Gen. Monkey-Bear wrote:I agree with you on a lot of points, but I do want to point out a few things.
1. You can delay Corps movement so two Corps can arrive at the same time in a given region. Use the "Synchronize" move order with the two black arrows. Of course this only works for armies and Corps, so one improvement could be to Synchronize movement between non-Corps or non-Army forces.
As for unit recruitment, they're going to use the AJE/RUS method. I'm not looking forward to it...
Captain_Orso wrote:Just with regards to the siege of New Orleans; from what little I can see they are more than likely in full supply, so there is little reason for them to suffer greatly under the siege.
Fort Pike is pulling Naval Supply through its open harbor exit-point into Koney Island coastal region. If the Union has at least 25MC in the Iberville LA and Fort Pike regions, then New Orleans can pull supplies overland directly from Fort Pike. I'm not sure if there is a restriction on the amount depending on MC in the regions, but it won't be completely blocked.
But even if the Fort Pike region is 100% under CS MC, but the Union still has at least 25% in the Iberville region, New Orleans will pull supplies from Fort Pike through Lake Pontchartrain, because the Fort Pike harbor exit-point into Lake Pontchartrain is not blocked.
The simplest solution is to set units with artillery which are entrenched at level 3 or above to bombard into Lake Pontchartrain. Then even if the Union has 25% or more MC in Iberville, they will not be able to pull supplies through Lake Pontchartrain and will be thus cut off completely.
I assume that this is the situation.
Pocus wrote:The drag&drop reset will definitively be fixed for ACW2. Synchronizing body of troops not coming from the same region has never been done, partly because it was not deemed very realistic.
jimwinsor wrote:Yep attention to logistics is what makes these games great.
The current AACW is already an amazing game, AACW2 would just need a few tweaks IMO, and not a major facelift.
jimwinsor wrote:1) Unit recruitment. As things stand now, there is little disincentive from recruiting ALL your troops from convenient border states. AACW2 should consider doing away with national money and manpower pools, and giving each state it's own separate money and manpower pools from which to recruit their own units exclusively. And replacements as well.
jimwinsor wrote:2) Command structure. Players are quite naturally creating as large a division as possible, and continually reorganzing them to be as large as possible even after casualties are suffered, so as to allocate command points most efficiently. IRL however, generals generally didn't worry about such things, and divisions tended to be much smaller. Maybe consider making the CP cost of a division proportional to it's size? That way players arn't compelled to be constantly maxxing and reorganizing them.
Major and minor depots. A major depot (made by expending another 4 supply elements in an existing region with a depot) would give you full depot effects for recovering cohesion, supply and replacements for the area it is in and all adjacent areas occupied by friendly units. Thus Lee could hold the Rappahannock line, as could Grant later on east of Petersburg by having a major supply depot built in City Point on the James.
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:The only thing that absolutely needs to be fixed is WW1 style combat. Especially before 1863. I'm not sure of the best way to do it. Fortunately, that's not my job. Other than that, I'm looking for a more ambiguous method to forming divisions/corps/armies. In other words, less formulaic/only one right way to do it.
Ace wrote:It can be tweaked rather effectively, even within current game engine. Just make '61, '62 units with less difference in their def and off fire, and prohibit level 3 and higher entrenchments until 63 (only lvl 2 possible). The units would naturally upgrade as the game progresses.
jimwinsor wrote:Yep attention to logistics is what makes these games great.
The current AACW is already an amazing game, AACW2 would just need a few tweaks IMO, and not a major facelift.
Things I'd consider prioritizing would be:
1) Unit recruitment. As things stand now, there is little disincentive from recruiting ALL your troops from convenient border states. AACW2 should consider doing away with national money and manpower pools, and giving each state it's own separate money and manpower pools from which to recruit their own units exclusively. And replacements as well.
2) Command structure. Players are quite naturally creating as large a division as possible, and continually reorganzing them to be as large as possible even after casualties are suffered, so as to allocate command points most efficiently. IRL however, generals generally didn't worry about such things, and divisions tended to be much smaller. Maybe consider making the CP cost of a division proportional to it's size? That way players arn't compelled to be constantly maxxing and reorganizing them.
Chuske wrote:Some great ideas here guys, particularly Jim and Stauffenberg.
I think the best way to help with this game is to illustrate what is going on graphically with supply, ie an improvement to the overlay showing supply to show all supply lines including by river and sea (as in Unity of Command) would really help as would some visual indication that entrenched artillery or a fort is preventing naval supply to the other side. I think its the "under the hood" nature of supply and combat that makes it hard for new players in particular to assess why a particular outcome happened.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Well, what about engaging shipping? If batteries can not entrench above level 2 you can not stop shipping or supply from moving on rivers. Building forts is expensive and especially the south can not afford to do it.
To a great extent the not being aggressive enough is the product of most commands being inactive most of the time.
Players may prefer to defend which is choice but inactive commanders contribute to that by a large margin. If you can not attack then what choice do you have but to defend?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests