CSA complaint about the game system based on a recent PBEM

[Gray Fox]

I'd rather lose an interesting game, than win a boring one. Now the John Connor in me will still skull drag the AI every chance I get, but PbEM is for enjoyment. Get off the beaten path. Take some chances. It's only a strategy game if you actually have a strategy, but be sporting. It's not like this is the World Wrestling Federation.

To the OP, did you use attrition in your game? In the actual CW, climate and disease killed more soldiers than bullets or bayonets did. Witout attrition, the Union can build a force of strength X, then 2X and 3X. With attrition, as soon as force X starts moving around, the production then must concentrate on replacement chits and those dreams of a super force vanish.

The Union had four times the population, six times the industry and more than twelve times the naval might versus the CSA. I don't think one can balance the game to redress this short of giving Lee a few panzer divisions. If both players do really good things, then the Union should not lose. Sooner or later, the CSA player is standing with King Leonidas and 300 Spartans.

[Rod Smart]

Perhaps a more recent example.


The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Germany declared war on America December 11, 1941

US made their first real attack on Japan on August 7 1942, and the battle wasn't totally "won" until February 9, 1943
US made their first real attack on German forces on November 8, 1942. They made their first real attack that could be described as "On to Berlin!" on June 6th 1944.



You could argue that mobilization was easier 80 years after the Civil War, and that the minor skirmishes and territorial gains in the early Civil War distracted the press and the homeland more than what happened in early 1942.

If FDR can sit back and mobilize for a year before doing anything, and two years before doing anything substantive, why can't Lincoln?

[Captain_Orso]

Nobody expect WWII to be over 6 months after the US joined in; it had already been going on for over 2 years in Europe and North Africa at that time, and nearly 10 if you include Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

For the US the fighting started on Sunday, December the 7th just before 7:00 am Hawaiian time. In December they also fought on Wake, Guam and the Philippians.

Both halves of WWII--from the US perspective--were all the way across the ocean and not at the door-step and it takes more than a couple of months to build up a navy. It takes years. Still, March '42 Tokyo bombed, May '42 - Battle of Coral Sea, June '42 - Battle of Midway, August '42 - Operation Watchtower and the landings on Guadalcanal.

The first thing the army had to do when war was declared was throw everything they had on equipment away, because they already knew that it was outdated. The Marines went in using post-world-war equipment.

I can find absolutely nothing about what you posted made any sense at all. If you want to argue about what political pressures were on the Union government then talk about the facts and don't whine about how FDR got to wait a couple of months longer in a war that had absolutely nothing in common with the US Civil War.

[elxaime]

I agree with all you have stated. It however says nothing of the differences the men in the field on each side were experiencing in '61 and '62. The Union soldiers knew their leaders were not as competent as the Southern leaders, they felt it on their own bodies and complained about it naming it directly for being the reason they were not going to fight as hard as they might as long as they were not being lead by competent leaders.

This was not universally true. Many Union leaders, even in 1861-1862, were widely respected and admired by their men. It depends on whom you talk to and diary entries are anecdotes. We have to be wary of turning anecdotes into generalizations. There were certainly Confederate leaders who experienced similar grousing (Bragg for example). And some went from hero to goat rather quickly based on events (Hooker, Early). The reverse happened with Lee (Granny Lee early on) and Grant (that he was always drunk) and Sherman (mental breakdown rumors). I realize this is art, not science, but game ratings, whether of units or generals, will always be subject to debate.

[elxaime]

Nobody expect WWII to be over 6 months after the US joined in; it had already been going on for over 2 years in Europe and North Africa at that time, and nearly 10 if you include Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

For the US the fighting started on Sunday, December the 7th just before 7:00 am Hawaiian time. In December they also fought on Wake, Guam and the Philippians.

Both halves of WWII--from the US perspective--were all the way across the ocean and not at the door-step and it takes more than a couple of months to build up a navy. It takes years. Still, March '42 Tokyo bombed, May '42 - Battle of Coral Sea, June '42 - Battle of Midway, August '42 - Operation Watchtower and the landings on Guadalcanal.

The first thing the army had to do when war was declared was throw everything they had on equipment away, because they already knew that it was outdated. The Marines went in using post-world-war equipment.

I can find absolutely nothing about what you posted made any sense at all. If you want to argue about what political pressures were on the Union government then talk about the facts and don't whine about how FDR got to wait a couple of months longer in a war that had absolutely nothing in common with the US Civil War.

I think the point was to be careful using hindsight to develop game rules and restrictions. I am not sure ensuring win/loss ratios as close to 50-50 as possible is needed to entice people to play. For many, it is just as satisfying to try and pull out a win against the odds.

[Z74]

The problem here is the game should try to simulate the real chances CSA had to pull the Union out of the war by achieving this through victories on the field and pressure on the Union morale and will to fight.
Perhaps the NM/VP concept could be rewritten so that loyalty affects more the supply/money production, some way to have the union go offensive or take real penalty but also some good bait for CSA to go offensive and stop camping.

Where the game actually fails is in the logistics.

I hate it that the Union can mobilize tens of thousands and bring them at virtually no cost, at lightspeed everywhere, disregarding state limitations, real movement speed/cohesion loss and number of locomotives.

Those units, next month, are concentrated in a single spot the CSA must defend but CSA can't move from VA, because its only hope lies in entrenchment. Provided the Union player is not too inexperienced, I think it's really impossible to win as CSA.

There are no instances in history of armies moving on rail... as far as I recall.

Moving a division was a huge logistical problem. Don't just think about the men, think about the guns, the supplies and ammo. The Union in AACW and CW2 can move thousands everywhere and at the same time but armies actually marched on roads for days, not on rail. Guys a unit of 1000 men takes an entire train to move from NY to Washington DC.

CSA didn't have to face this problem during CW, it was actually their advantage because they were on home ground... and this problem was the reason why many Union commanders had serious issues in offensive operations.

That is a MAJOR con to CSA moving because if CSA moves it loses entrenchment whereas Union can move freely... too freely, as I said.

CSA doesn't move -> Union has no pressure.

[ajarnlance]

The problem here is the game should try to simulate the real chances CSA had to pull the Union out of the war by achieving this through victories on the field and pressure on the Union morale and will to fight.
Perhaps the NM/VP concept could be rewritten so that loyalty affects more the supply/money production, some way to have the union go offensive or take real penalty but also some good bait for CSA to go offensive and stop camping.

Where the game actually fails is in the logistics.

I hate it that the Union can mobilize tens of thousands and bring them at virtually no cost, at lightspeed everywhere, disregarding state limitations, real movement speed/cohesion loss and number of locomotives.

Those units, next month, are concentrated in a single spot the CSA must defend but CSA can't move from VA, because its only hope lies in entrenchment. Provided the Union player is not too inexperienced, I think it's really impossible to win as CSA.

There are no instances in history of armies moving on rail... as far as I recall.

Moving a division was a huge logistical problem. Don't just think about the men, think about the guns, the supplies and ammo. The Union in AACW and CW2 can move thousands everywhere and at the same time but armies actually marched on roads for days, not on rail. Guys a unit of 1000 men takes an entire train to move from NY to Washington DC.

CSA didn't have to face this problem during CW, it was actually their advantage because they were on home ground... and this problem was the reason why many Union commanders had serious issues in offensive operations.

That is a MAJOR con to CSA moving because if CSA moves it loses entrenchment whereas Union can move freely... too freely, as I said.

CSA doesn't move -> Union has no pressure.

I think the Germans moved an entire army from the eastern front to the western front in WW1 after the Russians capitulated... but their rail network was probably better developed than the ones at the time of the CW... I do agree it seems too easy to move very large numbers of troops around... I guess that is where deep raids to destroy rail networks come into play... NB Forrest to the rescue

[Merlin]

The problem here is the game should try to simulate the real chances CSA had to pull the Union out of the war by achieving this through victories on the field and pressure on the Union morale and will to fight.
Perhaps the NM/VP concept could be rewritten so that loyalty affects more the supply/money production, some way to have the union go offensive or take real penalty but also some good bait for CSA to go offensive and stop camping.

Where the game actually fails is in the logistics.

I hate it that the Union can mobilize tens of thousands and bring them at virtually no cost, at lightspeed everywhere, disregarding state limitations, real movement speed/cohesion loss and number of locomotives.

Those units, next month, are concentrated in a single spot the CSA must defend but CSA can't move from VA, because its only hope lies in entrenchment. Provided the Union player is not too inexperienced, I think it's really impossible to win as CSA.

There are no instances in history of armies moving on rail... as far as I recall.

Moving a division was a huge logistical problem. Don't just think about the men, think about the guns, the supplies and ammo. The Union in AACW and CW2 can move thousands everywhere and at the same time but armies actually marched on roads for days, not on rail. Guys a unit of 1000 men takes an entire train to move from NY to Washington DC.

CSA didn't have to face this problem during CW, it was actually their advantage because they were on home ground... and this problem was the reason why many Union commanders had serious issues in offensive operations.

That is a MAJOR con to CSA moving because if CSA moves it loses entrenchment whereas Union can move freely... too freely, as I said.

CSA doesn't move -> Union has no pressure.

As the CSA I routinely rail entire corps all over the map because I invest in a strong depot network. The Union is also fighting with one hand and three fingers behind it's back. There were over 700,000 Union men in the field in 1862 and over 1,000,000 by 1864. In the game, the Union can at most keep a fighting force of 500,000 in the field by 1864, and that's if the player pulls every garrison unit. A few good Confederate raids and you're suddenly short about 120,000 of that total, so no, I think the game is extremely well balanced. Particularly given a Union player isn't going to make the same mistakes that were made in the war.

