Howdy I just completed my 1st play through with the Union and have some random thoughts/questions.
1. In the east there was very little fighting. Lee never mounted a single offensive and I was not going to attack heavily fortified positions... Instead I destroyed the Confederacy in the west and won that way. Is this a typical play through? Is there such thing as a typical play through with this game?
2. What to do with some of the drip Generals you get early on as the Union? Butler, Banks, Fremont? In my game Butler never left Fort Monroe, Banks never left Pittsburgh (using his recruitment bonus).
3. Early on what to do with all the generals you are given in DC? I think this was mainly mismanagement by me as I was learning the game on the fly but by mid 63 I had like 12 generals just sitting in DC.
4. Hope this one isnt too confusing... Is there a limit for how far up the promotion ladder a general can go? For instance could Alexander Hays become a 3 star general and lead an army? I ask because as far a I saw none of my generals ever advanced past their historical ceilings. With one single exception being Phil Kearney who became a corps commander for me, something that never happened during the actual war thanks to his untimely death.
Just some questions I had. Really enjoyed my first play through.
1- that happens. Lee is scared of the massive amount of fixed units in DC, and going for Pittsburgh or Harrisburg would be suicide.
2- Knowing that the AI tries to take Ft Pickens early, I'll send Butler there and hope he gets captured. Banks is useful to recruit. Freemont has come in handy more than once for me- he's the only 3 star available to defend against a major push up the Mississippi in '61.
3- If you build full-size, 18 element divisions, you'll never use all those generals. Hopefully the ones remaining were 3-0-0 bums, and not useful generals
4- Yes, its historical. Except for generals that died: Kearney, Lyons, Stonewall Jackson, etc. This really sucks if you play with heavily randomized generals, and you can't promote 7-6-6 generals.
2- Knowing that the AI tries to take Ft Pickens early, I'll send Butler there and hope he gets captured. Banks is useful to recruit. Freemont has come in handy more than once for me- he's the only 3 star available to defend against a major push up the Mississippi in '61.
3- If you build full-size, 18 element divisions, you'll never use all those generals. Hopefully the ones remaining were 3-0-0 bums, and not useful generals
4- Yes, its historical. Except for generals that died: Kearney, Lyons, Stonewall Jackson, etc. This really sucks if you play with heavily randomized generals, and you can't promote 7-6-6 generals.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
1. Can you blame him? If you are working on building up in the East the CSA will never be able to achieve the numbers advantage over you that the AI needs to feel comfortable attacking with. His best play is to wait for you to overcommit on attack and punish you for any mistakes, but it doesn't take too long before you get to the point where you don't make those kind of mistakes and CSA Athena is left with nothing viable to do but stay passive in the East.
Your playthrough was typical in that the CSA was passive in the east. She can't do much against you there if you put a lot of troops in the field. Though you got your wins in the West, it is equally viable to build up the Blue Wave and roll the CSA under with a Grant commanded Army in the East (and a lot quicker if you get Grant promoted early).
2. The major problem facing the Union in the first stage of the war is that almost all of their 3*s and a most of their 2*s outright suck. The Union would be able to do a lot more a lot earlier if its leadership weren't so choked with incompetence. Until Grant becomes a 3* and comes on the scene it is a miracle if you have a stack in the east that can even stay active two turns in a row. This is the nature of the beast and is the fundamental problem that if solved will unlock your whole Union game. Recommendation: get Grant promoted ASAP! Send him directly to Missouri to fight with Lyons in the early game struggle for MO. If you can get a couple of quality wins with their stack they both get promoted early, which transforms the Union game. (For reference Lyons easily becomes a 3* and is tied for second best Union Army/Corps commander with Sherman, who is harder to get promoted).
3. Depends on your settings. There is enough in the build pool for both sides to eventually make use of just about all 3-1-1 or better generals. Until then it is a matter of how best to manage the idlers and incompetents. Carefully comb through your generals and pick out the best ones (there aren't many) and assign them to early commands. (For the Union a 3-1-1 is actually a pretty solid early general: they could do worse, way worse.) I banish useless Army commanders to Philadelphia or New York where they cannot clutter up the command structure. Banks is one of your better guys compared to most of what you have to work with early. Anyone with training or recruiting abilities gets used for those purposes, although McClellan is inactive so often his upgraded troops can be frustratingly difficult to access when you want to assign them to a division.
If you play without the possibility of inactives becoming fixed in place then it is simple to manage all the "spares," just merge them all into one big stack you draw from whenever you need to create a new division.
If you play with the chance of inactive generals being fixed in place (there needs to be a more succinct term for that setting) a stack of loose 3-1-1s is just asking for their leader to fail their activation roll and all of them fix in place for two or three turns in a row when you need to form a division. Try to park generals you don't need in a stack with as high a strat general as you have to increase the likelihood they won't be fixed when you need them (as the CSA you would put them in with Lee or PGT under the same logic, who will be more effective at keeping them available than any high ranking early Union general). I always play fixed-in-place, so I tend to break up my generals pools right away, dispersing them across the map to the places I am building divisions and keep them in lots of separate stacks to increase the chance that someone is available to form a division when I need it.
4. Each general has a pre-defined promotion path. If he gets enough wins in the field he promotes if he has a higher star model available to him, which you can find in the game files. Not all generals can be promoted to 2*s and some of those cannot make it to 3*s. Higher star models sometimes have different stats and traits than their 1 star versions, and can even get worse on promotion (Jackson for the CSA famously suffers a major nerf when promoted to 3*.) As the Union, the generals you want to focus on getting promoted are Grant, Lyons and Sherman. As the CSA you have too many good 3*s already and not nearly enough 2*s to form corps under them, so anyone you get to a 2* is highly beneficial. There are several scripted events which promote generals, notably the early CSA one which promotes Jackson, Holmes and Evans (among others) to 2*s and the eventual Grant promotion for the Union which comes I think in late 62 or early 63 if you haven't managed to get him promoted already. As the game progresses better and better Union generals start to appear at all levels of command.
Getting promotions is hard. It is not enough to just win battles, they need to be battles that destroy enemy elements to reliably earn promotions. Some Union players make fort busting stacks that can farm experience and promotions by assaulting and wiping out weakly defended CSA coastal forts.
Your playthrough was typical in that the CSA was passive in the east. She can't do much against you there if you put a lot of troops in the field. Though you got your wins in the West, it is equally viable to build up the Blue Wave and roll the CSA under with a Grant commanded Army in the East (and a lot quicker if you get Grant promoted early).
2. The major problem facing the Union in the first stage of the war is that almost all of their 3*s and a most of their 2*s outright suck. The Union would be able to do a lot more a lot earlier if its leadership weren't so choked with incompetence. Until Grant becomes a 3* and comes on the scene it is a miracle if you have a stack in the east that can even stay active two turns in a row. This is the nature of the beast and is the fundamental problem that if solved will unlock your whole Union game. Recommendation: get Grant promoted ASAP! Send him directly to Missouri to fight with Lyons in the early game struggle for MO. If you can get a couple of quality wins with their stack they both get promoted early, which transforms the Union game. (For reference Lyons easily becomes a 3* and is tied for second best Union Army/Corps commander with Sherman, who is harder to get promoted).
3. Depends on your settings. There is enough in the build pool for both sides to eventually make use of just about all 3-1-1 or better generals. Until then it is a matter of how best to manage the idlers and incompetents. Carefully comb through your generals and pick out the best ones (there aren't many) and assign them to early commands. (For the Union a 3-1-1 is actually a pretty solid early general: they could do worse, way worse.) I banish useless Army commanders to Philadelphia or New York where they cannot clutter up the command structure. Banks is one of your better guys compared to most of what you have to work with early. Anyone with training or recruiting abilities gets used for those purposes, although McClellan is inactive so often his upgraded troops can be frustratingly difficult to access when you want to assign them to a division.
If you play without the possibility of inactives becoming fixed in place then it is simple to manage all the "spares," just merge them all into one big stack you draw from whenever you need to create a new division.
If you play with the chance of inactive generals being fixed in place (there needs to be a more succinct term for that setting) a stack of loose 3-1-1s is just asking for their leader to fail their activation roll and all of them fix in place for two or three turns in a row when you need to form a division. Try to park generals you don't need in a stack with as high a strat general as you have to increase the likelihood they won't be fixed when you need them (as the CSA you would put them in with Lee or PGT under the same logic, who will be more effective at keeping them available than any high ranking early Union general). I always play fixed-in-place, so I tend to break up my generals pools right away, dispersing them across the map to the places I am building divisions and keep them in lots of separate stacks to increase the chance that someone is available to form a division when I need it.
4. Each general has a pre-defined promotion path. If he gets enough wins in the field he promotes if he has a higher star model available to him, which you can find in the game files. Not all generals can be promoted to 2*s and some of those cannot make it to 3*s. Higher star models sometimes have different stats and traits than their 1 star versions, and can even get worse on promotion (Jackson for the CSA famously suffers a major nerf when promoted to 3*.) As the Union, the generals you want to focus on getting promoted are Grant, Lyons and Sherman. As the CSA you have too many good 3*s already and not nearly enough 2*s to form corps under them, so anyone you get to a 2* is highly beneficial. There are several scripted events which promote generals, notably the early CSA one which promotes Jackson, Holmes and Evans (among others) to 2*s and the eventual Grant promotion for the Union which comes I think in late 62 or early 63 if you haven't managed to get him promoted already. As the game progresses better and better Union generals start to appear at all levels of command.
Getting promotions is hard. It is not enough to just win battles, they need to be battles that destroy enemy elements to reliably earn promotions. Some Union players make fort busting stacks that can farm experience and promotions by assaulting and wiping out weakly defended CSA coastal forts.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
One point about those *ehem* high ranking generals with *ummm* modest characteristics. The question is really, whether their presence locally are advantageous or a disadvantage. Fremont inside Saint Louis, with his Occupier ability, will raise loyalty in the region over time, which can be especially important if Union loyalty in Saint Louis took a hard from the Saint Louis Massacre and from battle losses in the Trans-Mississippi.
The offensive and defensive values of these leaders are in no way good, even worse their strategic ratings, but their strategic rating in most important when you want to move aggressively with them, because when they are inactivated, they have a 35% reduction in movement. However, the power of their stack is coupled on the MC they enjoy in the region. That is, if Union MC in the region is 100, the power of their stack, when inactive, is still 100 percent of what it would be when active. This means that they can defend nearly just as well as any leader, plus they are Maj. Generals, and even without an army command, can lead 3 division without CP penalty.
So, if you can do without Banks leading troops, and use him to raise conscripts, good for you, but don't restrict your possibilities too off hand.
The offensive and defensive values of these leaders are in no way good, even worse their strategic ratings, but their strategic rating in most important when you want to move aggressively with them, because when they are inactivated, they have a 35% reduction in movement. However, the power of their stack is coupled on the MC they enjoy in the region. That is, if Union MC in the region is 100, the power of their stack, when inactive, is still 100 percent of what it would be when active. This means that they can defend nearly just as well as any leader, plus they are Maj. Generals, and even without an army command, can lead 3 division without CP penalty.
So, if you can do without Banks leading troops, and use him to raise conscripts, good for you, but don't restrict your possibilities too off hand.
-
lightbrave
- Captain
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:39 am
- Location: Jackson, Georgia
Soooooo with the responses to CSA being passive in the east, is it hopeless for the CSA to win if you have a halfway competent Union player who goes on the defensive in the East. For that matter, couldn't the Union just play defense all around until 1863 or 1864 when they will have built up a massive army that cant be stopped. That's one of the problems with this game ( as I see it ), because there is no urgency for the Union to end the war (unlike in the real war where fast action was demanded for the Union). I don't know if this would be too much, but shouldn't the morale of the south go up just for maintaining their country, and shouldn't the morale of the Union go down for every month they are not making progress. (just a thought) This would make more of an urgency to attack for the Union which is more historical I think. I would like to hear other peoples thoughts on this.
This is the problem I have with the game as well, the Eastern front turns into an entrenched stalemate similar to something you would expect in a World War 1 game when in reality the US Civil War was a war of mobility. Trench warfare was a last resort and the armies that were trapped in them were usually surrounded, starved out and had to surrender. One suggestion to fix this would be to mod in additional provinces in Northern Virginia, split the existing ones into multiple smaller provinces so there are more paths to Richmond like there were in the real war. Another option would be a mod that would limit the entrenchment bonus. Since a majority of large battles happened on the Eastern front this really kills the immersion for me.
I agree with kc87 on both his points
1. Additional regions in Virginia so you see the flanking movements and mobility that we actually saw during campaign seasons. Modding this needs access to the map making tool though.
2 The units already get a significant defensive vs offensive bonus in their stats. e.g. 10 offensive fire vs 16 defensive fire for a basic infantry element. Add in the bonus for entrenchments and this becomes quite OP. I think the unit stats already effectively build in the field fortifications like quickly gathered fence posts and the forts cover the permanent entrenchments. I have not come across entrenchment bonus parameters in the files but then I have not been looking for them.
1. Additional regions in Virginia so you see the flanking movements and mobility that we actually saw during campaign seasons. Modding this needs access to the map making tool though.
2 The units already get a significant defensive vs offensive bonus in their stats. e.g. 10 offensive fire vs 16 defensive fire for a basic infantry element. Add in the bonus for entrenchments and this becomes quite OP. I think the unit stats already effectively build in the field fortifications like quickly gathered fence posts and the forts cover the permanent entrenchments. I have not come across entrenchment bonus parameters in the files but then I have not been looking for them.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
A lot of ink has been spilled on the static East. The general consensus has formed around using events like the Manassas and Drive to Richmond events to prompt the Union into action, or adjusting the Union VPs down so that they can't just stall out an automatic VP win. These would have the benefit of applying to both single and multiplayer games. You could also adjust the Union AI interest levels in towns in N VA to give her a little incentive to get out and about. All of these things are doable simply from the game files (at least I think the interest levels are in the game files, you might need to use the DBs to mod them though.)
Unfortunately the map is pretty much unmoddable according to the developers.
There are adjustments you can make to maximum entrenchment levels within the game files, I think by event. You could cap them lower if you wanted. What you really need is some sort of relationship between structures and entrenchments, so that you could cap field forces at lvls 1 or 2 while allowing higher entrenchments for forts and such (high levels of entrenchment make artillery really effective, so you wouldn't want to lose that in forts which are pretty weak otherwise). As it stands I think that the events only allow you to have a global cap, but I could be wrong and this might be doable.
There has also been some talk of writing agents for the AI, which are scripts that can add objectives and other behaviors. Supposedly they are relatively easy to write, but the documentation on them is currently too sparse to be usable.
Unfortunately the map is pretty much unmoddable according to the developers.
There are adjustments you can make to maximum entrenchment levels within the game files, I think by event. You could cap them lower if you wanted. What you really need is some sort of relationship between structures and entrenchments, so that you could cap field forces at lvls 1 or 2 while allowing higher entrenchments for forts and such (high levels of entrenchment make artillery really effective, so you wouldn't want to lose that in forts which are pretty weak otherwise). As it stands I think that the events only allow you to have a global cap, but I could be wrong and this might be doable.
There has also been some talk of writing agents for the AI, which are scripts that can add objectives and other behaviors. Supposedly they are relatively easy to write, but the documentation on them is currently too sparse to be usable.
Yah, I am thinking of looking at the map but from the research I have just done it looks rather ominous ..
I think to make it worthwhile you would probably need to split
Montgomery MD (large region Nth of the Potomac) into 2 regions
Fairfax VA (Alexandria) into 2 regions
Loudon VA (Leesburg) into 2 regions
Stafford VA (Culpepper) into 2 regions
Fauquier VA (Falmouth) into 2 regions
Culpepper VA + Albermerle VA, 2 regions into 3
Spotsylvania VA (Fredricksburg) + Caroline VA, 2 regions into 3
Found the parameters for the entrenchment levels and yes the various events file + game options file would need adjustment. Haven't find any parameters on how quickly units entrench or the bonus for being entrenched yet as your concern about forts is justified.
I think to make it worthwhile you would probably need to split
Montgomery MD (large region Nth of the Potomac) into 2 regions
Fairfax VA (Alexandria) into 2 regions
Loudon VA (Leesburg) into 2 regions
Stafford VA (Culpepper) into 2 regions
Fauquier VA (Falmouth) into 2 regions
Culpepper VA + Albermerle VA, 2 regions into 3
Spotsylvania VA (Fredricksburg) + Caroline VA, 2 regions into 3
Found the parameters for the entrenchment levels and yes the various events file + game options file would need adjustment. Haven't find any parameters on how quickly units entrench or the bonus for being entrenched yet as your concern about forts is justified.
-
ArmChairGeneral
- AGEod Grognard
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX, USA
In terms of modding the entrenchments, what is the goal? Is it to get the AI to be more active in the East? Or is it that "entrenchments" breaks immersion, and you picture Lee in a doughboy looking out across no-man's-land from a firing-step?
I kind of squint my eyes at the term entrenchments and give a lot of leeway to abstraction and I end up imagining "entrenchments" as representing the sum of all the small advantages an army accrues by holding a piece of ground for a long time. They know where all the hills, fords, springs, towns etc. are and have drawn and distributed decent maps so that orders can be followed effectively. They can support picketts in extended positions and they know the best places for them. Artillery has been emplaced and ranges have been taken. Etc., etc., etc.
The "entrenchment" mechanic appears in several AGEOD titles in contexts that cannot possibly refer to what I think of as trenches. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a cultural/linguistic issue, and that the literal French translation doesn't have the same connotations as "entrenchment" does in English (I can't help but picture WWI).
I am not entirely sure that the entrenchment mechanic is the root of the problem, although adjusting it might offer an avenue to get at the real issue, which I am going to refer to as the Static East.
(Given that changing the map is unfortunately not a likely outcome) I think Static East is really a host of related problems, including AI issues, VP imbalances that particularly impact multiplayer, and some (IMO) harsh design judgements about Union generals.
I kind of squint my eyes at the term entrenchments and give a lot of leeway to abstraction and I end up imagining "entrenchments" as representing the sum of all the small advantages an army accrues by holding a piece of ground for a long time. They know where all the hills, fords, springs, towns etc. are and have drawn and distributed decent maps so that orders can be followed effectively. They can support picketts in extended positions and they know the best places for them. Artillery has been emplaced and ranges have been taken. Etc., etc., etc.
The "entrenchment" mechanic appears in several AGEOD titles in contexts that cannot possibly refer to what I think of as trenches. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a cultural/linguistic issue, and that the literal French translation doesn't have the same connotations as "entrenchment" does in English (I can't help but picture WWI).
I am not entirely sure that the entrenchment mechanic is the root of the problem, although adjusting it might offer an avenue to get at the real issue, which I am going to refer to as the Static East.
(Given that changing the map is unfortunately not a likely outcome) I think Static East is really a host of related problems, including AI issues, VP imbalances that particularly impact multiplayer, and some (IMO) harsh design judgements about Union generals.
The Wiki link for all things combat:
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained
The factor for entrenchment modifier:
"PM = Protection Modifier: (1-level of enemies entrechment/10)*(1-terrain protection/10)*(1-unit protection/10)"
Entrenchment only actually goes to 4 for protection. Levels 5-8 add to the accuracy of entrenched artillery.
Most units have a zero protection stat. So at zero entrenchment the PM factor is just the terrain protection. At max entrenchment that value would be modified by (1-4/10) or six tenths. Thus more than half of the hits would still get through even at max entrenchment. This might equate to a wall only up to below the hips.
Realistically, neither side is capable of creating or manning WW I type trench systems. If a force is "entrenched" in a region, then these prepared positions may be along a river if an enemy comes from that direction. However, if an enemy enters from the other side of the region then what? The unit is still entrenched. Clearly, the entire border of a region cannot be a series of trenches. For immersion, I can see that a force in a region is constantly running patrols to find "good terrain" for every contingency. The longer the force is present, the better the preparations. If an enemy shows up, they move out to good terrain according to the plan.
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained
The factor for entrenchment modifier:
"PM = Protection Modifier: (1-level of enemies entrechment/10)*(1-terrain protection/10)*(1-unit protection/10)"
Entrenchment only actually goes to 4 for protection. Levels 5-8 add to the accuracy of entrenched artillery.
Most units have a zero protection stat. So at zero entrenchment the PM factor is just the terrain protection. At max entrenchment that value would be modified by (1-4/10) or six tenths. Thus more than half of the hits would still get through even at max entrenchment. This might equate to a wall only up to below the hips.
Realistically, neither side is capable of creating or manning WW I type trench systems. If a force is "entrenched" in a region, then these prepared positions may be along a river if an enemy comes from that direction. However, if an enemy enters from the other side of the region then what? The unit is still entrenched. Clearly, the entire border of a region cannot be a series of trenches. For immersion, I can see that a force in a region is constantly running patrols to find "good terrain" for every contingency. The longer the force is present, the better the preparations. If an enemy shows up, they move out to good terrain according to the plan.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
Tips for extra generals:
In a big stack, put in more than you need. In case a general dies (or gets promoted, and you send him elsewhere to lead troops)
In a small, on division stack, use two. This is where I put my low seniority 0-0-0 jagoffs, as adjuncts to the divisional commanders. It gives the division +2 CP, and removes the combat penalty.
Don't use your useless generals to command troops garrisoned on waterways. If they are inactive, they won't bombard. Although they'd get a slight combat bonus with an incompetent general, the goal of those troops is to bombard passing boats, not to fight.
In a big stack, put in more than you need. In case a general dies (or gets promoted, and you send him elsewhere to lead troops)
In a small, on division stack, use two. This is where I put my low seniority 0-0-0 jagoffs, as adjuncts to the divisional commanders. It gives the division +2 CP, and removes the combat penalty.
Don't use your useless generals to command troops garrisoned on waterways. If they are inactive, they won't bombard. Although they'd get a slight combat bonus with an incompetent general, the goal of those troops is to bombard passing boats, not to fight.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests