AGEOD Forums

Now that we're drawing closer to a start, let's discuss which house rules that should be used for the PBEM.

Is there e.g. any need to restrict movement of leaderless stacks in enemy territory? Any need for rules governing the use or non-use of various leaders?

Keep in mind that there is a definite limit to what can be controlled, and I hope that players will be gentlemen about it and stay away from whatever you might consider to be "gamey" tricks. However, it might be good to see where people feel that the line between "good playing" and "gamey" is, so I leave the microphone open for anyone who has opinions on the matter.

As always, if there is no clear consensus on particular things, I listen to arguments for the choices, then decide on it

Let's play the game as designed. Allow anything that is not an exploit.

My definition of exploit is something that the game designers clearly didn't intend to allow. Unlocking garrisons, using text editors on ord files, etc.

Running deep leaderless raids, buying lots of one type of unit and abusing its abilities, having a 2-star as both a div and a corps commander, hitting the print money button constantly ... that sort of thing I'm fine with.

I think I'd like to raise an opinion....

Sometimes movement 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.

That seems like something for a thread in the "Help improve AACW"-forum. Don't see how it even can be addressed by a house rule, which makes any discussion about whether or not it should be addressed by a house rule moot

I dont need of any special question to have into account.

Perhaps we could make comments on our AARs of those allowed "gamey tricks", to allow for general comments on future improvement!

I think secession is a "shabby trick", but a house rule removing it would make the game rather boring.

I believed our beloved George W. Washington allowed us to be free to decide, but seem some powerful men in the north wants to impose us by the force their own laws, even lying their own citizens.

Jabberwock wrote:Let's play the game as designed. Allow anything that is not an exploit.

My definition of exploit is something that the game designers clearly didn't intend to allow. Unlocking garrisons, using text editors on ord files, etc.

Running deep leaderless raids, buying lots of one type of unit and abusing its abilities, having a 2-star as both a div and a corps commander, hitting the print money button constantly ... that sort of thing I'm fine with.

Jabberwock has expressed my thoughts on this subject.

Word.

Good luck to everyone!

Let's have some fun!

Good luck!

I believe we are having fun even still not a gun has been shooted!

Good luck!

Im sorry but clicked in the wrong thread for an instant. I m now used to click into "bold" thread lines to see news...

Unfortunately for Southern intel, Belle Boyd could not tell me anything as was quickly requested to going to some important landowner chambers.

Im sure this will happen to me unfortunately some other time.

Is it posible to block me clicking into some threads?

Coregonas wrote:Is it posible to block me clicking into some threads?

I'm afraid not, not without having a separate sub-forum for each AAR (which isn't feasible) as well for each other permutation of access/-no-access that we have.

This is why I wish the tags for the thread titles to be as clear as possible and for players to check thread titles before opening threads and not open threads indiscriminatingly.

(If someone has suggestions for how to address/solve this, I'm happy to hear them)

Should I create a President AAR ...
and a Orders thread also?

In case yes... orders for 1st turn should be started as initial deployment is known to us, or is better to wait until the official start?

You should have an AAR for the CSA President, run by yourself, and you should have a thread dedicated to communication amongst the CSA players, e.g. called "[CSA] CSA War Room" (or other name if you prefer that; just make sure it is tagged correctly with "[CSA]")

I'll post about the campaign start and suchlike later today, after work

Coregonas wrote:even lying their own citizens.

"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?"
Abraham Lincoln

Ironicul, i'nit?

Should we be expecting the ORD files soon? Want to make sure I haven't missed anything.

AndrewKurtz wrote:Should we be expecting the ORD files soon? Want to make sure I haven't missed anything.

Rafiki is out for a week or so. He Told it in the poll thread...

He ll return on Saturday 19th April, so a few days more....

Let's talk game options for a day till game start. Unless there are any strong opinions about it, I'll start the game using default options; e.g. ships use supply and loose cohesion in the blockade boxes. What say you?

I am fine with that...

Although, I was thinking perhaps a medium delay on combat...and historical attrition .

Since historical attrition is still being looked at and tested, I'd rather wait till it has become more stable before going for it.

One thing I would like to see though, is no [S]teleports[/S] redeploys, in order to emphasize planning and preparations.

I really like medium delay as well. I would prefer historical attrition as well, but I am not hung up on it.

Well I ll agree on the standard game as it comes.

I am just playing (109d) with the no redeployment. Seems to me it slows a bit the game... Perhaps it helps a bit the south in the big picture, but avoids quick reactions to invasions... from them. Initial army creation in the West is haaard.

Not sure if good enough... But we can try

Rafiki wrote:One thing I would like to see though, is no [S]teleports[/S] redeploys, in order to emphasize planning and preparations.

With the number of generals that show up all at once in DC/Richmond using vanilla ... I think at least one redeploy is reasonable. How about I promise to put in my AAR the how and why and possible effects of that decision each turn it is used.

I prefer small delay over medium, but to quote sw, "I am not hung up on it."

I am fine meeting with you on small delay, no biggie.

And as far as the redeployments: I promise to hum 'Midnight Train To Georgia' while pushing the button.

Jabberwock wrote:With the number of generals that show up all at once in DC/Richmond using vanilla ... I think at least one redeploy is reasonable. How about I promise to put in my AAR the how and why and possible effects of that decision each turn it is used.

I prefer small delay over medium, but to quote sw, "I am not hung up on it."

As long as there IS a delay of some kind....I'm game.

What were the final decisions for these?

We gonna get this party started?

Jabberwock wrote:What were the final decisions for these?

- Historic attrition
- Short delay
- No redeploy

Banks6060 wrote:We gonna get this party started?

Some hours ago, you received the first turn-file from me, so we have officially started