Replacements issue.

[Ace]

Z74, you may be right about your proposals, but I am afraid the game, the great as it is, has some scare factor for lots of newbies outthere, who have trouble balancing these 5 nation wide resources. Imagine, you have to balance the same recourses across 10+ states. Lots of more micromanagment. And while proposition is good, it may lead to complication and slow-down of the typical turn being played out. Would we want to do that?

[Z74]

Z74, you may be right about your proposals, but I am afraid the game, the great as it is, has some scare factor for lots of newbies outthere, who have trouble balancing these 5 nation wide resources. Imagine, you have to balance the same recourses across 10+ states. Lots of more micromanagment. And while proposition is good, it may lead to complication and slow-down of the typical turn being played out. Would we want to do that?

These games are all about understanding the mechanics and micro-managing them all to achieve the desired result.
No matter how hard the mechanics seem they are understandable if they are explained (and we've got the wiki), on the contrary the more complex the game the greater the feeling of success you get when a manouver brings that good result.

The learning curve is steep but hey this is not supposed to be an easy game. I mean... I don't think people buys it because it's easy.

If the Union is underpowered, as you said, this solution allows us to render it realistic (down to the regimental level, I think a historical search may allow us to build ALL of them at the historical dates and in the historical places) thanks to the limits in transferring those units. Also, I'd really increase the gap between the USA/CSA leaders and of course, allow a state-level recruitment to have the morale of the troops linked to the loyalty of their state of belonging and further decrease the loyalty of the northern non-so-aligned states. You'll see then how risky you wanna be when your troops falter, your leaders are poor and the enemy is good, strong willed and entrenched (This was the initial situation!). Numbers are for the Union eh... but that doesn't grant victory.

The mobility can be managed by a color filter so you know which state needs to invest (highlight capital) for a reasonable movement rate (troops and supplies...I've noticed the new tooltip gives you a rough estimate of what you need for supply then if the engine calculates 1/5th of your mobile units will move, you can use a tooltip on the mobility filter when placed on the capital to tell you how much that state needs) and every time a unit crosses the border of a state, the river/rail points get used by the new sate.

The monsters who programmed this game surely can do it and I think if more manpower was devoted to these aspects of the development, forsaking Athena, there would be great benefits. There is no way to make the AI work in games a lot less complex than this one and I think the efforts so far have achieved the best humanly possible. Focus on PBEM and release manpower for the engine.

I know Pocus is very fond of the AI, I do think it's quite a success for this complexity but I really think the game is in PBEM.

[minipol]

I like the AI, and I think a lot of people do play vs Athena only and not PBEM.
That said, some tweaks might improve the game, but as I said elsewhere, I think the balance between the Union and CSA
isn't far off using the game model now used.

[soundoff]

I know Pocus is very fond of the AI, I do think it's quite a success for this complexity but I really think the game is in PBEM.

First off, nailing my colours to the flag so to speak, I am exclusively a PBEMer. Yes I play against an AI to learn the mechanics of a game but after that IMHO the only real challenge is pitting my wits against another human being. However when the question has been posed on these and other boards in the past (and I dare say into the future) you cannot escape the conclusion that most players exclusively play against an AI whether in this or any other game. Like it or not its a fact. Consequently as AGEOD is a business and has to provide a living for the Phils I personally find it totally understandable that they concentrate on the AI. I'm just grateful that they have provided me with a decent PBEM game as well.

[Z74]

For the records: I like the AI too and I say again - it's a remarkable success considering the complexity of the game.

HOWEVER: it is a matter of utilitaristic thought - this game is a PBEM game. Every small inch of a change done to the engine must be built inside the AI too. This takes TIME.

If this time was devoted to the mechanics of supplies, politics, combat and transport, I think we'd really see a BIG change with CW2 that would further increase its appeal when compared to AACW... not to mention a more detailed engine would bring benefits to the whole chain of AGEod games.

I think Athena should be targeted to small scenarios, in those scenarios its behavior can be scripted with humongous success whereas in the campaign it simply can't play as competent as a human player.

That said, is it better to "invest" in the engine or in the AI + engine? No doubt my answer is engine (let the AI completely fall behind in regards with the capaign!).

The modders can build a hundredfold of scenarios (gettysburg, yellow tavern, fredericksburg, shiloh, antietam, etc) with total success with Athena but the campaign should be built exclusively around PBEM.

[minipol]

If the grand campaign was only a PBEM thing, the title would have lost all appeal for me.
There are lot's of strategically complex games out there with a very good ai.
As soundoff said, for smaller dev companies with limited resources, it makes more sense to spend money of features most users like.
If most users play vs. Athena, then the AI is of big importance for the game.

[Jim-NC]

Ace, you ever try to do it, in AACW or CW2?

I'm tellin' ya, at least in AACW, I tried mightily, more than a few times. Not...even...close. I started a thread about it - most folks just said, 'relax, don't feel you need to meet a schedule,' which is good advice, but still...

don't mistake me, the game's modeling should not put the highest priority on being able to Do Things the Way they Were, which may seem heretical to some, but this is a model, not a simulation. The CSA has to have some goosing, otherwise, it's just CSA Loses Every Time.

If you have, in AACW or CW2, been able to take those half-dozen spots by June '62 (in decent strength - and held them against ripostes), then tell me how ya did it, 'cuz I'd be all ears.

There's too much to do, there are other concerns, like keeping TJ outta Mrs. Lincoln's bedroom. Or being flanked at Baltimore. Or reinforcing Monroe and Pickens, in that order. Or building a navy. I'm sure I could think of more. Trying to keep a balance in East, Central & West, without losing St. Loo, Cairo, Louisville, etc., is enough to keep a general right busy. Now, add building an Expeditionary Force for NO into the mix, troops you are withholding from other parts of the East, etc., - I can't do it & I have tried, tried, tried, 'till I'm blue in the buttons. TBH, No, haven't really tried in CW2 yet, still learning the new game. Still...

that's against the AI. Play Pat "SW" Cleburne and see how quickly he'll put a Fort at Paducah (oh yeah, that's fun) or how soon you'll see you ain't takin the Greyhound bus to Fredericksburg anytime soon.

If you've been able to do this, please, I'll bow to your knowledge & experience if you post How.

STARTING NEW THREAD - NEW SUBJECT

I think the biggest problem is that the CSA player knows that all those are important, and they guard them much more than historically was the case. IIRC, there was no real garrison in Nashville, nor any in NO. No CSA player would dare let either location be ungarrisoned (they would have at least 1 division, maybe more). Also, in the west, the CSA was rather passive for a long time (they really didn't do anything to stop the union until Shiloh (which is almost at Corinth)). Considering how important Tennessee is, no CSA player would let half of it fall in 1861 (which is what happened IRL). So I don't think it's som much a union power problem as a "the player knows history, and thus won't make the same mistakes". This is also why most union players do everything possible to get Grant to 3 stars, they know he will be so good.

[GraniteStater]

My response is in the new thread, where I pasted your remarks.

[pgr]

In reference to replacements, is there a thread (or wiki article) that explains in detail how the replacement pool works? I for one am curious how the mechanic works when I set the game settings to give me 10%. Do the resources for those replacements get subtracted at the start or the end of a turn? Should I leave troops, cash, and WS in the bank so to speak, so the system can create replacements? Even when I do leave resources, pool replacements don't seem to be created and I wind up doing it manually. I'm just curious about the mechanics.

[Z74]

Simply put, if you give a REALISTIC recruitment, transport, economic and supply system which is also affected by regional and national political choices, the player has all in his hands and any strategy may work or fail; including stuff that never happened in the CW.

The Union must not be allowed to move the whole world wherever it wants to in just 2 weeks. It can't build 20 batteries in NY because the supplies required would have to come from Alaska. That's all I am saying.