point in favor of 7-day turns, I believe, is weather patterns....

at no point in history....(to my knowledge anyway) have there regularly been rainy conditions in such small areas for such LONG spans of time as are depicted in AACW.

The entire debate surrounding a 7-day game turn is simply based on scale IMO. I've been reading more lately, before Sharpsburg.....McClellan....even as slow as he was, moved from Washington to South Mountain in 13 days. That's a trek of, I believe, 3 regions on the game map....you'd never see that from ANY stack in the game...let alone Mclellan's

I think it is completely rediculous, for example, that it would take an entire day to move from Baltimore to Washington D.C. by train. I think that needs some re-working....perhaps a 2-region-per-day rate of movement by train.

The thing is, realistically....in 14 days....armies could move MUCH farther and generally much faster than they do in the current game. If the game's current 14 day turns were accurate to the pace of movement at the time...you would have armies running from Stauton to Harper's Ferry and back in just one turn.

[GShock]

I ran a search last night in the modding forums and it looks like athena would be unaffected. It'd just be a problem of rebalancing many things (i.e. conscription option times, movement speeds etc etc):

1) http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6236

2) can't find it anymore!

Well...that's it

[Coregonas]

About the "low" speed of the armies, I believe there is due to another different problem.

1) Attrition
2) Cohesion loss
3) Forced March is a massive killer as now.

Seems there is lot of work about these, just reading the thread is a hard work for me...

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7912

Perhaps these 2 values hit somewhat hard as designed.

Got a couple ideas.. I was thinking about the posibility of including some kind of "minimum cohesion" value.

It should work as a minimum cap only for move purposes. It could go since 5 for instance for militias, and 20 for regulars. Experience could add 5 points to this value, so an 2* experienced regular should not drop his cohesion under 30just by an easy force march. This way, sustained force march could be posible, troops would have around 1/4 his cohesion values but no more unplayable 0s.

Another option could be than cohesion hits (on the move) could be a percentage number, so instead of 20 hits, a 20% of current cohesion.
So if 100 cohesion and 20% hits, troop could end 80 cohesion either way.
But, if 20 cohesion, it would drop to 16 instead of 0.

Model speed is difficult, Guderian s 1000 km march to moscow (well some enemies in the middle, hitler and the T34) was around 4 months, with all those panzers and stukas! --- Erinnerungen eines soldaten