Moving armies are targets, not objects to counter. If a Confederate player takes long chances and makes daring raids just as his counterparts did, he can pull impressive victories and keep the Union at bay for a very long time, particularly since the NM disparity by mid to late 1862 is often well over 30 points.

[Durk]

I hate it that the Union can mobilize tens of thousands and bring them at virtually no cost, at lightspeed everywhere, disregarding state limitations, real movement speed/cohesion loss and number of locomotives.

Those units, next month, are concentrated in a single spot the CSA must defend but CSA can't move from VA, because its only hope lies in entrenchment. Provided the Union player is not too inexperienced, I think it's really impossible to win as CSA.

There are no instances in history of armies moving on rail... as far as I recall.

Actually, two corps, the XI and XII, of the Union Army of the Potomac were sent from Virginia to Chattanooga in time for the Battle of Lookout Mountain. Travel time by rail was right at one week for both corps. Total troops moved in this week, 30,000.

[Z74]

Actually, two corps, the XI and XII, of the Union Army of the Potomac were sent from Virginia to Chattanooga in time for the Battle of Lookout Mountain. Travel time by rail was right at one week for both corps. Total troops moved in this week, 30,000.

Oh I'm not saying you couldn't make it happen, what I am saying is that organizing the transfer takes more than rail points, it takes trains and locomotives.
If the Union did that, you may be certain it couldn't have happened elsewhere at the same time with other troops, unless trains and locomotives were available.

This is really a major issue in the game because the Union player can muster troops and also deliver them one by one to the same spot like there were that many trains and locomotives available.

It means he can build a new army, and a huge one, and have it appear anywhere at the border of CSA in just 1 turn. The next turn, the trains that took troops from one place to another, are back everywhere to do it all over again.
Naturally, no Union troop will ever starve or be unsupplied... that's more trains and locomotives appearing out of nowhere during the supply phase and they also are available again at the next turn.

How could the CSA player actually make a move in this situation, I wonder.

It's been in my wishlist for future patches for long and, believe me, I am fully aware it's by no mean an easy undertaking but I am sure it would greatly enhance the game.

[Captain_Orso]

Actually, you cannot make the historic move happen in the game. XI and XII Corps were in Northern Virgina before they were ordered west to Bolster Thomas at Chattanooga. Try making that moving by rail in one turn in the game, let alone 7 days as happened historically.

[Z74]

Orso, it's a bit more complex than that.

More in general, the game treats all resources as if they were built at national level and not at the state level... this is not just about the rail points that are unable to simulate locomotives and trains properly but also about manpower and war supplies. I am trying to make a long story short here.

If Lincoln calls for a draft, this draft doesn't take place in Washington DC but in all the individual states that adhered to the Union. While loyalty correctly affects the results of the draft in the game (the game is outstanding at doing ALL it does, except the issue I've called for), the volounteers go into a national pool and not in a state pool. As a result, the Union player can use ALL of those men to recruit new units in the same state, for example, NY.

The whole nation is drafting but YOU decide where these men appear, with little to no limitation to the difficulties of the recruitment and training centers.

It means bring all the guns in the nation, all the ammo, all the uniforms, all the horses, all the food, all in that one place, by train.

That includes men coming from California for example and it doesn't look like the state actually takes a hit in its supply consumption because the rail points also push supplies in the supply phase.
It's those trains and locomotives again.

The same can be said about replacements.

The game allows you to build replacements in a national pool and then shuffle them anywhere on map (provided the requisites to receive them are met). I really don't think a man enlisted in KY would fight in a Bde built in MA.

The issue of manpower means that if you capture southern cities, say, New Orleans, the CSA player loses those manpower points but he can still use the rest of his manpower points, at national level, to replace losses in LA like this didn't mean "enlist in TN and replace in LA" which was basically impossible.

Again, a train will spawn out of nowhere allowing you to recruit in TN and send units to LA anyway.

Another thing is about War Supply, which also follows the same concept.

With WSU stored at national level, you can build (or buy replacement) in a place, say TX, despite Dallas and Galveston being in the hands of the Union because you can draw the WSU required from the national pool.
Again... we assume a train, during the supply phase, brought the WSU to that place.

This negates the importance of territorial conquest (take out the local resources to prevent the enemy from taking replacements or from building new units in that area) as well as territorial control (isolate the place by blocking/raiding rail lines so it can't receive WSU. WSU should be in the place the unit needs to be built).

Now, I am sorry if even by trying to make a long story short, I've ended up to build a big post... but it is a complex issue.

When you port this concept to the Union you can see the limitations it had with logistics are fooled by the nationwide pool of resources. The fact CSA plays by the same rules doesn't help much because it plays on home ground and historically had a lot less problems, so what the game ends up doing is to give a huge advantage to the Union player by removing the logistical problems it had to face (which in most cases were the reasons why it had problems in offensive campaigning) and it doesn't help CSA much since those problems the Union should have, are the only thing that gives CSA the chance to take initiative and go offensive.

Unfortunately it's not an issue that can be solved by tweaking down the rail/river points. I think we need state-based pools.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, it is true that the game basically ignores building forces at the state level. The engine doesn't deal with that issue at all.

To do this with the current engine at the most basic level, each state would have to be its own faction closely allied with each other and the federal government faction. States could only build units if the state had enough CC to build those, and some system would have to be devised so that some states would not be overly called upon to raise troops while other states were not. The troops thus raised could then be federalized and given to the federal faction to control, otherwise they should not be allowed to leave their home states. Replacements would then also have to be divided up so that they only went to their own state's units.

This would also fix one of my pet peeves, which is that there are the types of units are limited. There are only so many [X][X][*][/] that can be built, and these only in PA and OH (for the North). If there were a system to even out where units must be built, there would be no need for restricting the number of a specific type of unit to be built in a specific state, because that would be regulated by when each state could build unit's in general.

I think that GS and Ammo produced in the individual states could be considered to be purchased by the federal government with their production. Otherwise you would have to have a system which on the one side took taxes from the states to then purchase the GS and Ammo being produced in those states, which would be a 'take from one pocket to put it into the other pocket' system and basically have not actual meaning to the game.

So the greatest issue that I see is the balance of building troops between the individual states.

[Z74]

There are ways though to represent this behavior. I think the easiest way to invert this current course of managing resources (all resources) is to use the ledger presidential options.

I'll give an examples of how I would do it.

Manpower: Sign act that transfers 10 (the number is an example but it should be a little number) manpower from one state to another.
Signing this act should cost money, war supply, riverine and rail points (used for the transfer). The act should also impact the loyalty and overall resource production of the affected states for 3 months (again this number is an example).

This can also be used for supplies and war supplies (supplies would be transferred from capital to capital) but it doesn't address the overall capability of rail/riverine points where, however, a serious tweakdown would already be a great improvement, in my opinion.

It's been a few months since I last played CW2 and I am not up to date on development and/or work on new patches but if there's a chance, I say this feature would solve a lot of problems.

[grimjaw]

Manpower: Sign act that transfers 10 (the number is an example but it should be a little number) manpower from one state to another.
Signing this act should cost money, war supply, riverine and rail points (used for the transfer). The act should also impact the loyalty and overall resource production of the affected states for 3 months (again this number is an example).

Is the goal to add levels of resource management into the game that aren't there now, or do you want to have it calculated a different way? What you are describing seems to add complexity that as a player I have to account for. It doesn't seem that it will make it ultimately any more difficult for the Union player, while the CSA (states right to the detriment of all) will suffer even greater penalties. I'm not objecting, I just want to make sure I understand where you're going.

[ohms_law]

It doesn't seem that it will make it ultimately any more difficult for the Union player, while the CSA (states right to the detriment of all) will suffer even greater penalties.

There really ought to be more of this sort of thing in the game, since you're bringing it up.

[Rod Smart]

The thing Z74 is asking for already exists.

Forces available by state are limited by the units available for recruitment.


As the Union, I'd love to be able to build a powerhouse corps in the far west and march across Texas. But with the units available, I can barely field a full division of militia.
As the Union, I'd do a much better job holding Missouri and keeping raiders out of Iowa if I could have some of those [X][X][X][*][/] brigades in Kansas. But the only things eligible for recruitment are easily swept aside by any sizable force.
As the Union, I should properly garrison West Virginia to keep the South from sneaking into Ohio every summer. But the units available for recruitment are so bad, and the areas where recruitment are allowed are so spread out, that I don't bother recruiting any WV units.

[Captain_Orso]

The thing Z74 is asking for already exists.

Forces available by state are limited by the units available for recruitment.

Yes, but CC's are being raise throughout all of the country in all of states. Playing the Union, early in the war I build 90% of my units in PA, OH, IL and MO. Only when I've run out of the unit types I need for the mix I want in my divisions, do I start building in IA, WI, MI, IN, WV, MD, DE, NJ, CT, MA, etc.

As the Union, I'd love to be able to build a powerhouse corps in the far west and march across Texas. But with the units available, I can barely field a full division of militia.

Send Siegel into NM.

- Build a militia unit (don't forget the militia cavalry).
- Give Siegel your militia (including the cavalry) to train them up to line infantry.
- As soon as they are line inf./regular cavalry, the militia unit you purchased will return to the build pool.
- Redo from start.

For artillery you will have to make do with what you get, what you move from the West Coast and what you can move from MO/KS/IA.

As the Union, I'd do a much better job holding Missouri and keeping raiders out of Iowa if I could have some of those [X][X][X][*][/] brigades in Kansas. But the only things eligible for recruitment are easily swept aside by any sizable force.
As the Union, I should properly garrison West Virginia to keep the South from sneaking into Ohio every summer. But the units available for recruitment are so bad, and the areas where recruitment are allowed are so spread out, that I don't bother recruiting any WV units.

The [X][X][/] can build in MO and IL, WI and MI (I think) can have a third [X] combined into them. They will require the same in CP's (it's actually inflated for the unit which you buy), but be nearly 25% more powerful.

If you really want them there, build your [X][X][X][*][/] in western NY and rail then into MO. They require 4 CP's as they are though, so in general you are probably better off building small divisions with 2 leaders (no CP penalty) and what you can build in MO and IL or where ever you can get the units you need. Add a couple of artillery and you're good to go.

[Z74]

What I am saying is that the game is supposed to account for resources at state by state level instead of national level.

Resources: Money, Manpower (both for recruitment and for replacements), Rail points, Riverine points, WS, Supply, Ammo, conscript points, loyalty (it is a resource and you'll see how and why when you read below).

Careful here because this is important: All of these resources right now are built locally (with the exception of train/riverine points) but they all end in a national pool (with the exception of supply, ammo and WSU).

So, essentially, the production centers of these resources are the towns whose strategic value is secondary, in view of the current system that allows you to bypass the loss of a settlement by using the national pool.

Needing to handle things at state level, the player will sooner or later be called to choose the presidential order to TRANSFER resources from one state to the other and this order comes at a cost (obviously you can't transfer loyalty).

Such decision, should take into account a cost in resources (to be paid to perform the transfer) and this cost should be affected by Side, Distance, Loyalty, NM.
These 4 modifiers should be predetermined but moddable (how each affects the total cost of the transfer) but, as a general rule, there should be a % for success, a % for partial failure (part of these resources is lost) and a % of failure.
The global % computation should be ultimately modified by state loyalty.

I'm sure you understand this is critical with replacements but it works with ALL resources.



Let's come to a highly needed missing resource: Transports (Rail and Riverine).

Investments in these important resources should be performed via ledger option (similar to industrialization but here, again, this decision should be at state level not department level).

Right now a successful stimulus builds an entity that produces resources locally but it is born from a presidential decision at national level (it is important that such entity may be destroyed by the enemy. I'm talking of the factories).
Transport points (Rail and Riverine must be treated separately in ledger options), should work the same.

By presidential decision you push money so that a state may invest in new boats/piers or trains/rails/coal/spare parts/locomotives.
This time, those points go to a newly spawned local entity (which is not visible like a factory because it's a train or a boat), but it generates points at state level and not to a national transport pool.
If this invisible entity could be captured (like supply and ammo) and added to the closest enemy state capital at no cost it would be grand. It means you could actually STEAL a train/boat and add it to your capital state pool and, later, you can transfer it and employ it where you most need it).

When a Unit/Stack moves, it is from the state it begins its move that those rail points are deducted and the remaining of those state points are used to shuffle supply in that state and that state alone.
When unit/supply/ammo gets to new state, the new state pool takes over at next turn as the train it took them there goes back to where it came from.

Transport points, like all other resources (except loyalty) CAN be transferred.

Resources coming from trade/blockade running should be split with a moddable % going to the nation's capital and the rest split between all state pools of that side (spawn at capital).


Conclusion and end goal: I'm trying to show you the possibility of building a game within the game, with deeper choices at all levels and where the offensive initiative has immediate political, strategic and practical consequences.


I am positive the team has the cards to do this but as I said from the beginning, it's a sort of a revolution that may not be doable "on the run".
However, given the DEV House record, such a thing could be ported in all past and future games, so I'd think it over because it's an investment that will prove useful in the future.

[grimjaw]

- Build a militia unit (don't forget the militia cavalry).
- Give Siegel your militia (including the cavalry) to train them up to line infantry.
- As soon as they are line inf./regular cavalry, the militia unit you purchased will return to the build pool.
- Redo from start.

This formula works and I do it all the time, but it's very gamey and I would like it changed. Just because volunteers became more experienced or learned how to drill and muster did not mean that more people enlisted nor that more corn and pigs were available to feed them. I would like it if there was some calculation made for total units on the board for a faction, and that couldn't be exceeded. Total units might change over time, but the training gimmck (or merging two militia into a mini-brigade) would no longer be ripe for abuse. It's especially powerful for the Union, because the CSA gets only one trainer for conscripts (Taylor), while the Union gets three and can afford to sit generals on the sidelines.

By presidential decision you push money so that a state may invest in new boats/piers or trains/rails/coal/spare parts/locomotives.

What about rail lines and companies that spanned more than one state? Many of us don't use the riverine points for unit travel, but think of the boats plying the Mississippi. Can these be said to belong to one state?

I wouldn't mind seeing aspects of regional politics and resources brought into the game, but it could get really hairy. I think I'd definitely start feeling like Lincoln after awhile, who 'could never get at the tired spot.'

[Z74]

What about rail lines and companies that spanned more than one state? Many of us don't use the riverine points for unit travel, but think of the boats plying the Mississippi. Can these be said to belong to one state?

I wouldn't mind seeing aspects of regional politics and resources brought into the game, but it could get really hairy. I think I'd definitely start feeling like Lincoln after awhile, who 'could never get at the tired spot.'

Both transport point types must be built locally (after presidential decision of stimulus or by event) and build points to be used at state level so that the starting point of the movement decides which state is paying.
You CAN transfer these points from one state to another just like with all other resources.

Unfortunately this is a needed level of abstraction, unless you wanted to build and manage trains and boats at individual level. I don't think it would be a good idea.

[grimjaw]

Unfortunately this is a needed level of abstraction, unless you wanted to build and manage trains and boats at individual level. I don't think it would be a good idea.

So as long as its the abstraction that *you* want it's OK.

There are tons of features or facets that people would like in the game. This one isn't working for me, so I'll drop out of this thread.

[Z74]

So as long as its the abstraction that *you* want it's OK.

There are tons of features or facets that people would like in the game. This one isn't working for me, so I'll drop out of this thread.

And what would you propose, to leave things like this and have completely abstract system of points, managed at national level (so that you can move, recruit, replace and deliver anything anywhere at any time), or you'd rather have the game build individual trains and boats (to be handled one by one by the player like the ordinary units)?

I neither understand your objection nor your counter suggestion, to be honest.

[pgr]

To do this with the current engine at the most basic level, each state would have to be its own faction closely allied with each other and the federal government faction. States could only build units if the state had enough CC to build those, and some system would have to be devised so that some states would not be overly called upon to raise troops while other states were not. The troops thus raised could then be federalized and given to the federal faction to control, otherwise they should not be allowed to leave their home states. Replacements would then also have to be divided up so that they only went to their own state's units.

Of course that would make things much more complicated for the game engine to deal with right? We would be upping the number of factions from what 5 or 6 (USA, CSA, GB, France, Mexico, Spain, and the indians) to like 30+. How would a depot network work? I'm assuming factions supply stocks don't "share." I'm assuming the state factions would have to be under AI control? (With only the "Federal Government" being human playable?) Would that mean largely having the AI do recruiting? How would the replacement system function?

I can understand why the game designers elected to have just single pools for WS, Manpower and $$. and unitary factions.

I suppose one could mod the force pools of each state down to roughly match historical state quotas, but it is a bit heavy handed.

[Z74]

Of course that would make things much more complicated for the game engine to deal with right? We would be upping the number of factions from what 5 or 6 (USA, CSA, GB, France, Mexico, Spain, and the indians) to like 30+.

Definitely not: Post #108
The player controls TRANSFER of all resources at presidential level but these resources would be built LOCALLY and used LOCALLY unless transfer is chosen.
Transfer option brings to Panel:

Resource -> From -> To -> Cost computed, % of success/partial success/failure computed -> Sign transfer act. Transfer takes place during supply phase (but it's independent from any other thing and doesn't follow rules or limitations. It just follows the "die roll").

There are no new factions, it's only the pool that goes from National only to National + states pools (national takes % of state production of resources + trade).

How would a depot network work? I'm assuming factions supply stocks don't "share." I'm assuming the state factions would have to be under AI control? (With only the "Federal Government" being human playable?) Would that mean largely having the AI do recruiting? How would the replacement system function?

Nothing changes under the supply phase or recruiting/replacements aspect.
Those resources are built locally (in individual depots and settlements) and they would be pushed using transport points (rail and riverine), available at their starting location from that state's transport points pool. At the end of the supply phase, the supply and ammo that have arrived to a new state, will be delivered using that new state's transport points.

As of replacements, a drop down menu can allow the player to select which state pool is being used to buy them. Naturally, only units in that state are entitled to receive those replacements.
No need for panel with recruitment, as long as the resources spent are being used from the state's pool the unit will appear unrecruitable if resource required in that state is lacking.

I suppose one could mod the force pools of each state down to roughly match historical state quotas, but it is a bit heavy handed.

The national pool and the local production centers that build it, is based on figures the guys most certainly computed from history books.
The only change here is that those figures should be delivered from Houston to TX and not from Houston to CSA national pool (where you can use them to build a Brig in Norfolk, for example).

The player is just entitled to MANAGE these resources to send them to the state he needs them to be.
Something not needed right now since all resources are built locally but delivered to the national pool where they can be used anywhere again.

[Captain_Orso]

Of course that would make things much more complicated for the game engine to deal with right? We would be upping the number of factions from what 5 or 6 (USA, CSA, GB, France, Mexico, Spain, and the indians) to like 30+. How would a depot network work? I'm assuming factions supply stocks don't "share." I'm assuming the state factions would have to be under AI control? (With only the "Federal Government" being human playable?) Would that mean largely having the AI do recruiting? How would the replacement system function?

I can understand why the game designers elected to have just single pools for WS, Manpower and $$. and unitary factions.

I suppose one could mod the force pools of each state down to roughly match historical state quotas, but it is a bit heavy handed.

LOL I wasn't even thinking about supply distribution.

Look, the only things that really makes sense to me are:

1. CC's are raised and 'stored' per state. If Smuddlevania has raised CC's this and previous turns so that it now has 25 CC's, so Smuddlevania can now build units and 'buy' replacements needing up to 25 CC's in that turn.

2. Naval units should probably not have to take their CC's from the state where the boats/ships are to be built.

3. You should never have to worry about sending resources from one location to another. That's the concern of the companies we are paying to deliver us equipment.

4. There should be a rule to regulate building units more-or-less balanced per state relative to each state's pool and how many CC each stated raises per turn. EG: if PA has 30 CC's in its pool and raises 15 per turn. VT has 50 CC's in their pool and raises 10 per turn. VT should have to build unit some units before PA may build units again. Otherwise you'd have to have penalties in both states.

Resources other than CC's should never be restricted to be used where needed, as long the unit building and resource producing locations are accessible to each other.

Investing in factories should not be nearly as expensive as it is now. Maybe setting up an armory might cost more than paying a steel mill to produce iron for armor for ironclads, because the government would have to pay for everything--land, buildings, management--to build and armory. The iron mill already exists. They're just haven't been making iron for the federal government of yet, or a Smith & Wesson would need to invest in new machines to gear up and produce as many pistols we want to buy from them.

My suggestion of 1 faction per state was very un-thought-through and more to illustrate what kind of work it would take to CC's raised and stored at a state level. It's a lot of work to figure out how things should work to reflect the individual states raising to volunteers and conscripts and even more to implement. I don't expect to ever see anything like it.

[Rod Smart]

Send Siegel into NM.

- Build a militia unit (don't forget the militia cavalry).
- Give Siegel your militia (including the cavalry) to train them up to line infantry.
- As soon as they are line inf./regular cavalry, the militia unit you purchased will return to the build pool.
- Redo from start.

For artillery you will have to make do with what you get, what you move from the West Coast and what you can move from MO/KS/IA.

man that's dirty



I like it

[Z74]

1. CC's are raised and 'stored' per state. If Smuddlevania has raised CC's this and previous turns so that it now has 25 CC's, so Smuddlevania can now build units and 'buy' replacements needing up to 25 CC's in that turn.

Just to clarify, I am saying if Petersburg builds 10 CC and Richmond builds 15CC per turn, you can build 25CC units in Norfolk (or anywhere else in VA and only in VA).

2. Naval units should probably not have to take their CC's from the state where the boats/ships are to be built.

Still to clarify, of course they should.
But do remember that aside from the transfer option, a % of each state's income is delivered to the federal government (represented by the national pool of resources). As of trade, it is split among all states (and here again a % is delivered to the federal government and its national pool).

3. You should never have to worry about sending resources from one location to another. That's the concern of the companies we are paying to deliver us equipment.

Of course you should. As a matter of fact in most cases, you couldn't do it due to the Military Control or lack of trains/boats, this is a big CON in the game right now... in any case, we are NOT paying for these transfers right now.

4. There should be a rule to regulate building units more-or-less balanced per state relative to each state's pool and how many CC each stated raises per turn. EG: if PA has 30 CC's in its pool and raises 15 per turn. VT has 50 CC's in their pool and raises 10 per turn. VT should have to build unit some units before PA may build units again. Otherwise you'd have to have penalties in both states.

That sounds reasonable but, actually, in case of a state by state pool all resources would have to be re-examined and attached to more precise historical data on local resource production (including conscript points of course). It may well turn out some states had a lot less production than right now in the game, which had then to be rebalanced to make up for the abstraction provided by the national pool system. In other words, you may find yourself a lot shorter than the excess you mentioned and really need to call drafts in some states because you do not have manpower or can't afford to perform a close transfer. Anyway, yes, yours is a very reasonable proposal.

Resources other than CC's should never be restricted to be used where needed, as long the unit building and resource producing locations are accessible to each other.

Of course they should be restricted. You shouldn't be allowed to build a gun in Atlanta if Georgia's foundries have no War Supply.

Investing in factories should not be nearly as expensive as it is now. Maybe setting up an armory might cost more than paying a steel mill to produce iron for armor for ironclads, because the government would have to pay for everything--land, buildings, management--to build and armory. The iron mill already exists. They're just haven't been making iron for the federal government of yet, or a Smith & Wesson would need to invest in new machines to gear up and produce as many pistols we want to buy from them.

Yes I agree, it's so expensive it would be a better investment if purchased abroad, rather than invested, right now.
I think the USA should be tweaked down with all resources actually.

My suggestion of 1 faction per state was very un-thought-through and more to illustrate what kind of work it would take to CC's raised and stored at a state level. It's a lot of work to figure out how things should work to reflect the individual states raising to volunteers and conscripts and even more to implement. I don't expect to ever see anything like it.

No I don't think so, it is simple enough also for the AI to handle, at least the way I proposed it.
Eh, hell no, I don't expect to ever see anything like it either, which is sad, because therein lies the chance to make the campaigns more dynamic.

[veji1]

to me the key should be to find a simple way to encourage ACTION in the game, the players know how history went, how with time the Union becomes a steamroller. But the game dynamic should still encourage aggressive action from both and more so from the Union. I just want the game to make 61 and 62 fun to play, with those sweeping campaigns we saw in the game.

And fix the NM hits for battles and surrenders !

[Captain_Orso]

Just to clarify, I am saying if Petersburg builds 10 CC and Richmond builds 15CC per turn, you can build 25CC units in Norfolk (or anywhere else in VA and only in VA).

Yes, this. I though I was clear on that. Don't you know that Smuddlevania is the state between Pennsylvania and West Virginia?

Still to clarify, of course they should.
But do remember that aside from the transfer option, a % of each state's income is delivered to the federal government (represented by the national pool of resources). As of trade, it is split among all states (and here again a % is delivered to the federal government and its national pool).

Actually, federal government gets money through taxes, not goods. The states (cities and regions within each) should actually have a capacity to produce GS and WSU, which the feds should be able to procure. The iron mills of Pittsburgh and Cleveland got their ore from places like the west of Michigan's Upper Peninsula and North-Eastern Minnesota. The player should not be concerned about this at all; only that Cleveland and Pittsburgh produce iron for producing WSU.

If they can't produce enough to meet the need, the feds might invest in some iron mills to allow them to increase their production. But that shouldn't cost as much as it does now. In fact, if the feds are buying up nearly everything the iron mills produce, that alone should spurn them to invest in their own facilities. But this is really getting deep into the politics of the time. I'm sure there were always owners of such companies who knew to pump the feds for investments, even if they didn't necessarily need those funds.

Of course you should. As a matter of fact in most cases, you couldn't do it due to the Military Control or lack of trains/boats, this is a big CON in the game right now... in any case, we are NOT paying for these transfers right now.

I'm sure the federal government was not concerned with where a wagon builder got his wood, just that he could deliver the wagons he sold.

If you want to break the economy down into where what raw resources were produced that could be a stand-alone game just as complex as CW2 is, and one without historical president. The federal government do not regulate where raw materials might be procured by companies to build things they wished to sell.

That sounds reasonable but, actually, in case of a state by state pool all resources would have to be re-examined and attached to more precise historical data on local resource production (including conscript points of course). It may well turn out some states had a lot less production than right now in the game, which had then to be rebalanced to make up for the abstraction provided by the national pool system. In other words, you may find yourself a lot shorter than the excess you mentioned and really need to call drafts in some states because you do not have manpower or can't afford to perform a close transfer. Anyway, yes, yours is a very reasonable proposal.

Of course they should be restricted. You shouldn't be allowed to build a gun in Atlanta if Georgia's foundries have no War Supply.

The game doesn't necessarily do that. The game builds units. Look at the history. 4 of the first City Class Ironclad the Union built were built in Mound City, IL, right next to Cairo. Neither place produced iron for the armor nor had foundries to forge their guns. They were produced elsewhere and transported to Mound City.

Yes I agree, it's so expensive it would be a better investment if purchased abroad, rather than invested, right now.
I think the USA should be tweaked down with all resources actually.

If that were an option, it might be the cheaper.

No I don't think so, it is simple enough also for the AI to handle, at least the way I proposed it.
Eh, hell no, I don't expect to ever see anything like it either, which is sad, because therein lies the chance to make the campaigns more dynamic.

I'm not sure, but CW2 is probably the only game from AGEod that should probably have reason for dealing with the politics of a large number of states under one government. Maybe WIA too, but I don't know that game really either . So there's really not incentive to implement a more realistic handling of this issue.