Ageod American Civil War 2!

[Stauffenberg]

I'm sure it has been discussed elsewhere, but one of the interesting things about AACW is the geomorphic variable polygon regions used for the map grid. There can be 6 adjacent regions often enough, but it can range from 5 to 8-sided as well--or less for regions by the ocean. The Atlanta region for example forms a pentagon, whereas some very interesting regions like Culpeper VA form an octagon (and which is a very good reason in my present pbem for Grant's main army to be positioned there, with 8 points of egress available).

Corinth also has 8, and while I have not searched extensively, there is at least one 9-sided polygon region in Lexington NC (Forsythe region). One can easily adduce that, in general, your armies gain in their strategic potency the higher the polygonal-sided region it resides in, and that a lower count perforce limits your options. Certainly a high count makes you much harder to surround, and a lower count leaves you more vulnerable.

Add to this variable grid the asymmetrical insertion of riverine or naval elements along polygonal sides that also happen to be rivers or bodies of water, and things get even more interesting and complex.

I assume this situation will continue in AACW2 if not become even more complex.

[DrPostman]

The new map makes it appear as if they are keeping regions as they are but adding much more terrain. The first time I
played the game I was a bit put off by moving from region to region, but that's because I'm an old grognard who is used
to hexagonal grid maps. Now I can't imagine playing the game any other way. Back then those regions were like states are
to us now. When the civil war happened many counties actually attempted to set up their own independent governments
and avoid having anything to do with the war. There was almost a East Tennessee state like there was with West Virginia.
And then there was the central Missouri "Kingdom of Callaway":
http://www.kchsoc.org/legend.html

[Wraith]

@Jerzul: Honestly, no this won't be a feature. Too complex and against our will to on the contrary streamline the game.

Could I get more clarification on that response? I got that the answer is "No" to a brigade-builder, but I'm fuzzy on the second sentence.

I'd have recommended not even a brigade builder, but even something like breaking things out into a certain number of regiments can be raised from the various states... so, instead of every state having several different brigade types of infantry, militia, cavalry or artillery, that there would just be a limit to how many regiments can be raised from where and when. This would skip the brigade level entirely (which, I might add, were rather ad-hoc as much of the OOB was anyways) and allow the straight production of divisions once allowed.

EDIT:

Please a) don't flame me for borrowing the screenshot as I'm in the middle of reinstalling the game, and b) disregard the notations on it as I'm just trying to illustrate what I mean above:

This is the current recruitment screen for ACW. Note that there are several different brigade sizes and compositions for several states.


What I'd have recommended is getting rid of all of that, and instead build just by regiments... thus, maybe instead of four different tabs with eight-to-nine separate ways of presenting the information, you'd have just one screen with every state and a list of what could be built, for instance:

1861
VIRGINIA: 25 INF (+1 / -1) 12 CAV (+1 / -1) 5 ARTY (+1 / -1)
N. CAROLINA: ## INF ## CAV, etc

Which, to me, would simplify essentially all calculations regarding how much I'm going to have to spend and what my leadership usage will require.. not to mention probably make it easier on Athena.

[Ace]

Recruiting regiments and then grouping them into brigades on game map adds to micromanagement, and that is not a good thing. On a contrary, recruiting brigades with their historic names adds to the flavor of the game.

[aryaman]

I wonder if a proper PBEM system will be added. I mean one in which you can send a single file to your opponent. It would be a cheat prove system if the system is made so that, in the first turn you plot your movements, then send the file. Your opponent plot his movements, then send the file, I open the file and then the turn is executed, then I plot my movements and send the second turn...

[Wraith]

Recruiting regiments and then grouping them into brigades on game map adds to micromanagement, and that is not a good thing. On a contrary, recruiting brigades with their historic names adds to the flavor of the game.

I do not agree.

I spend more time calculating which brigades are:
- Have X amount of infantry
- Have sufficient artillery
- Have sufficient cavalry/recon assets
- Where they might be built
- How long it will take them to assemble and get into the fight

Etc, and what they're good for than I do actually playing the game. My suggestion would decrease time spent micro'ing, because I just count up the necessary units, lump 'em together and bam, division. I just fail to see how that makes things harder.

[Stauffenberg]

Recruiting regiments and then grouping them into brigades on game map adds to micromanagement, and that is not a good thing. On a contrary, recruiting brigades with their historic names adds to the flavor of the game.

Agreed. And I would reiterate the idea of adding state flags on the counters of those bdes that are not mixed (state-wise) and fine-tuning some effects to be had from that--eg. CSA Virginia bdes get a +/- effect for being deployed in Virginia or outside of respectively. Perhaps leaders as well.

[Ace]

I wonder if a proper PBEM system will be added. I mean one in which you can send a single file to your opponent. It would be a cheat prove system if the system is made so that, in the first turn you plot your movements, then send the file. Your opponent plot his movements, then send the file, I open the file and then the turn is executed, then I plot my movements and send the second turn...

I don't know if that would be easy to program, but the idea is good.

Even better idea in which sending 2 e-mails per turn would be avoided. I plot the movements and send the file with the password. My opponent puts the file in save game folder but he cannot read them without the password (obviously the system can read them during turn execution even without the password). He executes the turn, and cannot reload it (return to previous turn) without the password incorporated within my save game.

[Jerzul]

Recruiting regiments and then grouping them into brigades on game map adds to micromanagement, and that is not a good thing. On a contrary, recruiting brigades with their historic names adds to the flavor of the game.

How exactly is grouping individual regiments together into Brigades (which only really happens until Divisions are formed) any more difficult then building the cumbersome pre-set brigades into fighting divisions? I think it would be way easier to simply recruit 11 Infantry, 1 Cav, 4 Art, and 1SS multiplied by the number of divisions I'm trying to create (and then be able to mix and match them as needed) rather than recruit two 2I1A BDE, one 3I1C1A BDE, two 2I BDE, one SS reg and two Art and then make sure that those particular BDE's end up where I need them to form my divisions.

I simply do not agree that it is any more difficult to use a system of individual regiments rather than pre-set and oddly organized brigades that are currently in the game. Let's be honest, what is the point of all of the 2I1C union divisions in the western states? They are not very useful on their own because there is almost never a reason to have infantry attached to cavalry outside of a division. I would much rather be able to just field those cav regiments separately.

@Jerzul: Honestly, no this won't be a feature. Too complex and against our will to on the contrary streamline the game.

I understand your first sentence Pocus, but I do not know what you mean by "Too Complex and against our will to on the contrary streamline the game". Do you mean that you don't want to streamline the game? But then why did you call it "Too Complex"? Wouldn't it be "streamlining" to make regiments build-able not brigades? In-fact, isn't it historical to build via regiments? The States did not call for people to form Brigades, but to form Regiments? I'm not a programmer, but individual regiments are already coded into the game aren't they? I can already build single regiments of every type of unit already, so why not just break up all of the old brigades?

A little clarification would be appreciated, Pocus.

Agreed. And I would reiterate the idea of adding state flags on the counters of those bdes that are not mixed (state-wise) and fine-tuning some effects to be had from that--eg. CSA Virginia bdes get a +/- effect for being deployed in Virginia or outside of respectively. Perhaps leaders as well.

On a contrary, recruiting brigades with their historic names adds to the flavor of the game.

I am not advocating removing the "Historical" brigades. Those are ALL added by event and should stay that way to add flavor and fun. Also, the idea of State-specific bonuses could easily be incorporated on the regiment level, with individual regiments getting state flags, or all-one state divisions doing the same thing.

I hope I have made myself clear, and understand that this will probably not change AACW II, but I think the point needs to be made.

[Ace]

You have made your argument rather well. I guess, it comes down to personal taste of every player. I tend to break down divisions rather often, after every mayor battle, to put "wounded" regiments to passive, and I guess I don't want 18 separate units to appear every time I break a division (too much units and scrolling for my taste). But I admit it would be much easier to combine and divide ideal division if they were all regiments.

Whenever I create one big CSA brigade composed of 7 units, I feel I have just purchased something mighty, almost a little division, and I wouldn't change it into purchasing 7 small regiments. But, you are right in everything you say. It would be easier to form divisions from single regiments, although 11inf+1ss+1cav+4art division composition is overrated. Divisions don't have to be that uniform, nor they were historically that uniform. You can have 2 more artillery per division for extra punch or 2 less art per division for extra durability (staying power). As long you corps/army average is close to ideal division composition, you are all right.

One other thing, when you loose unit containing single regiment to combat, you loose it completely and have to purchase it again, move to front line and incorporate it into division again. When you loose a regiment from a multi-regiment brigade as long as one regiment in a brigade survives, you can recover your regiments through replacement chits.

[Boomer]

Ace, I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed in the recruiting system for ACW 2. From everything the devs have said so far, it looks like they're going to use the more streamlined 'big block unit' scroll recruitment feature used in RUS, AJE, and BOR. The more detailed single unit system used in ACW 1 seems to be just about phased out now in AGEOD games, for better or worse.

So long as the new recruitment system uses brigades that fit the regions they'd be raised in and has at least a semi-historical context, I'll be happy. I just don't want the game to try and be so historical that little to no recruiting can actually be done.

[Ace]

It can't always be my way. I 'll have to live with it. I hope, other elements of the game will be so improved that I won't care about that little drawback (for me that is, someone may like the new recruiting system more than the old one). I only hope the map will be similar in style to the old one, not generic one like in the new games. I fell in love with artistic style of the AACW1 at first sight.

[Pocus]

Building regiments, even if it may be more historical (during the war regiments were recruited and then assembled into brigades, sometime in a temporary fashion) would induce much more micro-management for the player. You would have to handle dozen of units in a single stack for example, until you manage to concentrate them into brigades and divisions. Plus, that would need major rework of the AI, and AI takes a lot of time to do correctly (I never arrived at this point it seems ). So, no, we don't go down to break recruitment and then movements into regiments, we stay at the brigade level. Between historicity and accessibility, we too often made the first choice, resulting in some very hard core features, that please some, but make many run-away. Don't mistake our attempt at streamlining as a 'watering-down', 'dumbification' or 'casualization' (I love to invent works ), that's just that we believe we are already quite past a line where gaming pleasure is not found.

I believe we have all to fight these OCD habits of controlling everything down to the supply point, at time

[Ace]

[Boomer]

That level of micro management is definitely one thing I could do without in my strategic operations games. Forge of Freedom is a great example of that. While a fun game, I really don't want to have spend an hour every turn deciding which small backwater town will get a new shoe factory, or exactly how many thousands of Enfield rifles I need to import in order to arm my troops. A certain amount of delegation and abstraction should come into play to keep the game from becoming as much fun as an accounting audit. Micromanagement in Forge of Freedom is one of the main reasons why AACW is still on my HD and FOF isn't.

[Ace]

Exactly. I assume every players gets into roleplay of Lincoln or Lee, handling mayor things and having fun. Nobody wants to get into role of a quartermaster.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Since we're going to be using RUS style recruitment, and presumably with a bunch of different state units that will make the lists rather long, I have a request. The current way the system works is it returns to the beginning of the current list whenever you drag and drop a unit out to be built. This gets really annoying if you have to scroll back over every time to build multiple units of the same type. Can you make the list just stay where it's at when you drop a unit out to be built. I don't *think* this would be a hard change to make and it would help the system a bit I think.

[Leibst]

Maybe they are going to use subfactions for each state, in that way you select the flag of the state and only see the force pool for that state units.

[DrPostman]

I'd at least like to see the Union Army not run out of cavalry to recruit before the middle of 1863!

[DrPostman]

It can't always be my way. I 'll have to live with it. I hope, other elements of the game will be so improved that I won't care about that little drawback (for me that is, someone may like the new recruiting system more than the old one). I only hope the map will be similar in style to the old one, not generic one like in the new games. I fell in love with artistic style of the AACW1 at first sight.

Did you look at the first post in this thread? It's supposedly the new map. It's bigger and encompasses much more of the West and
Lower Canada. Marching troops to Tuscon or Denver won't include off-map movement. Take a peek. It looks interesting and pretty
much like the way it is now.

That reminds me. While Most of Lower Canada is detailed and on the map Mexico is not. Cuba is and so are
the Bahamas. Is Mexico no longer going to be involved in foreign interventions and will there be a Spanish
intervention option?

[Ace]

I have looked at the map, but the picture resolution is too low to see map artwork.

[DrPostman]

I have looked at the map, but the picture resolution is too low to see map artwork.

I'm hoping they post a better res for us soon. I'm dying to see more detail.

[Ol' Choctaw]

New Mexico, Colorado, and the Dakotas are at the map edge. Tucson is off map along with several other western regions. Historically you will have to fight the Apaches as well as the armies of your enemy to use that route.

Tucson would still be a major blocking position if you can take and hold it. It should either start as CS controlled our uncontrolled at the start of the war.

Most of Colorado and the Dakotas were Indian lands and you may have trouble with them moving troops in those areas.

With all the off map boxes, I would say you will see Salt Lake City, Oregon and Washington Territory as well as several California boxes.

With Apaches and Comanche in the south and other Plains Tribes in the north I would say moving large troop formations would not be worthwhile in either direction.

The west was otherwise empty and a string of depots would cost more than it would be worth to fight there. Which is pretty much how it was.

[aryaman]

I don't know if that would be easy to program, but the idea is good.

Even better idea in which sending 2 e-mails per turn would be avoided. I plot the movements and send the file with the password. My opponent puts the file in save game folder but he cannot read them without the password (obviously the system can read them during turn execution even without the password). He executes the turn, and cannot reload it (return to previous turn) without the password incorporated within my save game.

Whatever the system, I hope a proper PBEM system is provided to the game at last. It is sorely required!

[AndrewKurtz]

Whatever the system, I hope a proper PBEM system is provided to the game at last. It is sorely required!

Definitely needed if you play against people you don't trust

[Pocus]

The host will always be able to cheat, if he wants. Now, if you use a passworded file, others player should not be able to open your turn.

[Pocus]

Since we're going to be using RUS style recruitment, and presumably with a bunch of different state units that will make the lists rather long, I have a request. The current way the system works is it returns to the beginning of the current list whenever you drag and drop a unit out to be built. This gets really annoying if you have to scroll back over every time to build multiple units of the same type. Can you make the list just stay where it's at when you drop a unit out to be built. I don't *think* this would be a hard change to make and it would help the system a bit I think.

Actually this annoyed me also when I'm playing Altaris WW1 mod!

[Ace]

Now, if you use a passworded file, others player should not be able to open your turn.

So one half of cheat-proof multiplayer is done, other half would be the prevention of last turn load if the passwords defined in the options and the password in-bedded in the last turn ord files do not match.
If for any reasons, players agree to repeat the last turn, non-hosting player could send his orders to the host without the password, or two passwords could be defined in the options window, one for the host, and one for non-host (so he can send him the password instead).

[Captain_Orso]

So one half of cheat-proof multiplayer is done,

This has always been the case.

other half would be the prevention of last turn load if the passwords defined in the options and the password in-bedded in the last turn ord files do not match.
If for any reasons, players agree to repeat the last turn, non-hosting player could send his orders to the host without the password, or two passwords could be defined in the options window, one for the host, and one for non-host (so he can send him the password instead).

It is not possible to prevent the hosting player from making a copy of the files in the game directory before running a turn and then after running the turn, restoring them, changing his orders and re-running the turn.

[Ace]

It is not possible to prevent the hosting player from making a copy of the files in the game directory before running a turn and then after running the turn, restoring them, changing his orders and re-running the turn.

I agree. Didn't thought about that.