Civil War 3 suggestion that I like so much I'm posting it again ;)

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I would like to be able to have lesser generals be appointed to Army Commander.

While I was somewhat initially opposed to this idea, the more I think about it now the more I like it. I'd like to be able to handpick/designate the army or corps commander that I want from any one of the generals available to me, and I don't want rank or seniority getting in the way of that choice. While I still believe that leapfrogging a far more junior general over the heads of those more senior commanders should have repercussions (I'm not currently sure what those repercussions should be), I don't believe that it should be any great obstacle either. Just think of Lincoln choosing Meade

[DrPostman]

While I still believe that leapfrogging a far more junior general over the heads of those more senior commanders should have repercussions (I'm not currently sure what those repercussions should be), I don't believe that it should be any great obstacle either. Just think of Lincoln choosing Meade

Political consequences were much bigger back then then they are today. We didn't
much of a professional army nor it's traditions like we do today. Back then it was all
about state militias and appointments to command those units usually involved political
influence over anything else. That would have to continue to be a factor in the game.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

While I still believe that leapfrogging a far more junior general over the heads of those more senior commanders should have repercussions (I'm not currently sure what those repercussions should be), I don't believe that it should be any great obstacle either. Just think of Lincoln choosing Meade

Political consequences were much bigger back then then they are today. We didn't
much of a professional army nor it's traditions like we do today. Back then it was all
about state militias and appointments to command those units usually involved political
influence over anything else. That would have to continue to be a factor in the game.

A factor, yes, but I don't think that should preclude the player from choosing essentially whoever they want to command an army or corps. After all, it is just a game, and the player the Commander in Chief, so to speak. Besides, a player selecting completely the wrong person for high command would seem positively Lincolnesque, and as such, absolutely historical

[DrPostman]

Most players want a historical feel to the game, and politics played an enormous role
during the war. There were just too many incompetent generals active in leadership to
simply avoid that fact by appointing those we know are going to perform better. Without
consequences to those choices I wouldn't find it as interesting a game, personally.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Most players want a historical feel to the game, and politics played an enormous role
during the war. There were just too many incompetent generals active in leadership to
simply avoid that fact by appointing those we know are going to perform better. Without
consequences to those choices I wouldn't find it as interesting a game, personally.

I'd agree that maintaining that historical feel to the game is very important. I, too, enjoy that a great deal. I'd also agree that seniority, incompetence, politics, etc, should also be a factor. While I think that the parameters for army command should be different, I feel that any general who has experience commanding at division level should be eligible to command a corps at the discretion of the player. I think that to maintain that historical 'feel', perhaps a general that has been passed over could offer his resignation, or request a transfer to a different department or his statistics, morale, etc, could be temporarily affected by being snubbed? I'd consider any or all of those possibilities much more realistic and historical than losing national morale or seniority points.

I dunno mate... I'm just throwing ideas out there and hoping some will stick

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

viewtopic.php?f=340&t=53594

Cast an eye over this link, folks. This guy is doing some excellent work.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

If a Civil War III does happen, I truly hope this idea is adopted. It'd be a wonderful addition.

[caranorn]

1) If single regiments are to be the basic unit type and all brigade commanders (for the Union that would mostly be colonels) to be included would put a lot of strain on the engine. Athena simply can't do it, that's been seen in previous games particularly PoN. Even the Slitherine engine I expect cannot do that.

2) Someone mentioned differing sized regiments. That would not be historic. Throughout the civil wat the prewar system was mostly maintained by both sides. That is both sides's infantry regiments consisted of 10 companies each roughly 100 men. Confederate cavalry regiments used the same system. Union cavalry and regular artillery on the other hand had 12 companies of similar size to infantry. The Union also raised 5 (iirc) new style regular infantry regiments of 3 battalions each of 5 companies, none actually ever reached full strength. In most cases regiments that did not managed to recruit sufficient troops were sword in as battalions, or used to bring other regiments up to strength. In short, there was no regiments with markably less than a 1000 men on swearing in. Battalions sworn in were relatively rare and most either were eventually upgraded to regiments or cannibalised to bring other units up to strength. Legions were of course also formed at the start of the war, but in most cases the were eventually split up into their component parts. On that topic it's worth noting that many regiments particularly Union were formed with light infantry (they often had the training in that role), cavalry or even artillery in place of 1 or 2 of their companies. This was also rectified later in the war. So while there were exceptions the 10 company regiments was the norm except for Union cavalry (and regular and heavy artillery).

3) Promotions. I do agree with this. Any general who every commanded a division should not only be included but be promotable. But CW2 also had leaders who never reached such rank, usually because they played a special role, raiders and partisans come to mind, but also leaders in the Far West. Unless a 4th rank is introduced these should not be promotable. My long standing idea for rank is to get rid of the star* system as that is confusing to players. Currently a 1* in CW2 is not a brigadier general, he's a general who either held division command at some point of the war, or a specialist. I'd propose a system with X instead of *. That is the current 1* would be 2XX, 2* 3XXX, 3* 4XXXX,. The 4* star rank is hardly ever used and could in my opinion be done without. Instead I'd introduce 1X, but that category would only include exceptional leaders, these would either all be unpromotable (while all 2XX and 3XXX would be), or require a much larger amount of experience. But I'm not sure this could be done under the current system.

I've got a lot of other ideas worth including and things that require modification, but no point in listing them all.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I always get a little concerned when I hear someone say 'That's not historic.' As if every new idea should be excluded simply because just isn't historically accurate. While I think I agree with that mentality to a large extent, (I certainly don't want any history based game I play straying too wide of the history mark) I don't think we should instantly dismiss a suggestion that might want to bend history just a little

[caranorn]

I always get a little concerned when I hear someone say 'That's not historic.' As if every new idea should be excluded simply because just isn't historically accurate. While I think I agree with that mentality to a large extent, (I certainly don't want any history based game I play straying too wide of the history mark) I don't think we should instantly dismiss a suggestion that might want to bend history just a little

But I neither see a game play justification for largely varying sizes of regiments. We might even run into the problems we had with Napoleon's Campaigns. That game had hundreds of different sized elements and iirc it led to problems in combat and also with replacements. After that elements were normed, there was still variety for special units (like the ranger in CW2 which only represent a company or two).

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

No worries!
My suggestion regarding regiments of varying size was put forth with an eye to when either side, but particularly the Confederacy, has something of a manpower shortage (sometimes it might just suit the player to recruit regiments that are smaller in number and thereby allowing greater flexibility with per turn recruitment). It was related to another idea put forth by another player some time ago that suggested that manpower should be relative to a particular state as opposed to a national manpower pool, though I believe I neglected to mention that. Whatever the case, I am given to fantastical hypotheses. Forgive me

[caranorn]

No worries!
My suggestion regarding regiments of varying size was put forth with an eye to when either side, but particularly the Confederacy, has something of a manpower shortage (sometimes it might just suit the player to recruit regiments that are smaller in number and thereby allowing greater flexibility with per turn recruitment). It was related to another idea put forth by another player some time ago that suggested that manpower should be relative to a particular state as opposed to a national manpower pool, though I believe I neglected to mention that. Whatever the case, I am given to fantastical hypotheses. Forgive me

That makes sense. I also would love if manpower could be per state.

Though one question would be whether much manpower should be generated per turn anyhow. I'd rather see it per strategic decision, f.e. 'Lincoln's Call for 75,000 Volunteers' in April 1861, he actually got 98,000 despite states like Virginia and Kentucky refusing their quota. Most of the war's manpower was recruited through large calls, decrees and later drafts.

So for the big calls there should be enough manpower to recruit units in most states on those turns or soon after. On the other hand the small amount of manpower generated otherwise would only be immediately useful for big states like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee etc.

Those strategic decisions should of course be multiple choice. A player could decide to call for less (less money and VP cost) or more (more money and VP cost). The exact numbers received would depend on loyalty, national morale and a few other factors. That way Missouri might raise it's 10 regiments instead of their 5 regiment quota, but Virginia would only get enough to raise 2 regiments in loyal West Virginia.

Some units generated entirely by event to reflect influential people donating regiments. In 1861 75 such regiments were raised for the Union and the practice was eventually banned in October of that year.

Recruitment of US regular replacements and new units (the 5 3 battalion regiments, the new cavalry regiment, the batteries of the new artillery regiment on the other hand would be recruited like any other artillery). Through strategic decision only. Regular infantry and cavalry would be it's own type, not buildable and a separate type of replacement.

Nevertheless I think most units would still have to be brigades as keeping track of single regiments, plus brigade leaders, would put an enormous train on the old and the new engine. Would certainly be nice and better reflect how usually regiments were sworn in at an important city/town in their state, then shipped of to an army and only there organised into fresh brigades, often composed of units from multiple states. Though this would also mean added micro management.

I've also thought of a solution for the 3-month regiments of the early war. These should either appear as now with newly formed armies on a historic date by event, or be placed in cities in their state to be moved forward by the player. Making them buildable would probably be to complicated. They'd have two events, one creating them and another 2 1/2 to 3 months later removing them. Those units would require a separate model which will not allow leader attachment or else there might be issues on removal. Obviously before division command is activated. They would not be rebuildable (none in the force pool). Ideally the only buildable units would be volunteer for 2-, 3- or or the war. Their disbandment and often re-enlistment in 1863-1865 could be reflected by events reducing the manpower pool (even temporarily negative) and temporary cohesion loss on all units.

Obviously at this time I have more info and ideas for the Union as that's what I had started researching with. But no point to put all my ideas and research here right now.

[caranorn]

One thing I forgot in my last post is that we need reasons to garrison cities, towns and forts in the rear. If the Union were to get realistic manpower and forcepool it would easily overpower the Confederates. In reality large forces were kept well back from the front, often to appease local politicians and the population. Under the current engine this would best be portrayed by gradual lowering of loyalty when no appropriate garrison is present. Not sure how exactly loyalty plays into production of money, manpower, war supply and supply, and ammo, but it certainly should. So there'd be real incentive to keep a portion of the federalised troops at home. Ungarrisoned forts might lead to loss of VP.

But garrisons would have to be reviewed entirely anyhow. Less permanent garrisons, more garrisons being placed on map in reaction to an enemy force entering their hex. Fort and coastal artillery would also need reviewing as right now they are to generic and don't cost resources unless they get damaged by passing ships.

Oh and cost of supply trains, one really annoying thing I've been noticing in my current game. Building a supply path with depots every few regions is extremely costly in the Trans Mississippi. I even started shipping any supply units I capture from the Union in the east to western Missouri and the IT. It makes no sense for wagons to be that more expensive than artillery. Oh and one new type of supply unit for the Far West, I actually proposed it during Alpha for the Sibley scenario, not sure it made it in. That is cattle drives, Sibley had a large number of cattle for slaughter following his army, these units would only store supply, not ammo, maybe move a bit faster than wagons.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Supply wagons should be as cheap as chips in my opinion.

[caranorn]

Another idea I had during the design of CW2 was one for nationalities. Other games already have a similar system. Essentially I wanted to introduce some flavour for German and Irish troops on the Union side.

There would be German and Irish traits for units as well as for leaders. The German trait on a unit would do something like -10% cohesion. If that unit is commanded by a German officer it would regain +5% cohesion and let's say +1 initiative (final -5% cohesion and +1 initiative) . That would be to reflect how Union regular officers perceived German officers and troops, yet how they fought just as good as native troops when led by their own commanders. Irish units would have a -5% (they were far more accepted among nativists), with an Irish leader (in comparison to German very rare, maybe 4-5) they'd regain +10% cohesion and +1 initiative (so a final +5% cohesion and +1 initiative). Lastly, when researching the Sibley scenario I realised a Mexican (today we would say Hispanic) nationality would be nice too as there were some units in the Far West that only were reliable under certain officers (Carson comes to mind). So -15% cohesion, -1 initiative for units, a leader with Mexican trait +10% cohesion, +1 initiative (so a final -5% cohesion).

All those values are just rough ideas, if this were possible it would require testing anyhow.

Along the way it would be a good idea to take a fresh look at German (note, German in this context goes far beyond the modern country, or any other country ever called German) leaders as I expect some stats are based on judgment placed by Union regulars who really hated the guts of those European revolutionaries (many, particularly the officers were veterans of those wars).

One important idea was that I hoped whether a unit has a national trait could be randomised. You'd order a 4 infantry, 1 artillery brigade from Ohio and the software would make a quick calculation, 8% probability it's German, 3% Irish, 89% native (these are actual stats from the CW, New York had the higher rates of nationalities with 11% German, 5% Irish and 74% native). And those numbers actually have a grey zone as they only count by nativity, so second generation Germans and Irish who tended to join regiments of those nationalities are not in the statistics.

One more thing on the Irish. At some point during the game those units could become unreliable. Unlike the Germans they pursued their own interest, hoping to either draw the US into a war with Britain, or at least arm and train an army that would invade Ireland after the CW. This went so far that some Irish troops captured a ship on the Great Lakes and launched a small invasion of Canada. Obviously it didn't work, but is a good example of the revolutionary spirit of those men.

[caranorn]

What to do with incompetent 3***? Do the historic thing, send them of to command a military department far from the enemy. You will no longer pay VP and NM for replacing a senior Halleck by the newly promoted Grant. Hey if the general sent if into the boondocks is popular enough you could even gain VP for that prestidigious new command. You could also assign 2** and 1* to departments, but probably with no gain.

[caranorn]

And more. Actually something that was originally in CW2 but seems to have been nerfed. Indians at war.

I'm 1861 most of the Apache and some of the Comanche were already at war with Union and Confederacy.

Soon the Plains Indians followed, though they were usually not hostile to the Confederates. This conflict was largely due to a) most pre-war Indian agents joining the Confederates, b) their loyal replacements bungling up matters out-of inexperience and c) the Union willingly breaking treaties to save on money and resources.

This could be simulated by multiple choice strategic decisions. The Union could decide to uohd treaties, yearly losing Money and WS to preserve peace (no guarantee but making it more probable), alternatively they could decide to halve the money payment and reduce WS to 0. The third option would-be the historic one, stop all payments. As long as the volunterly break the treaties option has not been chosen the same choice will pop up every year. One year the Union might offer to pay full treaty payments, the next only half as the Union war economy isn't doing well, the third year once again full payment and the fourth breaking treaties which means no decision in the fifth year.

Around the same time the Confederates would gave multiple choice strategic decisions. Placate already hostile Indians with gifts, money and WS, that might make the Apache and Comanche only hostile to the Union. Another choice would be to influence the Southern Plains Indians to go to war with the Union. A third influence both the Southhern and Northern Plains Indians.

In general Indians should turn against the Union in the early war. Now these should not be wildly roaming Indians (no Oglala raiding New York City). They should mostly operate within the territory they are from as well as it's neighbour's. They would mostly be run by the Indian faction, though the Confederates could rry and recruit some. Some who are not hostile to the Union might even be recruited by them. The regional decisions to do this already seem to exist, just no Indians to recruit on the map.

OH and of course massacres, a bunch of NM Militia burning down a neutral village (you better avoid arching through villages or that may happen) with the result that a nearby tribe become hostile, even worse a complete Alliance (Northern Sioux, Northern Cheyenne and Pawnee, each having several military units).

I already have the military strength of all rribsz on the map in my files. Also proposed sites for villages, but I expect these are mostly on the CW2 map already.

These rampaging Indians would force the Union to keep garrisons in the North. The Confederates. Likewise in Northern Texas.

This does not apply to the Civil used Indian of the IT which may join either side (most likely the CS) and whose units are more like mounted vunteers rather than the far more mobile braves. And yes, the Union should get more Indian home guards in the IT and Kansas, though mostly Infantry. Some chance of units changing sides (Drew comes to mind) etc.

Just relatively raw ideas, but they are not really revolutionary for Athena and probably implementable in the Slitherine engine.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

For me, two improvements that might be made that would massively improve this game are shorter turns, ideally 3-5 days, and much shorter marching times between regions. I can get behind complications, delays, etc, moving to and fro in mud or snow, but in perfect weather it shouldn't be taking 6 or 7 or 8 or 9+ days to get from Winchester to Harpers Ferry. Unless Chelmsford is in charge of course

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

While I'm at, the generals should gain experience with each battle they've participated in just like the troops they're commanding. How much experience they gain might perhaps be relative to how they've performed during that battle, and/or how large a scale battle it was.

[caranorn]

One more, this one is assuming a CW3 will be done on another game engine.

Do away with the current seniority system. Instead add a Politics or Popularity rating. At start of the game (resp. when a leader enters the game) a leader will have such a rating based on his profession, popularity etc. For instance someone like Frémont will start with high Politics/Popularity. As a leader takes part in successful operations he will gain additional points to this rating, if he performs badly he will lose points.

Leaders will also be in a specific grade (what we usually call rank today) and have a rank (what's called seniority in the games) within that grade. Starting leaders will have preset rank according to historic data. When a leader is promoted to a new grade he will automatically get ranked in that grade after the last leader in that grade. So lets say McCulloch who is a division commander is promoted to corps command, the last leader to have been added to the CS list of that grade is Leonidas Polk with rank 7, so McCulloch is rank 8 (just using an example, not historic). Ideally even a date (15/6/1862) instead of a simple 3 digit rank number.

Any leader can be promoted to any grade. But if you promote someone unpopular or simply hardly known one you will have to pay Popularity Points (different than the above rating, so maybe Politics for the rating and popularity for the currency, or vice versa). On the other hand if you promote popular ones you may gain points. When promoting you will also have to consider other leaders who may feel they deserve a promotion, so if someone with low Politics/Popularity is promoted over someone with high Politics/Popularity you will have to pay for this action, if it's the contrary you might even gain currency. Same for putting someone if command of a division, corps, army, department. If popular you may gain currency, if not you may lose particularly if someone popular feels slighted.

That leads me to my last idea which is not actually knew but dates back to the CW2 test times. Create departments, either fixed ones or ideally ones a player can adjust. So you have Frémont who is incapable to hold a field command but is very popular, so you appoint him lead the Department of New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado (just making one up there). Like promotions and other commands you may gain or lose points (this is considered a kind of promotion) but in the end you move an unfit leader out of field command and make room for a more junior officer. A Department commander would have minimal impact on his territory and units within it, similar to the system in PoN.

Just brain storming (with a mighty headache) right now, hope my ideas are somewhat clear even if still pretty rough.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I'm not sure I'd want to do away with the seniority system as it was a big deal at the time. I just think it needs to be approached somewhat differently. Perhaps, as a start, it could be theatre relative, and what I mean by that is that it shouldn't bother Sterling Price in Buffalo, Missouri if D.H. Hill is given command of a corps in Culpeper, Virginia. Makes sense to me.
Maybe another way of circumnavigating the fallout of a junior commander being promoted ahead of a more senior but less capable general is bestowing a sort of 'national hero' event upon a particularly successful general without the passed over general losing seniority points or loss of national morale. It's never made any sense to me that the 'public' would care or lose morale if the pen was passed over for the sword, so to speak.
But, for any of this to work then promotion needs to be easier to actually gain - and no I don't mean just handing out promotions at the drop of a hat. What I mean is that in the current game it's far easier for a general to climb up the promotion ladder by wiping out a rogue brigade or supply wagon or isolated garrison than it is by participating in large scale, pitched battles. That somehow needs to be rectified.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

- Generals entering the game at historically accurate dates. Some should be coming in way sooner; others way later.

- Realistic marching times between regions.

- More regions.

- Wounding of commanding officers should be an option. Severity of wounds and recovery time required could and should vary.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

So quiet in here... you could hear a pin drop. Is everyone still alive and kicking?

[Teatime]

Well I woke up this morning so I must still be alive and kicking

My key desires ..
These are all code based ..

1. SubUnit names always come from Models
a) If we could get that we would be able to mod single element recruitment
b) It is bad that when recruiting a single element unit it takes the subunit name from the unit file rather than the model file.
c) If I could just get at the source code that would be one of the first things I fix.

2. Be able to split SubUnits out of a unit
a) You can add a leader to a brigade and then split him out .. why not a command to break all the subunits out
b) Again would give greater flexibility in building your own brigades

3. The ability to name Divisions and Brigade
a) Alt-Right Click should work for all units not just higher formations
b) I want my 1st Bde/1st Div/I Corps

4. Army command for Major Generals .. Other than U.S, Grant, Union armies were commanded by 2 star generals
a) While you can mod a general so it can be a GHQ stack it still can't create an army
b) Hmm. actually I need to go away and recheck that one as CanBeGHQStack might work for MG's

5. Oh yeh, More regions in Virginia
a) Need more flexibility for the fights in that area as it just becomes like WW I trench warfare
b) Modding regions can't be done without modding the map

Most other stuff I have been able to mod around, takes some digging and a bit of work but the base of the game is pretty flexible.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

@Teatime

I too would like to see army command for major generals. It'd not only be historically accurate but somewhat negate the difficulties of getting capable men promoted to lieutenant general. It'd be a tremendous improvement.

And yes, more regions for Virginia in particular. While the entire map would benefit greatly from more regions, it's on the Virginia front that the 'slugging match' effect is most noticeable. More regions would make a fascinating and riveting game even more so.

[Teatime]

I too would like to see army command for major generals. It'd not only be historically accurate but somewhat negate the difficulties of getting capable men promoted to lieutenant general. It'd be a tremendous improvement.

I think I have come up with a way to get MG's in charge of armies. It requires

1. Make all MG's rank 3 and give them the CanBeGHQStack = 1 parameter in their model file

2. Rename a couple of icons so you see 2 stars on their unit card

3. Make BG's rank 2

Would also need to play with some rank CP parameters to keep the balance right and I can't find the icons that are used to display on the Forces List (F1) as they still show as 3 stars there.

Think I will play with this one as I look to borrow from JohnDenver's mod that made all generals promotable

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

@Teatime

Sounds good, mate. Keep me posted

[Teatime]

Major Generals mod in the CW2 Mods forum section .. looks to be working fine but let me know if you try it and have any issues

So I now get to replace my 4th point with

The ability to merge a general into a brigade and have that brigade in a division stack.

i.e. allow BG's to be BG's

[AACW3Plz]

Quick list for me-

Full US Map - not that Sibley's campaigns or anything are the biggest deal, but California/AZ/Utah etc being boxes seems silly to me when it's all one landmass.

Pools of brigadiers/colonels from the relevant states to attach to recruited brigades/regiments. Aside from events spawning MGs, combat/experience will make these officers promotable to MG. This also allows for some of the minor characters we'd like to see but don't get to, and finds better places for the minor characters in the game who never held division commands (Quantrill, Mosby, etc).

Tie seniority/promotions to a state's force pool and loyalty. Eg, the CSA promoting a junior guy from NC over a senior guy from TN might help a bit with NC's force pool, but drastically hurt TN's and lower TN's loyalty. Still keep reasonably historical force pools by state.

Official department command posts - this is where a lot of leader bonuses might best apply - "recruiter" or "defensive engineer" - can make up some new negative ones as well. Have some of the combat bonuses apply to static militias/garrisons throughout the department, and perhaps mobile forces if attached to the department via something like the corps system

Agreed with prior posts - tie garrisons to loyalty and force pools, doubly so if the state is subject to enemy raids. The South generally needs a larger militia pool.

Add some commander traits/cut others. McClellan/Siegel/Halleck/Taylor etc creating super troops is a little silly. Bragg's drill master is adequate, especially for some (McClellan didn't move his army for 6 months - I imagine 12 turns straight of Drill would provide the boost CW2 was trying to simulate).

Ratings overhaul - Jackson is hardly worth 4 attack out of the gate (see Strasburg repulse), Johnston never showed any more initiative than most slow moving Union generals, Grant was both reckless and rather poor defensively, Longstreet's arrogance completely derailed Fair Oaks, McClellan had *some* initiative before gaining army command, etc.

Recruiting by element.

I'm torn on turn length. 1 week makes sense in the East, 2 in the west. Perhaps tie some modified activation roll to the distance from departmental command and the development level of the region so that I can't spam weekly orders to someone in IT, but they still fight without penalty.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Major Generals mod in the CW2 Mods forum section .. looks to be working fine but let me know if you try it and have any issues

So I now get to replace my 4th point with

The ability to merge a general into a brigade and have that brigade in a division stack.

i.e. allow BG's to be BG's

For that to work there'd need to be a lot more generals.