I have recently noted something vs an opponent that forfeited a match vs me. I was playing the South, and I was launching an attack into Maryland in 1861. The success there was alright but he managed to stop me right outside of D.C.! Then the game halted to a permanent standstill.
In the East, you have usually have both sides staring at each other with the Corp System, 3 to 4 Corp each strewn across a 250-400 mile front... They support each other usually in 3s depending on the real estate held, best to give or take to get that optimum amount. With 2 to 3 divisions per. This makes it pretty hard to gain ground. Without luck and given the terrain, rivers and fortifications between Alexandria and Manassas if you built there. I don't know there is an easy way or if any way around this? One side would really have to invest in Uber numbers to win. This is repeated in every game and every side again and again and out west as the numbers of both armies swell through '62.
The large 100k stacks of History that fought through one essential piece of real estate seems less present. I don't know how vividly this represents history. Though any player know's what I'm talking about that's played 10 games. Most game as the CSA go this way, kill the Union in D.C. by '62 or by late '62 be killed by a 2 or 3 to 1 Union advantage in the East and or a slow death everywhere else attempting to hold down your essential real estate.
In history as far as I knew the Corps marched in unison, more or less as one body. They weren't strewn 350 miles? That or I may be entirely off. I just remember in the offensives Armies planned and executed with Corps more or less together...
I know this is abstracted and made as such by gameplay and perhaps nothing better exists just stating something. Which seems to leave most CW2 games to about 30 turns Max. Unless I am mistaken?
-
BattleVonWar
- Major
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am
Corps turn CW2 to slowgoing
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~
-
FightingBuckeye
- Lieutenant Colonel
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:27 am
- Location: Englewood, CO
I'm not sure how else you could do it that would be historically accurate and would work within the game. I'm not sure how else you could defend a wide front without maybe going to 1-2 day turns or doing everything in real time. I love Hearts of Iron (HOI). But one of the reasons I don't play it multiplayer is you either have the time lapse so very slow that it takes forever for things to happen or too fast that the battle is already over by the time you react to an attack. Maybe conditional orders would work out like some of the ones in HOI, like defending such and such regions or some such. But you'd have to revamp just about everything from the ground up and at that point it'd no longer be CW2, but HOI set for the Civil War era (which would be pretty cool IMO) but I'd miss playing CW2.
I think the corps formations and MTSG work pretty good. Take it away and you start running into issues. For instance if you spread yourself out in order to try and defend multiple approaches, your opponent will just consolidate and smash your spread out forces. If you consolidate, you risk your opponent getting in behind you and either disrupting your supply lines or getting closer to your capital. Gettysburg is a perfect example of disparate forces 'marching to the sounds of the guns' Neither Meade nor Lee really wanted to fight there. But both armies that were pretty spread out concentrated there over the course of several days. And that's not the only example either. And just as an FYI, the distance from say Alexandria to Harper's Ferry is about 72 miles. So no you usually don't have corps strewn for hundreds of miles. And even if you did, not all of them would be within MTSG of each other. Depending on where you set the bar, there were maybe a little less than 20 major battles throughout the war; or about 4-5 per year. And most games seem have about that many major battles per year if not greater than that. So I think the system works pretty well. And yes, sometimes things can feel a little like WWI trench warfare. But that's just when you need to think outside the box and figure out a new approach. Sometimes though you just need to keep pounding away like Grant did towards the end of the war.
I think the corps formations and MTSG work pretty good. Take it away and you start running into issues. For instance if you spread yourself out in order to try and defend multiple approaches, your opponent will just consolidate and smash your spread out forces. If you consolidate, you risk your opponent getting in behind you and either disrupting your supply lines or getting closer to your capital. Gettysburg is a perfect example of disparate forces 'marching to the sounds of the guns' Neither Meade nor Lee really wanted to fight there. But both armies that were pretty spread out concentrated there over the course of several days. And that's not the only example either. And just as an FYI, the distance from say Alexandria to Harper's Ferry is about 72 miles. So no you usually don't have corps strewn for hundreds of miles. And even if you did, not all of them would be within MTSG of each other. Depending on where you set the bar, there were maybe a little less than 20 major battles throughout the war; or about 4-5 per year. And most games seem have about that many major battles per year if not greater than that. So I think the system works pretty well. And yes, sometimes things can feel a little like WWI trench warfare. But that's just when you need to think outside the box and figure out a new approach. Sometimes though you just need to keep pounding away like Grant did towards the end of the war.
Semper Gumby - Always flexible
Union CW2 AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39455-Straight-Arrow-(CSA)-vs-FightingBuckeye-(Union)
CSA CW2 AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?40007-The-South-Will-Rise-Again!-FightingBuckeye-(CSA)-vs-Tripax-(North)
Union CW2 AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?39455-Straight-Arrow-(CSA)-vs-FightingBuckeye-(Union)
CSA CW2 AAR: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?40007-The-South-Will-Rise-Again!-FightingBuckeye-(CSA)-vs-Tripax-(North)
-
BattleVonWar
- Major
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:22 am
I can see your comparison with say Hearts of Iron. The Victoria game franchise which is loosely similar to the Hearts of Iron Engine also had a War Between The States scenario I never bothered with. It wasn't specific enough.
I suppose what's built in is supposed to be the best possible solution to a complex problem. As you say if you have a historical Monster Stack it can easily be run circles around with a few divisions. The way the game engine works, that is only rarely the best solution to a complex problem.
Corps are supposed to abstractly represent over a large swath of land the loosely knit construction of an Army and the size of the Provinces is not meant to be historical. Although we both know from fighting in Virginia in Game in 5 separate games how daunting a task it is to break the Corp system up. That's why in our current game you've gone balls to the wall for D.C. because you know by 1862 if you don't get that item, game isn't over but it's just a matter of time unless I leave the Back or Front Door open.
History is impossible to emulate, just sort of abstractly simulate but we both know that without something really wild(once you know those wild moves) there are so many provinces and so many ways to exploit them. Of course unless you are willing to gamble with lives.
I suppose what's built in is supposed to be the best possible solution to a complex problem. As you say if you have a historical Monster Stack it can easily be run circles around with a few divisions. The way the game engine works, that is only rarely the best solution to a complex problem.
Corps are supposed to abstractly represent over a large swath of land the loosely knit construction of an Army and the size of the Provinces is not meant to be historical. Although we both know from fighting in Virginia in Game in 5 separate games how daunting a task it is to break the Corp system up. That's why in our current game you've gone balls to the wall for D.C. because you know by 1862 if you don't get that item, game isn't over but it's just a matter of time unless I leave the Back or Front Door open.
History is impossible to emulate, just sort of abstractly simulate but we both know that without something really wild(once you know those wild moves) there are so many provinces and so many ways to exploit them. Of course unless you are willing to gamble with lives.
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863 ~~~
BattleVonWar wrote:In the East, you have usually have both sides staring at each other with the Corp System, 3 to 4 Corp each strewn across a 250-400 mile front... They support each other usually in 3s depending on the real estate held, best to give or take to get that optimum amount. With 2 to 3 divisions per. This makes it pretty hard to gain ground. Without luck and given the terrain, rivers and fortifications between Alexandria and Manassas if you built there. I don't know there is an easy way or if any way around this? One side would really have to invest in Uber numbers to win. This is repeated in every game and every side again and again and out west as the numbers of both armies swell through '62.
I agree, the MSG rule tends to transform the Civil War in WWI with long front of entrenched units (at least in the East). But without it the North would too easily crush the South.
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
The historical battles of maneuver aren’t possible with this game system I don’t think. The size of the regions and turn length scale make it impossible for a large army to shadow/parallel an opposing army on the move the way the Union army did leading up to Gettysburg.
The Union had no specific knowledge, but knew the general route Lee was taking and made a lateral redeployment to counter the move which eventually lead to a meeting engagement at Gettysburg. This simply isn’t possible with this game engine. What the game would see happen is Lee would blitz past the Union armies and hit some soft target in the rear forcing the union to then try and dig him out in a set piece defensive fight instead of a meeting engagement as was fought historically.
I would much prefer a reaction style defense system that allowed players to keep their armies together in a single region but allowed them to still cover a lot of territory. Armies would have different settings that players could set that allowed all or a portion of the army to react to an enemy move (based on the size of the detected enemy force seen moving) and catch it before it managed to slip past into the rear.
The area covered would be controlled by the strategic rating of the commander, allowing say one region range for every 1-2 skill points modified by weather. So level one or two commanders could react into adjacent regions, three and four leaders could react out two regions, etc. And weather could add or subtract regions to the range.
Of course to make an open defense system like this dependable in game the reaction would have to occur no matter what, but you could make it interesting by using detection rolls and recon to determine how much of the army reacts. So one really bad recon report could cause major issues if only a single corp gets sent to react to a full army on the move.
This kind of system would help make the game feel a lot more like the civil war and would make it unnecessary to have a corp+ sized stack in each adjacent region, but I doubt it could be added to the engine at this late stage of development as it would affect all previous games the engine used. All kinds of unforeseen balance issues would crop up I’m sure and many titles may become unwinnable without major scenario design overhaul with extensive play tests. Basically it would be a whole new games worth of work.
Jim
The Union had no specific knowledge, but knew the general route Lee was taking and made a lateral redeployment to counter the move which eventually lead to a meeting engagement at Gettysburg. This simply isn’t possible with this game engine. What the game would see happen is Lee would blitz past the Union armies and hit some soft target in the rear forcing the union to then try and dig him out in a set piece defensive fight instead of a meeting engagement as was fought historically.
I would much prefer a reaction style defense system that allowed players to keep their armies together in a single region but allowed them to still cover a lot of territory. Armies would have different settings that players could set that allowed all or a portion of the army to react to an enemy move (based on the size of the detected enemy force seen moving) and catch it before it managed to slip past into the rear.
The area covered would be controlled by the strategic rating of the commander, allowing say one region range for every 1-2 skill points modified by weather. So level one or two commanders could react into adjacent regions, three and four leaders could react out two regions, etc. And weather could add or subtract regions to the range.
Of course to make an open defense system like this dependable in game the reaction would have to occur no matter what, but you could make it interesting by using detection rolls and recon to determine how much of the army reacts. So one really bad recon report could cause major issues if only a single corp gets sent to react to a full army on the move.
This kind of system would help make the game feel a lot more like the civil war and would make it unnecessary to have a corp+ sized stack in each adjacent region, but I doubt it could be added to the engine at this late stage of development as it would affect all previous games the engine used. All kinds of unforeseen balance issues would crop up I’m sure and many titles may become unwinnable without major scenario design overhaul with extensive play tests. Basically it would be a whole new games worth of work.
Jim
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
There are different levels (areas sizes, unit sizes, real-time per turn) a game can generally represent which must be coordinated with each other.
Many years ago I was following the development of a game which would have covered all levels--if the player wanted to play like this--by using action-stops to allow the player to react to information. For example, at one setting if one side recognized that a battalion were moving an action-stop would stop the game execution and allow the player to react. If you wanted to you could have played the entire war (WWII in the Pacific) controlling every force on a player's side like this. Of course, playing at this level playing the full game would probably be almost in real-time
.
Nearly all games however play at only one level--squad, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps or army--with the corresponding area and real-time/turn. CW2 plays at the upper end of this scale--which I would call the campaign level--, which does not allow the player to react to anything under the 2 week-turn. But in reality field commanders did react to actions within an area, which in-game would comprise all regions up to about 2-3 regions away from an army command. CW2 emulates this with MTSG.
Using summer of '62 campaign season in the East as an example, Northern and Southern armies opposed each other directly across the Rappahannock River, which is not to say they were simply lined up across from each other up and down the river, but they were close enough to keep an eye on each other and to guard fords and bridges against crossing. In game terms Lee's army would have been concentrated in the Culpeper region with Pope directly north, each side with very few forces further away.
Jackson's corps-end-run around the Union's right flank followed by the rest of the army disengaging from Pope to follow Jackson, however is at an operational scale, which is below the scale of CW2. CW2 gets around this limitation somewhat by allowing MTSG. AGEod is not proposing that corps were actually spread out many miles apart from one another, but rather that they could react to enemy maneuvers within the areas covered by MTSG.
This does not emulate reality 100%, but it does give the player the ability to campaign in an area much closer to the historical size of the area armies could operated in.
--
BTW, if your army has its back against the wall in Washington, make the enemies strength into his weakness by cutting his supply-lines.
Many years ago I was following the development of a game which would have covered all levels--if the player wanted to play like this--by using action-stops to allow the player to react to information. For example, at one setting if one side recognized that a battalion were moving an action-stop would stop the game execution and allow the player to react. If you wanted to you could have played the entire war (WWII in the Pacific) controlling every force on a player's side like this. Of course, playing at this level playing the full game would probably be almost in real-time
.Nearly all games however play at only one level--squad, company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps or army--with the corresponding area and real-time/turn. CW2 plays at the upper end of this scale--which I would call the campaign level--, which does not allow the player to react to anything under the 2 week-turn. But in reality field commanders did react to actions within an area, which in-game would comprise all regions up to about 2-3 regions away from an army command. CW2 emulates this with MTSG.
Using summer of '62 campaign season in the East as an example, Northern and Southern armies opposed each other directly across the Rappahannock River, which is not to say they were simply lined up across from each other up and down the river, but they were close enough to keep an eye on each other and to guard fords and bridges against crossing. In game terms Lee's army would have been concentrated in the Culpeper region with Pope directly north, each side with very few forces further away.
Jackson's corps-end-run around the Union's right flank followed by the rest of the army disengaging from Pope to follow Jackson, however is at an operational scale, which is below the scale of CW2. CW2 gets around this limitation somewhat by allowing MTSG. AGEod is not proposing that corps were actually spread out many miles apart from one another, but rather that they could react to enemy maneuvers within the areas covered by MTSG.
This does not emulate reality 100%, but it does give the player the ability to campaign in an area much closer to the historical size of the area armies could operated in.
--
BTW, if your army has its back against the wall in Washington, make the enemies strength into his weakness by cutting his supply-lines.
-
Highlandcharge
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:44 am
Also don't forget that the CW did turn into trench warfare in the last year of the war at Petersburg, when both sides had realised how costly frontal assaults had become when attacking troops in heavy entrenchments and armed with rifled muskets loaded with the minie bullet...
The problem with all historical strategy games is that we already know the lessons so painfully learned by the commanders on the battlefield and it influences how we play those games...
I think the game models the ACW better than any other game in the same field to be honest....
When I am playing the Union and the southern player has dug in in the east, I have a good think and find a way to out flank him...
The problem with all historical strategy games is that we already know the lessons so painfully learned by the commanders on the battlefield and it influences how we play those games...
I think the game models the ACW better than any other game in the same field to be honest....
When I am playing the Union and the southern player has dug in in the east, I have a good think and find a way to out flank him...
"I don't know there is an easy way or if any way around this?"
A strong navy gives the Union player the ability to perform an amphibious assault on the Atlantic coast. The VA-NC coast gives one access to Richmond. Stretch the Confederate army until it no longer has the local density to stop your offensive.
A limited number of depots exist in VA. Union partisans based in WV can move through VA to blow them up. Although the depots can be replaced, the mountain of supplies that were in them are gone. Garysburg NC is also a choke point for supplies moving to VA. An army in VA without supplies must retreat.
Break up a Division into small four element brigades set to P/P and evade combat. Infiltrate these with a Division and Corps commander across a defended river. Reconstitute your mini-Corps and you either get attacked to your advantage or you can attack. Let the rest of your army MTSG for free passage over the river.
"Don't poke it with your finger, smash it with your fist." Guderian
Assemble the largest, strongest force you can and pound the defenders of your opponenet's capital into dog food.
Good luck!
A strong navy gives the Union player the ability to perform an amphibious assault on the Atlantic coast. The VA-NC coast gives one access to Richmond. Stretch the Confederate army until it no longer has the local density to stop your offensive.
A limited number of depots exist in VA. Union partisans based in WV can move through VA to blow them up. Although the depots can be replaced, the mountain of supplies that were in them are gone. Garysburg NC is also a choke point for supplies moving to VA. An army in VA without supplies must retreat.
Break up a Division into small four element brigades set to P/P and evade combat. Infiltrate these with a Division and Corps commander across a defended river. Reconstitute your mini-Corps and you either get attacked to your advantage or you can attack. Let the rest of your army MTSG for free passage over the river.
"Don't poke it with your finger, smash it with your fist." Guderian
Assemble the largest, strongest force you can and pound the defenders of your opponenet's capital into dog food.
Good luck!
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!
As to the original posters specific problem - if you want to take DC, take something else. Depending on where his right flank is, go north to Gettysburg/Harrisburg/Pittsburgh. Then make a right turn and take Baltimore. If you still can't take DC, go north and take Philly/NJ/NY.
If you have an army in New York City, that giant three corps stack in Maryland will have to move.
If you have an army in New York City, that giant three corps stack in Maryland will have to move.
Off the top of my head the Corps seem to have moved separately a lot along a large area then merged together in the same area when the enemy was found. It doesn't seem to me in my studies that they all moved in one big army together. They probably were closer to each other than the game represents but its a game and has a lot of limitations in making it historically accurate. Flanking the enemy instead of a direct attack is always a good way to go...one that a lot of generals took a while to learn...even up into WWI.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests