Civil War II
The quote can be found under Features
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Stauffenberg wrote:I would be a fool to argue specific game points with you, so in large measure I won't.
I did not suggest armies historically sit on their depots: they don't, but we are dealing with fair sized regions in any case.
I was looking at the issue of depots, the idea of major depots, the possibility of stack interceptions and "Campaign Points" as some sort of simple dynamic that could be used to refine all the other elements already in play (effective elements too, as you point out). It may be that in just refining the elements you target, as opposed to adding some sort of over-arching rubric like CPs, would do this. I tend to think it would not.
In the first instance I have to disagree with your views on how long it took an army after an intense campaign to recover. Army morale and overall proficiency are at issue here, not just beans, bullets and bodies, and the game touches on this in different ways.
Porter Alexander in his memoirs notes that after the Sharpsburg and Gettysburg campaigns Lee put his army into camp for 5 weeks or longer. The weather was not bad after Gettysburg, and the time was used, "overhauling, refitting & drilling." (FftC, p.285)
Earlier on after the Sharpsburg campaign, Lee's army with Alexander settled in near Winchester for over a month, again for "much needed rest & recruiting & drilling" and he had this to say about the time spent:
It was really wonderful how our numbers increased during this month. Brigades which had been reduced until they only looked like only small regiments began again to look like brigades. Not only did the tens of thousands of stragglers left along the roadsides in our marches come back, but a good many fresh men from home came on, & were incorporated in the old regiments, & we began to feel that we again had an army.... McClellan sat quietly on the north side, likewise employed in getting reinforcements & supplies & getting his army in the best possible shape. He must be credited for knowing how to do that, even if he never learned how to fight it.
Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander (The University of North Carolina Press, 1989) pp 155-56
All well and good as the game models most of this in recovery times of 2-3 turns; note however that the issue of CPs focuses upon what Alexander alludes to--army morale and high command efficiency. The game targets this not with supplies, cohesion, troop losses and reinforcements etc, but with the Game Setting Options, Activation Rule and Delayed Commitment as held up against the strategic value of the commanding general. I'll lay them out here for others following this.
Activation Rule (three boxes left to right):
--can always move even if leader is unactivated
--large movement & combat penalty if leader is unactivated
--high chance of not being able to move at all if leader is unactivated
Delayed Commitment (four boxes left to right):
--units will engage enemy as soon as they meet them
--small delay from 1 hour to days depending on leader strategic value
--medium delay, as above
--long delay, as above
This is left to player choice and I gather that while some prefer to play with hard activation and long delay (right checked box for both) the majority prefer something less drastic. In playing this out extensively for a year now I find the far right settings the most historical, also injecting some very interesting uncertainty into gameplay as you can never be sure every stack of units you have will in fact be able to move next turn.
CPs I saw as a way to fine-tune this, or at least open a discussion on the intangibles of commander expertise (or lack of), army morale, and its overall ability to march and fight an intense campaign of some 6-8 weeks in duration.
Alexander in other passages also alludes to the pride the ANV had, as an element in it's regaining its strength and confidence after a hard campaign and the game attempts to cover this somewhat with unit and leader "Experience" although I do not see it working so very realistically. I've had brigades and leaders that have fought and won battles for years still show only one or two stars of experience. This is an area that might also be fine-tuned. As well, the transition from militia-conscript-infantry-elite models unit strength, as well as improved unit initiative and movement speed coefficency. I was really out to focus on the highest strategic level where the issue of army initiative and morale resides, to look at how it is directly and indirectly dealt with for now, and how it might be effectively improved without undue complications injected.
The three suggestions you make are good ones of course; I'm not convinced they are enough (assuming at some point these issues will be reexamined before a new game release).
Interesting points and debate. I'm not as knowledgeable as you guys but I gather the issue here is to why armies in earlier part of the war didn't stay in the field after a battle. Why did armies retreat after defeat in first 3 years but then Grant refused to retreat after horrendous casualties in several standoffs and defeats in the 64 overland campaign? I would think morale both of the troops and the general were a big factor, but also I gather early war the staff work let armies down so time was needed to train troops and staff officers, you only have to look at the errors made by both sides in the Seven Days battle to see evidence of this. I know very little about how effectively supply was distributed in early war from depots but again this could be an issue. Overall I think the confidence/morale of generals was the biggest issue.
As for campaign points I like the intention but not the idea itself, if something is needed to simulate early war tendency to retreat then maybe a time limited post-battle cohesion or activation penalty might do the job to reflect the loss of morale and disorganization after a battle? Might be rather complicated to have an army or stack morale level but that is what we're dealing with here right? Might be easier just to modify cohesion, activation or the stats of the General after the battle rather than add campaign points or army morale.
Useful Info for Beginners
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William Tecumseh Sherman
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William Tecumseh Sherman
-
challlenge
- Conscript
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:27 am
- Location: Troyan - Bulgaria
Pocus wrote:where did you get the link that hinted we bought Creative Assembly?
(I'm joking guys, sorry, but where is the link though?)
Lol apparently you (Ageod) and Matrix Game must work your communication.
Sorry not having insert the link.
I thought the information was known to all.
And finally what is the answer to my question
Pocus wrote:where did you get the link that hinted we bought Creative Assembly?
(I'm joking guys, sorry, but where is the link though?)
That would be a dream come true. Maybe then we could have a chance to actually get a Total War game release that wasn't on Steam... and one that was fun with decent AI, and one that was mod friendly, and one that was... ah, screw it. I feel a Total War series rant coming on. Just breathe... calm down and breathe.
-
Stauffenberg
- General
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
- Location: Montreal
- Contact: Website
Chuske wrote:Interesting points and debate. I'm not as knowledgeable as you guys but I gather the issue here is to why armies in earlier part of the war didn't stay in the field after a battle. Why did armies retreat after defeat in first 3 years but then Grant refused to retreat after horrendous casualties in several standoffs and defeats in the 64 overland campaign? I would think morale both of the troops and the general were a big factor, but also I gather early war the staff work let armies down so time was needed to train troops and staff officers, you only have to look at the errors made by both sides in the Seven Days battle to see evidence of this. I know very little about how effectively supply was distributed in early war from depots but again this could be an issue. Overall I think the confidence/morale of generals was the biggest issue.
Staff work is critical as you say, and early on neither side really had the expertise to launch complex extended operations involving experienced division and corps coordination. The Seven Days is a good example, and note that this was fought by both sides either adjacent or in a region with a depot. The other issues of leadership qualities, experience, and the activation setting all cover these issues pretty well. I wanted to look at command and supply issues involved in larger extended campaigns like Gettysburg. As it is, Athena often has the CSA marching on Pittsburgh or Baltimore in '61, a year when both sides had the greatest problem in moving and controlling their largest armies in and around Manassas--and even after such localised maneuver and combat essentially collapsing in place (or stumbling back into Washington for the US).
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
After some Real-World™ distractions and some time-out needed for pondering the many lengthy posts I'm convinced more than ever that Campaign-Points are not the answer to the question.
My summation of the Union army's unwillingness to continue a campaign after losing the first major battle is that the sudden loss of aggression lays with the commanders who lost their confidence and realizing this their troops also lost theirs. A number of times I've read of troops bemoaning that once the first battle was over that they just turned tail and went back to camp. So the issue had a lot to do with the commanders.
How is, or could, this be reflected in the game? I think the answer lays in how the player perceives his situation. Firstly, the leaders available to the Union player early in the war are far from competent, which means that other than defending on ground under their control, if the leader is unactivated his force, even if it has all the Command-Points (CP's) necessary to lead it without penalty, will have a 35% minus on strength. The player can still attack with such a force, being that when entering a region with enemy MC, they will automatically go into Offensive Posture--unless in Passive Posture--even if the leader is unactivated. The question is, is this a wise decision? This is considering the outset of a campaign with all of an army's forces enjoying high cohesion.
I'll leave commenting on starting a campaign with unactivated leadership aside, as I find that who ever does this deserves what he gets, unless special circumstances are in affect.
The issue I'm addressing here is what happens once the first bloody repulse has taken place and the Union army--in the game--simply stops for a couple of turns, recovers all of its cohesion and losses and then pushes back into the campaign. I see two game-engine issue that I think can be tweaked to make this less of an issue.
1. Cohesion Recovery (CR)- CR is a difficult thing to get a good grasp on. The rules are only specific in a couple of points; being on a depot or in a fort will raise CR as will being in Passive Posture.
From my experience starting from the one extreme--a unit at 0 cohesion--CR follows a parabolic curve. The units start recovering only very slowly. Once they have gained about 50% cohesion the recovery starts to accelerate, maybe even before. As I said, it's difficult to assess exactly what is happening because you only have 15 day turns to look at, but CR and cohesion loss occur on a daily basis. So once cohesion has reached about 70% you can expect your troops to be at 100% the next turn.
Is this realistic? To at least some extent, I think yes, but not completely. I think that coming out of 0 cohesion is portrayed correctly, only very slowly recovering. But getting to 100% rested and ready I think is maybe too easy. One might philosophize to no end what 100% cohesion really is. My Real-World™ experience with the military says, you can never be too ready, there's always something more to do. So 100% is only theoretical, but the game has decided to make it a practical limit and I can live with that, because the difference to an unattainable highest-possible-cohesion is far too negligible. But what can, and I think should, be portrayed is that the effort to gain those last 10% are more difficult than the previous 10%. That is, just as the start of the CR curve is very flat, the upper end should be just as flat. This is called a Sigmoid Curve.
[INDENT]Not to worry, I had to look up the name of this type of curve too
[/INDENT]
This would make it more difficult for the player with his troops in the field to regain all their cohesion, since the lose of cohesion would still be linear. This marching for two whole turns might reduce a force to 80% cohesion, but it might take them 3 turns to recover the same cohesion. Of course returning to camp--depot, fort, large city--would still increase the CR, but then they would not be in the field, would they.
2. The second issue, as Stauffenberg so well described, is replacements. The rules say that there is little chance of a unit receiving replacements in the field. Although this has pretty much been my experience, the one exception might be after winning a battle. From my subjective feeling from experience, in this case replacements are often received, even in the field. This is certainly not unheard of, and during Grant's Overland-Campaign he certainly did receive a lot of replacements, but this is discounting one thing; receiving replacements into a depleted unit is also a disruption to its cohesion. The new companies have to be integrated into their new regiments, the new company commanders have to find their place in the command structure and learn their new commanders--who they are, how they are, who can be trusted, who maybe doesn't project such good feelings and instill confidence.
This could be represented by regiments regaining lost hits also losing some nominal cohesion representing the unit needing to get the replacements integrated and "trained up" with their new unit.
---
These are really only tweaks, but they might go a long way in putting the game closer in-line with history and as far as I know, might not be difficult to implement. What da' ya reckon?
My summation of the Union army's unwillingness to continue a campaign after losing the first major battle is that the sudden loss of aggression lays with the commanders who lost their confidence and realizing this their troops also lost theirs. A number of times I've read of troops bemoaning that once the first battle was over that they just turned tail and went back to camp. So the issue had a lot to do with the commanders.
How is, or could, this be reflected in the game? I think the answer lays in how the player perceives his situation. Firstly, the leaders available to the Union player early in the war are far from competent, which means that other than defending on ground under their control, if the leader is unactivated his force, even if it has all the Command-Points (CP's) necessary to lead it without penalty, will have a 35% minus on strength. The player can still attack with such a force, being that when entering a region with enemy MC, they will automatically go into Offensive Posture--unless in Passive Posture--even if the leader is unactivated. The question is, is this a wise decision? This is considering the outset of a campaign with all of an army's forces enjoying high cohesion.
I'll leave commenting on starting a campaign with unactivated leadership aside, as I find that who ever does this deserves what he gets, unless special circumstances are in affect.
The issue I'm addressing here is what happens once the first bloody repulse has taken place and the Union army--in the game--simply stops for a couple of turns, recovers all of its cohesion and losses and then pushes back into the campaign. I see two game-engine issue that I think can be tweaked to make this less of an issue.
1. Cohesion Recovery (CR)- CR is a difficult thing to get a good grasp on. The rules are only specific in a couple of points; being on a depot or in a fort will raise CR as will being in Passive Posture.
From my experience starting from the one extreme--a unit at 0 cohesion--CR follows a parabolic curve. The units start recovering only very slowly. Once they have gained about 50% cohesion the recovery starts to accelerate, maybe even before. As I said, it's difficult to assess exactly what is happening because you only have 15 day turns to look at, but CR and cohesion loss occur on a daily basis. So once cohesion has reached about 70% you can expect your troops to be at 100% the next turn.
Is this realistic? To at least some extent, I think yes, but not completely. I think that coming out of 0 cohesion is portrayed correctly, only very slowly recovering. But getting to 100% rested and ready I think is maybe too easy. One might philosophize to no end what 100% cohesion really is. My Real-World™ experience with the military says, you can never be too ready, there's always something more to do. So 100% is only theoretical, but the game has decided to make it a practical limit and I can live with that, because the difference to an unattainable highest-possible-cohesion is far too negligible. But what can, and I think should, be portrayed is that the effort to gain those last 10% are more difficult than the previous 10%. That is, just as the start of the CR curve is very flat, the upper end should be just as flat. This is called a Sigmoid Curve.
[INDENT]Not to worry, I had to look up the name of this type of curve too
[/INDENT]
This would make it more difficult for the player with his troops in the field to regain all their cohesion, since the lose of cohesion would still be linear. This marching for two whole turns might reduce a force to 80% cohesion, but it might take them 3 turns to recover the same cohesion. Of course returning to camp--depot, fort, large city--would still increase the CR, but then they would not be in the field, would they.
2. The second issue, as Stauffenberg so well described, is replacements. The rules say that there is little chance of a unit receiving replacements in the field. Although this has pretty much been my experience, the one exception might be after winning a battle. From my subjective feeling from experience, in this case replacements are often received, even in the field. This is certainly not unheard of, and during Grant's Overland-Campaign he certainly did receive a lot of replacements, but this is discounting one thing; receiving replacements into a depleted unit is also a disruption to its cohesion. The new companies have to be integrated into their new regiments, the new company commanders have to find their place in the command structure and learn their new commanders--who they are, how they are, who can be trusted, who maybe doesn't project such good feelings and instill confidence.
This could be represented by regiments regaining lost hits also losing some nominal cohesion representing the unit needing to get the replacements integrated and "trained up" with their new unit.
---
These are really only tweaks, but they might go a long way in putting the game closer in-line with history and as far as I know, might not be difficult to implement. What da' ya reckon?
-
challlenge
- Conscript
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:27 am
- Location: Troyan - Bulgaria
challlenge wrote:On Matrix web site I can read :
Battlefield Tactics allow the player to make decisions that can turn the tide of battle
What that mean ?
Tactical game like Forge of Freedom ?
I repost because no answer like yes or no
Battlefield Tactics allow the player to make decisions that can turn the tide of battle.
I give my source this time from Slitherine
slitherine.com/games/cw2_pc
Not direct link I get message "You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 5 posts or more."
So 3 times w missing.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Pocus wrote:sorry to shatter your nice graph, but cohesion recovery is not dependant of current cohesion, but only of external parameters
hmmm..... ... ehhhh ..... you wouldn't want to note a few of those, would you? 
I know that being in Passive Posture will quicken CR and I'm pretty sure that being on (in?) a depot or larger town (level 3 or higher?) will also work toward CR. Of course having supplies can only help
Could it be that the current cohesion level affects CR?
What am I missing?
Edit:
Missing small bits and parts of brain 
Okay, forget my desperately clawing onto an elements current cohesion level.
I am fairly certain that I've seen units--in supply units--with like around level 40 - 50 cohesion (max cohesion around 90) and the tool-tip says that they are recovering like between 1.0 and 1.5 cohesion per day. The next turn they are nor more or less in supply, but now at cohesion level 65 - 70 and the tool-tip says that they are gaining 2.0 or more cohesion per day.
What might account for this difference in CR?
I would add a feature that I really missed some time ago when gen. Grant besieged gen. A. S. Johnston in Nashville (TN).
I set orders for assaulting the structure and... SURPRISE!
The whole Confederate Army of Tennessee surrendered before Federals started the assault.
Great: Nashville conquered, an enemy army vanquished... Alright?
Not at all: Grant and his subordinates did not receive any praise nor increase their seniority, even if they captured Tennessee state capital and about 20,000 enemies whitout firing a single bullet.
It was really frustrating, so please correct this issue.
I set orders for assaulting the structure and... SURPRISE!
The whole Confederate Army of Tennessee surrendered before Federals started the assault.
Great: Nashville conquered, an enemy army vanquished... Alright?
Not at all: Grant and his subordinates did not receive any praise nor increase their seniority, even if they captured Tennessee state capital and about 20,000 enemies whitout firing a single bullet.
It was really frustrating, so please correct this issue.
challlenge wrote:I repost because no answer like yes or no
Battlefield Tactics allow the player to make decisions that can turn the tide of battle.
I give my source this time from Slitherine
slitherine.com/games/cw2_pc
Not direct link I get message "You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 5 posts or more."
So 3 times w missing.
My guess on this is that you will be allowed to play a "card" or something like that prior to battle (like "frontal assault", "envelopment", "defense in depth", etc) that will have an effect on the battle, but that there will be no actual tactical combat
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Topeka wrote:My guess on this is that you will be allowed to play a "card" or something like that prior to battle (like "frontal assault", "envelopment", "defense in depth", etc) that will have an effect on the battle, but that there will be no actual tactical combat
And that's ok too. There are lots of tactical level Civil War games out there, and I'm
sure more on the way. I play a strategy game for the grand strategy. That being said
it would be nice to inject a sort of "game plan" overview for an upcoming battle, a
council of war, if you will.
DrPostman wrote:And that's ok too. There are lots of tactical level Civil War games out there, and I'm
sure more on the way. I play a strategy game for the grand strategy. That being said
it would be nice to inject a sort of "game plan" overview for an upcoming battle, a
council of war, if you will.
I agree some would be good. But, let's not kid ourselves, any tactical level battle system would not satisfy us unless it was of a suitable grognard-y-ness. Like this:
http://www.wargameacademy.org/TSS/
So I'll take the current system, with maybe a little added flavor thrown in.
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
Topeka wrote:I agree some would be good. But, let's not kid ourselves, any tactical level battle system would not satisfy us unless it was of a suitable grognard-y-ness. Like this:
http://www.wargameacademy.org/TSS/
So I'll take the current system, with maybe a little added flavor thrown in.
Fair point. Never played that game but I wanted to. It was a monster, but not
as big a monster as Fire In The East. I got to see one turn of that game played
by 6 people and it took almost 3 hours to do. Huge map was set up in the
basement of a church one of the members belonged to. I've never seen a game
map that huge. IIRC it required about 4 of those big cafeteria size tables.
Found an image of the entire game map laid out:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/190638/fire-in-the-east?size=medium
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
-
Stauffenberg
- General
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
- Location: Montreal
- Contact: Website
Captain_Orso wrote:After some Real-World™ distractions and some time-out needed for pondering the many lengthy posts I'm convinced more than ever that Campaign-Points are not the answer to the question....
....These are really only tweaks, but they might go a long way in putting the game closer in-line with history and as far as I know, might not be difficult to implement. What da' ya reckon?
I would like to come at this issue from another angle, one that does not at all argue against any of the specific points you make regarding cohesion recovery and replacements (fortunately for me!
).
Rereading my initial post I realize I didn’t emphasize enough that I was out to talk about “Command Points”, or something like them, in conjunction with new supply depot dynamics. As things stand there is far too much leniency in what larger formations and stacks are actually able to do, and the penalties for doing the improbable are too light.
I think the best example I can give is Grant’s Richmond-Petersburg “siege” from June ’64 to late March ’65. Grant wanted to get at Richmond and cut Lee off from Richmond somehow and force him to battle. In his memoirs he states that his first idea was to have ten days of supplies in wagons and to cut loose from his main supply line and depots, moving down east of the Blue Ridge to the west of Lee. He would then swing to the East, moving to cut Lee off from Richmond. The most interesting thing he has to say here is that he would have done it if he had experience with the Army of the Potomac, but that in early 1864 there was no time for the command relationship to develop: he didn't know the AoP, and the AoP didn't know him.
That to me directly raises the issue of command initiative which I think could be effectively (and without massive complexity) be detailed as Command Points, or call it a given general's Command Initiative Rating, one that is always either increasing or decreasing turn by turn depending upon his activity or inactivity.
As it turned out Grant moved SE across the James after a series of battles, lured by the instant availability of a massive supply boost shipped in on the James to an upgraded harbour depot at City Point. The game really does model the superiority of river supply over RR and land very well. But then note how the campaign developed in this “siege” of Richmond-Petersburg.
[ATTACH]22986[/ATTACH]
In the first instance it was not a classic “siege” as the attached map shows: Lee and his positions were never surrounded. What we end up with is a massively fortified arc of positions from the north of Richmond to the south of Petersburg, a large inverted *C* some 50 miles long. Question: why didn’t Grant, with greatly superior forces and two entire Army commands north and south of the James attempt this? Clearly, all he had to do was effectively cut both the Southside RR into Petersburg, and the Richmond & Danville Line into Richmond, for Lee's entire position to become untenable. Grant knew this, but would not or could not do it and one has to wonder why. The answer is that his supply situation would degenerate drastically the further he got from his main supply head on the James, and that developing a major new supplyhead from Fredericksburg to the north would take too much time or was otherwise not feasible.
In game terms this situation is unlikely to occur as armies and their subordinate corps are only limited by a possible inactive stack, as the need for a developed and dedicated supply line to supply head is not articulated strongly enough. It is an immediate flaw I noticed from my first pbems: the skilled Union player will usually use a sort of “pawn-storm” offense with numerous mutually supporting corps stacks (with a supply wagon each of course) advancing and occupying large swathes of Virginia and certainly able to surround CSA positions in a manner that Grant himself was unable to do late in the war. There are various methods the CSA player can employ to thwart or even defeat this approach but the point I think is that the lack of CPs and more realistic supply constraints is at the root of the problem. Armies stayed as close to depots as they could get away with… or else they now and then loaded up with supplies and cut loose, but this was relatively rare, and it did not involve large constellations of corps churning on into enemy territory (Sherman's March to the Sea an exception). It also required an army commander-army relationship built up over time to allow for such an initiative.
A nice way to deal with this it seems to me is to have every Army Command (hereafter AC) generating CPs at a rate directly proportional to the strategic value of the general (obvious candidates for the fastest CP generation Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan etc.). Move the general to a new army or corps command and it is set to zero. ACs generate CPs in regions with depots or adjacent to regions with major depots (built on top of regular depots at for the same cost—4 more supply elements). Once you move the AC, engage in combat, or if any of its elements does MTSG, there is a CP cost. AC’s with zero CPs can still move attack and defend but all factors are reduced—in particular attack strengths are halved. Something like that.
Back to my example of Grant and the “siege” of Richmond-Petersburg, there would be compelling reasons for the Union player to have his two ACs adjacent to the major supply depot in City Point harbour on the James, but with loaded up supply wagons and CPs independent commands could be sent around both flanks in an attempt to surround Lee. As it stands now you just load up a corps with some supply wagons… and you are good to go.
I also raised the issue of developing some sort of “interception movement” on the part of ACs but will leave that for another post.
- Attachments
-
Couldnt you just try making the supply capacity of the wagon trains smaller and increase the foraging supply?
Drop the price of the wagons to the river transport level in money and WS, CSA should also have reduced conscript cost, we all know why.
Now increasing the wagon trains needed but limiting the number you can build these we limit the deep operations outside river supply and make you choose more where to use them.
The foraging part make it possible to "march to the sea" in rich areas and limits campaign seasons to more historical.
What do you think?
EDIT.
There is also an added benefit to this as the game uses 2 week turns.
You can actually use intelligence to see if the enemy is massing supply trains for an offensive, this gives you some way to react to him.
Same reason i dont understand the river movement button at all, in reality you would be massing your combat fleets and transports before river/naval movement.
The opponent should have a way to detect these preparations if he scouts you.
Drop the price of the wagons to the river transport level in money and WS, CSA should also have reduced conscript cost, we all know why.
Now increasing the wagon trains needed but limiting the number you can build these we limit the deep operations outside river supply and make you choose more where to use them.
The foraging part make it possible to "march to the sea" in rich areas and limits campaign seasons to more historical.
What do you think?
EDIT.
There is also an added benefit to this as the game uses 2 week turns.
You can actually use intelligence to see if the enemy is massing supply trains for an offensive, this gives you some way to react to him.
Same reason i dont understand the river movement button at all, in reality you would be massing your combat fleets and transports before river/naval movement.
The opponent should have a way to detect these preparations if he scouts you.
-
DrPostman
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
- Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube
How likely is it that the developers will incorporate a command point system as suggested,
especially with beta testing on the horizon? I like the idea. Something similar was done
with Victory Games The Civil War boardgame. Each player rolled 2 dice and the difference
between the numbers was the number of command points you could spend for that turn,
with the highest roller having the initiative and moving first.
especially with beta testing on the horizon? I like the idea. Something similar was done
with Victory Games The Civil War boardgame. Each player rolled 2 dice and the difference
between the numbers was the number of command points you could spend for that turn,
with the highest roller having the initiative and moving first.
"Ludus non nisi sanguineus"
-
challlenge
- Conscript
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:27 am
- Location: Troyan - Bulgaria
I know my comment here will probably be overlooked or ignored, but I gotta say it...
You guys are WAY over thinking and over indulging in this supply thing. What, is ACW 2 going to have to accurately represent every single piece of sausage or hard tack on each wagon? Are we going to get to counting shoes off loaded from supply ships? Guys, this is getting out of hand. I know the old military saying about amateurs studying strategy while professionals study logistics... but come on. This isn't the naval war college or West Point. We're talking about video games set in historical periods that we play for F-U-N. I'm not trying to encourage dumbing down a strategy game, but we're Rube Goldberg'ing the hell out of the supply issues related to the ACW games.
So far this thread alone has created enough graphs, charts, and percentages to keep an auditor or mathematician busy for years. If we're going that deep with supply realism in these games, how about just call it 'CIVIL WAR: QUARTERMASTER CAMPAIGNS 1861-1865' with smaller scenarios like '1864 - THE TROUBLE WITH SHOE COBBLERS'.
Someone should draw up a map for the grand campaign and fill it with nothing but supply wagons. With generals riding the lead horses around in big circles. Now that would get me laughing my well supplied butt off.
You guys are WAY over thinking and over indulging in this supply thing. What, is ACW 2 going to have to accurately represent every single piece of sausage or hard tack on each wagon? Are we going to get to counting shoes off loaded from supply ships? Guys, this is getting out of hand. I know the old military saying about amateurs studying strategy while professionals study logistics... but come on. This isn't the naval war college or West Point. We're talking about video games set in historical periods that we play for F-U-N. I'm not trying to encourage dumbing down a strategy game, but we're Rube Goldberg'ing the hell out of the supply issues related to the ACW games.
So far this thread alone has created enough graphs, charts, and percentages to keep an auditor or mathematician busy for years. If we're going that deep with supply realism in these games, how about just call it 'CIVIL WAR: QUARTERMASTER CAMPAIGNS 1861-1865' with smaller scenarios like '1864 - THE TROUBLE WITH SHOE COBBLERS'.
Someone should draw up a map for the grand campaign and fill it with nothing but supply wagons. With generals riding the lead horses around in big circles. Now that would get me laughing my well supplied butt off.
Captain_Orso wrote:Could it be that the current cohesion level affects CR?What am I missing?
The brigade/division cohesion toolotip can be misleading as it shows average cohesion recovery of brigade units. Since some units in it may already be at 100% cohesion, brigade tooltip would show lower average brigade cohesion recovery since it contains units with 0,0 cohesion recovery rate. The cohesion recovery rate of individual elements is not influenced by the brigade average.
Boomer wrote:I know my comment here will probably be overlooked or ignored, but I gotta say it...
You guys are WAY over thinking and over indulging in this supply thing. What, is ACW 2 going to have to accurately represent every single piece of sausage or hard tack on each wagon? Are we going to get to counting shoes off loaded from supply ships? Guys, this is getting out of hand. I know the old military saying about amateurs studying strategy while professionals study logistics... but come on. This isn't the naval war college or West Point. We're talking about video games set in historical periods that we play for F-U-N. I'm not trying to encourage dumbing down a strategy game, but we're Rube Goldberg'ing the hell out of the supply issues related to the ACW games.
So far this thread alone has created enough graphs, charts, and percentages to keep an auditor or mathematician busy for years. If we're going that deep with supply realism in these games, how about just call it 'CIVIL WAR: QUARTERMASTER CAMPAIGNS 1861-1865' with smaller scenarios like '1864 - THE TROUBLE WITH SHOE COBBLERS'.
Someone should draw up a map for the grand campaign and fill it with nothing but supply wagons. With generals riding the lead horses around in big circles. Now that would get me laughing my well supplied butt off.
You play the Union?
The most difficult thing for the Union in penetrating the South was SUPPLY.
That is the reason the wanted Mississippi and other rivers, that was the ONLY way to support big armies in Deep South.
That is the reason their main attack was not from Arizona, from Missouri route or over the Appalachian mountains, things you can easily do in the old game.
It is not an alternate strategy, it is an alternate reality.
Union wanted to take Mobile but as that failed , moving from Vicksburg trough Mississippi (state) towards Alabama was not very tempting, hence the Atlanta campaign.
Van Dorn, Forrest etc. convinced the Union that going deep via land was very risky.
Cutting the Union land supply is too difficult in the game, they dont really have to keep a lot of troops guarding depots, they dont even have have to build many depots!
Shermans march was possible trough rich Georgia where he could pillage and forage and they had supply waiting in the other end.
But to make that move even possible they needed Chattanooga and Cumberland.
Shiloh, Chickamauga and all the other battles are all connected to this strategic area.
Where did the Confederates move after the defeat in Shiloh?
As the Unions had the this area secured Sherman didnt really care about Hood marching in central Tennesee, he could not challenge the Cumberland.
Arkansas fell after they got to the river from Missisisippi, most notable failure was Western Louisiana and Texas, again they needed Red River, there is a clear pattern here.
The naval invasions are propably also too easy for the Union, they can move and support larger number of troops and supply than in reality.
They rarely attacked deep from the landings they made (EVER?), in Florida they where repulsed by partly militia forces late in the war.
Those landings where more to tie down forces, help with blockade and like in Shermans case, connect with the main invasion.
Even if this is too much realism for most, i hope these are easily modded to for us history buffs.
The new map is beautiful but i will be dissapointed if Grant attacks from New Mexico to Texas and Louisiana.
One thing about CSA general supply production that the old game missed was that Texas and Florida produced massive amounts of beef and crop for the CSA, both states also where not invaded as they were very difficult to conquer in real life.
Texas was actually a huge army camp with 50.000-100.000 men at arms at all times and military productions going on.
Texas captured federal armories and later bought machinery from foreign sources so they never where defeated in the field or by blockade, they just stopped when all others did so.
Something to think about.
Texas was actually a huge army camp with 50.000-100.000 men at arms at all times and military productions going on.
Texas captured federal armories and later bought machinery from foreign sources so they never where defeated in the field or by blockade, they just stopped when all others did so.
Something to think about.
-
Stauffenberg
- General
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 6:12 pm
- Location: Montreal
- Contact: Website
Boomer wrote:I know my comment here will probably be overlooked or ignored, but I gotta say it...
You guys are WAY over thinking and over indulging in this supply thing. What, is ACW 2 going to have to accurately represent every single piece of sausage or hard tack on each wagon? Are we going to get to counting shoes off loaded from supply ships? Guys, this is getting out of hand. I know the old military saying about amateurs studying strategy while professionals study logistics... but come on. This isn't the naval war college or West Point. We're talking about video games set in historical periods that we play for F-U-N. I'm not trying to encourage dumbing down a strategy game, but we're Rube Goldberg'ing the hell out of the supply issues related to the ACW games.
So far this thread alone has created enough graphs, charts, and percentages to keep an auditor or mathematician busy for years. If we're going that deep with supply realism in these games, how about just call it 'CIVIL WAR: QUARTERMASTER CAMPAIGNS 1861-1865' with smaller scenarios like '1864 - THE TROUBLE WITH SHOE COBBLERS'.
Someone should draw up a map for the grand campaign and fill it with nothing but supply wagons. With generals riding the lead horses around in big circles. Now that would get me laughing my well supplied butt off.
There are some three interest groups with AACW I think. Some are into the game simply for the fun of playing it (your group I take it). Others are into the game as a complex game to be studied and understood—figuring out what is under the hood is a direct challenge, and as this forum indicates, the challenge is ongoing years after AACW was originally released. And finally you get the history buffs like myself who are keen to see the game model history as realistically as possible. It's true--I am more interested in that aspect of things than "fun." In fact I am prepared to go through micro-management hell to get what I want out of it.
No one approach is better than the other, it’s all personal choice; but whatever one’s motives in playing AACW—the complexities of the game, the steep learning curve involved in mastering it, is not something you can avoid before it gets to be "fun." I've seen new players give up on it. This forum helps some of them to get through the difficulties of this particular game in dealing with all manner of arcane issues (supply, the combat system, naval dynamics, leadership issues).
I think the AACW forum is the largest and most active one they have, and it's in large measure due to long-winded threads like this one. In any case, re your "complaint"--reading long posts and figuring out graphs is not mandatory (yet).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests