Civil War Historical Accuracy Pre-Patch

[aryaman]

Only other way I know is no Army HQ [as USA starts April 61].

Play balance is an issue: CSA has to have some command and control advantage early in war, beyond simply 'better generals'

They have some advantage as well with their larger brigades, and that could also be tweaked so that they have less command points costs

[Ian Coote]

At 1st Bull Run the Union Army was made up of four very large divisions.The two Confederate Armies were organized only at the brigade level.The south too could have organized at divisional level if they had so desired,it was simply a matter of choice.By April 62 the South was useing corp organization at Shiloh, although some corp only contained brigades.Grants army at Shiloh only contained divisions.Officially until Sept.62 Confederate law recognized no units larger than divisions,but as seen by there organization at Shiloh, Commanders of armies had a certain leeway in organizing there armies.Corp were established in the Union army in Mar.62 by McClellan.Lee at first grouped divisions in the ANV into an informal organization called wings,commanded by Longsreet and Jackson {really corp in everything but name only}.They officially became corp on Nov 6th 1862.To keep it simple,in game terms, no corp should be allowed in 1861.From the start of the game Divisions should be allowed for both sides ,as long as you have the cash and leaders to create them.Starting in 1862 Corp should be allowed if you have two star leaders.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[aryaman]

Coote is right about the official naming and dates, however IMO having divisions from the start is not the way to represent the historical situation in the game.
In AACW divisions have a huge advantage in the combat system. Historically the Union divisions formed early in the war were disbanded a little later, they were not organical units, they were basically an agregate of brigades, the only real organical army structure during 1861.
So, IMO it would be better to have a progresive approach so that players can have the feeling of an army structure slowly building, as I posted before. It could be done like this.
1) No armies to start and during 1861, only stacks named as armies. No 2star generals
2) Army HQs available since january 1862, still there would be few 2 star generals, so there would be few corps and they will include only brigades, so the size of those stacks will still be limited.
3) Mid 1862 divisions are allowed in a progresive number.

[Ian Coote]

I agree that corp should not be in the game in 1861,but delaying the creation of divisions till 62 seems a little late.The Union did use division organization at Bull Run and allthough those divisions were disbanded after the battle,
in the army reorganization under McClellan by Oct.61 he had formed 18 new divisions.The Confederate Army under Johnston also changed to divisions in Oct.61.So if there is going to be a delay in creation of divisions in the game,in my opinion it should not be later than Oct. 61

[aryaman]

I agree that corp should not be in the game in 1861,but delaying the creation of divisions till 62 seems a little late.The Union did use division organization at Bull Run and allthough those divisions were disbanded after the battle,
in the army reorganization under McClellan by Oct.61 he had formed 18 new divisions.The Confederate Army under Johnston also changed to divisions in Oct.61.So if there is going to be a delay in creation of divisions in the game,in my opinion it should not be later than Oct. 61

As I said, I agree with you on the historical data, but I think it should be reinterpreted in game terms, we have already that with a serie of armies that were historically there and in the game are not, like Patterson´s Army of the Shenandoah, and in order not to have Corps until 1862 we need not to have army HQs as well.
IMO may 1862 would be the earliest date to division formation, but to a limited number, after all the restructuring that both armies carried during the winter.

[Ian Coote]

Remember,large battles Fort Donalson Feb62,Peninsula Campaign starting March62,Pea Ridge March62,Shiloh April62 had already been fought useing divisional organization,some even at corp.To me, in game turns it just would not seem right that at that time of the war all were leading is a bunch of individual brigades.

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Eugene Carr]

The ideal solution seems to be preventing corps being formed before May 1862.

Either no ** generals until then or no Army HQs -

I favour the latter as it adds to the organisational problems early on

I would make most Union *** be ** with promotion events for Banks, Butler etc later in 1862 so that their handicap effect is extended.I would only have Scott, McClellan, Fremont and Halleck as starting ***.(Patterson probably doesnt matter probably he would be better as a **)

I would be tempted to have Joe Johnston and PGT as ** to start with and promote to *** in line with the 5 full generals event that lets you put everyone into order for that point (Cooper,AS Johnston,RE Lee, JE Johnston, PGT Beauregard).

S!

[Daxil]

Has there ever been any discussions on fleets? Historically speaking, the largest CSA fleet was the James River fleet composed of nine ships including three ironclads. The largest US fleets were composed of about 18 ships each - the bombardment of Ft Fisher had 64 ships divided into four divisions. It seems to me finding a way to limit fleet sizes should be a priority historically speaking. Of course, maybe it's already implemented, in which case disregard.

Also, shouldn't ironclad construction only be allowed after the completion of the Virginia/Monitor?

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[aryaman]

Again I'm in agreement with you Ian. I don't believe the removal of the divisional organization would enhance the game, and actually would hinder it in some ways without some other compensating factors. The 1861 divisional organization will remain in the game as it is for now.

Ok, what about delaying it at least until the end of 1861? As I said, the divisions present in 1st Bull Run were just ad hoc formations with no real command structure that were disbanded a little later and the divisions created in October 1861 were for several months just training units with no operative capabilities. Delaying Divisions to, say, december 1861 would still give time to organize armies for Ft Donelson.

[berto]

What all this means, is that in order to make these types of changes, some of you guys and gals, (Yes, Aphrodite, you too! ), are going to have to take the bull by the horns and actually learn how to modify scenarios and playtest them with the cooperation of each other to insure that the side issues are resolved before they can be placed into the "official" game files. I'll be more than happy to help you as much as possible thru the learning process. It can be a little frustrating, but once you learn the process, it's really a snap.

...

Bigus and I just can't do it all. We really could use some additional help in the form of scenario modders, and any new scenario modders need to learn to make the changes work through the correct database modifications so that once they have some successful ideas worked out and playtested, they can be easily ported into the actual game scenarios.

I've been thinking I might try developing a Red River Campaign scenario. Not too large, and not too well-known, hence controversial if I get it wrong.

To get me (and others?) started, would you please post here a list of bullet points briefly summarizing the steps required in making a scenario? Don't make it too detailed. I/we can delve into the finer points later.

<edit>
If you provide such a list, or otherwise give us something to get started, it should be in a thread separate from this one, of course.
</edit>

[aryaman]

BTW What happened to the "armoured" ability? I don´t see it in 1.12 files

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[berto]

I'll have to see about acquiring the four-volume "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War." Unfortunately, my elder brother had priority claim over our childhood boxed set. (Yes, he still has them.)

Any other recommendations for definitive, comprehensive, detailed, affordable references/encyclopedias/atlases on the ACW?

[tagwyn]

When can we expect these improvements(?) to make it into our game? apy:

[Daxil]

See Post #14 at this link: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=11595&highlight=armored+ability



Whether you want to call them Ad Hoc or not, there was a rudimentary use of divisions during the Bull Run time period. Consequently, at this time, I'm not removing divisions from the start of the vanilla 1861 July Campaign. If it were to be removed, it would have to be playtested first and I'm totally out of the extra time necessary to devote to experimental changes and the necessary playtesting. Please understand all responses such as this are not rejections of the ideas themselves, but a statement that such changes would have to be implemented and playtested first before inclusion in the vanilla scenario files and for the time being as posted above, we have a serious shortage of scenario modders.

Aryaman and I are actually startkng a GC with this, among several other rules, including limiting fleet sizes to avoid Death Star fleets, as Jabberwock says. How do you become an official playtester?

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[Jabberwock]

Any other recommendations for definitive, comprehensive, detailed, affordable references/encyclopedias/atlases on the ACW?

Scribner's Campaigns of the Civil War - online links in the first two posts here

[Ian Coote]

Berto,it came out in the mid 80's so it might not be easy to get,Historical Times Illusrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War: Patricia L. Faust {editor}.Has bio's on all officers who were of general rank in the war,both Union or Confederate,most with Photo's,also politicians.Also covers all campaigns and battles large and small,great reference book.Another good one: The Civil War Day by Day An Almanac 1861-1865 by E.b. Long {1971}.Covers every fight of the civil war down to skirmish level,about 10,000 I believe.

[usfkman]

Playing with 1.11d and no mods. (Will upgrade to 1.12 and 12/04/08 mod shortly)

Ought to have a combat option forbidding units from retreating into structures that will work 90% (?) of the time. There are way to many seiges, especialy ones where a small force gets lucky and puts a large force under siege (which then sits meekly in its city and can't break out without outide help.) You can't prevent every damn fool from going into a city voluntaryily (Pemberton in May 63). But going into a structure to undergo a certain seige should at least be an option.

Push a attack/defense button that says retreat into a structure only as a last resort! Or have a movement button that definitely posts a unit outside the structure, in addition to the current one that ensures that a unit goes into a structure upon its arrival in a county/region.

just my two cents!

thanks!

usfkman

[Gray_Lensman]

obsolete

[aryaman]

After reading the thread on artillery analysis in the game I was wondering about the advnatage the Union player gets in artillery. Union batteries are larger, they represent 6 guns each, while CSA batteries are 4 guns each, and correspondingly Union batteries had 50% more offensive and defensive power, and cost in WS and conscripts, however they have the same command cost, so for the same number of command points a union stack can pack 50% more artillery power. I know it is historically correct, Union batteries were larger, but OTOH CSA Infantry divisions were also historically larger than Union Divisions, so maybe here there is an unbalance from an historical and game perspective?

[aryaman]

Daxil and me are playing a game with house rules in which we try several options for historicall accuracy, one of them is to force the Union player toattack in the East at least twice in 1862. We noticed playing the vanilla Grand Campaign that in 1862 the union player can happily sat on his hands, waiting for more troops, better generals, and in the process he is rewarded by several events that push up his NM. I wonder if such a couple of events could be included in the Historical Mod, similar to the 1861 event in which the Union player has to get close to ichmond or being penalized with 10 Nm points.

[berto]

I'd like to wish Gray_Lensman (aka Michael) a huge, special

[SIZE="7"][color="Red"]MERRY CHRISTMAS![/color][/size]

for all the difficult and time-consuming (!) work he devotes to AACW. Amazing dedication to an amazing game.

[SIZE="7"]THANKS, GRAY![/size]

[Rafiki]

+1