Something really disturbing...

[tibo22]

Hello, first i want to thank the team for their great job and all their patchs.

But there is something really disturbing in the former patches, which destruct in a way the balance of the game : in the first versions of the game the AI respected the historic truth by only calling volunteers in the beginning of the war (the two sides thus believed in a quick war and didn't want to become unpopular).

No only the AI respected before History, but allowed also a crescendo evolution of the war in which the player get more an more involved and solicited.

Here the AI practice a total mobilisation and create 5% bounds from the first turn of the game. I've even seen both confederate and federate players created new dollars in the first weeks of the conflict (which is according to the notice a desperate way)
Moreover such practises advantage the North, which win by this way a large population of conscricts to ally with its financial and material power .

Result : the North arrives quickly with a 50,000 soldiers army in confederate Virginia in 1861. And the South can only face them with a 30,000 one...

So a patch should regulate that problem : 1861 campaigns lost for the moment a large part of their interests. The game would be even better (sorry for all foreigner's langage mistakes )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[PascalB]

I think that this fact is an amazing advantage for the Union.

Why not include a basic and historical rule for the financial and raising men otpions? I put a little proposition hereby who concerns these two options.

- You cant choose the second possibility if you didnt already choose the first.
- You cant choose the third possibility if you didnt already choose the second.

That could represent the fact that both presidents took unpopular choices only because previous ones didnt really change the situation or represent the historical occuring events (They didnt have fully mobilized before partially mobilized, because no one was prepared for this choice, but when the events became harder to assume, this decision was the only one to take)

[tibo22]

I think that this fact is an amazing advantage for the Union.

Why not include a basic and historical rule for the financial and raising men otpions? I put a little proposition hereby who concerns these two options.

- You cant choose the second possibility if you didnt already choose the first.
- You cant choose the third possibility if you didnt already choose the second.

That could represent the fact that both presidents took unpopular choices only because previous ones didnt really change the situation or represent the historical occuring events (They didnt have fully mobilized before partially mobilized, because no one was prepared for this choice, but when the events became harder to assume, this decision was the only one to take)

That could be a good idea. As far as I am concerned, I would prohibit partial mobilzation before 62' and the total one before summer 62' or january 63' plus the obligation to have done the previous one to unlock the next one, as you said.
(my dates may not be the best ones, there are just to give an idea)

And the same for financial issues, and more than everything for the dollar printing.

For example, I am now in january 62' (in a july campaign) and the federare player has been printing new dollars for 4 turns without making a break

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[phantomfeather]

I think that this fact is an amazing advantage for the Union.

Why not include a basic and historical rule for the financial and raising men otpions? I put a little proposition hereby who concerns these two options.

- You cant choose the second possibility if you didnt already choose the first.
- You cant choose the third possibility if you didnt already choose the second.

That could represent the fact that both presidents took unpopular choices only because previous ones didnt really change the situation or represent the historical occuring events (They didnt have fully mobilized before partially mobilized, because no one was prepared for this choice, but when the events became harder to assume, this decision was the only one to take)

I'm a wee-bit of a historical buff but I realize there are many that know more than me. But, from what little I have gathered from historical references, it's my feeling that the South used mainly a "print money" option which really led to inflation & a currency that became near worthless. I realize that this isn't really a game option that would work within the contexts of this game but it would be more realistic; it would also probably make it impossible for the South to win. But then, they didn't have to win, did they?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[PascalB]

I understand quite well, and I agree with your vision of Ageod.
Maybe this could help for a further game with the AACW system, or maybe for an hypotetic AACW2 )

[Banks6060]

I think with this issue, the problem you run into is an inability to raise an historically plausible number of troops...without using the draft options. Unless you pay a considerable bounty for troops at the beginning....particularly for the CSA....you won't receive that 400 + boost in Conscripts that you normally would have with Partial or full mobilization in 1861 to produce the larger armies by 1862.

This has of course already been outlined by Gray and some others in another thread. But I think when you look at the game in overall terms...it seems to fall about 1 year behind history in regards to how much manpower each side can raise.

[Big Ideas]

I have played a couple of PBEM games where the CSA didn't have any mob in 1861, only partial mob 62, and then full mob 63 on. The USA didn't have any mob in 61 and 62, only partial in 63 and full after that. Along the lines of the historical taking of these options. The volunteer choices were unchanged. A problem arises when the USA can't get a numerical superiority to launch attacks and is forced to play too defensively as he can't afford any losses. So the game gets boring as you miss out on all those little 500-v-500 battles in 61 and 62 that you can afford to loss in the normal mobilisation choices. Another problem is that you still get heaps of money and WS and can only spend these on warships.

If you are playing PBEM with someone who wants to have smaller armies at the start (which is what you're trying to do by restricting mobs to historical times). I would instead suggest that you don't change the screen options but instead agree to a houserule where both players have to commit 25% of their production to replacement points. This way a large part of your conscripts points will still be used up without throwing the rest of the economy askew.

So if your army was:
300 inf you would need 75reps
120 art you would need 30 reps
80 cav ......................20reps
76 militia.....................19 reps.
something like that. Both players could have different levels. And maybe thew levels could drop to reflect mobilisations/ commitments. This would give back to the Union it's superiority ratios.

BI

[WhoCares]

One might think of a chain of events that triggers with respect to a certain National Moral level and in relation to certain dates.
E.g. you might make Partial Mobilisation available for the North if NM is/drops below 90NM in early '62, 100NM late 62/63 ...
Same for Full Mob. with even lower thesholds, e.g. 85NM in late '62, 95NM in '63,...

Same for the South but maybe with higher thresholds.

In the end these options were taken out of a need, the National Moral level might be used to model this.

Defining the right thresholds/timeline might be a tricky task...

[tibo22]

One might think of a chain of events that triggers with respect to a certain National Moral level and in relation to certain dates.
E.g. you might make Partial Mobilisation available for the North if NM is/drops below 90NM in early '62, 100NM late 62/63 ...
Same for Full Mob. with even lower thesholds, e.g. 85NM in late '62, 95NM in '63,...

Same for the South but maybe with higher thresholds.

In the end these options were taken out of a need, the National Moral level might be used to model this.

Defining the right thresholds/timeline might be a tricky task...

I had yet thinked about that idea and it's definitly one of the best ones... If the national moral represent the military situation of a side. But the problem acoording to Gray_Lensman is before all a lack of time : some mods could repair this problem but there will surely be in english and not compatible with the french version (but it will yet be good for you).

Can't these changes be in the precisely on/off change of the interface? On to put a prohibition and off to let freedom

If not, since when these aspects have appeared? (so what is the last patch downlable in which there won't occure?)

[gchristie]

Clovis' Struggle for a Vast Future 1.0 mod?

It does many of the things that I think you are looking for. It is in the AACW Mod section of the forum. I highly recommend it.

Here is an excerpt from the lengthy explanation of the many changes Clovis has made:

"5) On the economical front, Draft and Money Policies from the vanilla version are definitly too lenient. Players can too quickly get astronomical amount of men, money and War supply to build unhistorically huge armies.

In reality, both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.

So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.

Draft isn't possible until 1862. USA side gets more volunteers ( if Sufficient funds are at disposal) and less draftees. CSA will have to rely more on draft."

[tibo22]

Clovis' Struggle for a Vast Future 1.0 mod?

It does many of the things that I think you are looking for. It is in the AACW Mod section of the forum. I highly recommend it.

Here is an excerpt from the lengthy explanation of the many changes Clovis has made:

"5) On the economical front, Draft and Money Policies from the vanilla version are definitly too lenient. Players can too quickly get astronomical amount of men, money and War supply to build unhistorically huge armies.

In reality, both sides had huge problems with conscription laws and their enforcement, and printing money in the game hadn't penalties sufficient to prohibit its use each turn.

So I raised both NM and VP losses for conscription options and limited the money printing to one turn by month.

Draft isn't possible until 1862. USA side gets more volunteers ( if Sufficient funds are at disposal) and less draftees. CSA will have to rely more on draft."

Then I think the best solution is to play with the english version with Clovis mode, and here is what I will do. Di i have to download both of the mod and the patches? Is the mod compatible with the 1.14 beta? I am yet exited

[gchristie]

Here is the link to Clovis' mod, which has very detailed instructions for installation: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14006.

Best of luck and enjoy. If you have any difficulty, Clovis is great at answering questions and helping you along.

[tagwyn]

A Small well-organized company should avoid games not likely to be widely interesting? Like RoP, Vietnam, pursuit of the Navaho Indians, etc. Don't you think? t

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[arsan]

A Small well-organized company should avoid games not likely to be widely interesting? Like RoP, Vietnam, pursuit of the Navaho Indians, etc. Don't you think? t

Very on topic and insightful, Tagwyn!

[Nikel]

Regarding Vietnam war, many movies are based on this topic, so a wide interest in a VW game should be expected, just a guess of course

[PhilThib]

My experience is that you shall find as many people interested in one subject as you can find others who will hate it...there are dozens of potentially interesting subjects. Gray has a point here

The real analysis which needs to be made here at AGEOD is not so much the choice of subject (although it does matter) than the means to make a good game about a chosen subject, which includes having access to knowledge and resources that will really help us develop the game... Messages of interest or support are great and always pleasing, but they don't work

[Nikel]

My experience is that you shall find as many people interested in one subject as you can find others who will hate it...there are dozens of potentially interesting subjects. Gray has a point here

The real analysis which needs to be made here at AGEOD is not so much the choice of subject (although it does matter) than the means to make a good game about a chosen subject, which includes having access to knowledge and resources that will really help us develop the game... Messages of interest or support are great and always pleasing, but they don't work

You will always have fantasy or SF games, no OOB needed, just imagination

[PhilThib]

Well, I start to like you ...

SF are my second favorite games...i would love doing a grand strategic space opera

[Adlertag]

But unfortunately having too much imagination and not the means (and/or the time) to materialize them in a good, if not flawless, game will ruin it, like Space Empire V for example.

[GustFire]

Fantastic discussion, lovin' it.
I've seen similar discussions over on WIA.

I think people love to have options, and even new options to make the game more enjoyable.
Okay, that's what mods are for, granted.
But some should be included in the main game.

I think that some options that are not strictly historical, are still legitimate options in a game, because they *could* have been historical.
In other words, they could have happened, leaders could have made different choices, whether on the strategic or tactical level - military, industrial, political, foreign.

Giving the South the same industrial capacity as the North would NOT be a legitimate option, that would be unreasonable.
The "ahistoric printing of money and early drafting needs" SHOULD be included as an option, and not phased out. These are events that could have happened early on, and is perfectly reasonable.

People love to play WHAT IF.
And they need lots of options to play with, to see what could have happened if certain conditions or decisions had been different.
This for me is the great attraction of AACW and similar games.

Dont' take that away.
In fact, you don't have to.

"Other than a possible Options On/Off interface there will not be any other changes made to options in AACW."
This is all that's needed, and it would be perfect.
Keep, or add, legitimate options for the players, and THEY turn them on and off at their pleasure.

Still lovin' it.

[husky1943]

why are we going down this road?

This game is great. Not flawless, but great nonetheless. I wrote a post specifically laying out exactly why this was a great game. It's all about balance. I believe the designers have done a great job of balancing realism with playability. The engine is good, and while Athena does some crazy stuff....I got a newsflash here....War has a lot of crazy stuff in it. This reminds me of the modelling community. Some guys would build pink tanks with lasers and not care, while some would actually complain about the number of bolts on a roadwheel as being "highly inaccurate." While I understand that people complain or wish "because they care", I worry when anyone has to defend what they are doing. It's a great game, and I accept it for what its worth. Could it be better? Sure. But, it's really fun on its own. The learning curve was steep, but the ride down the other side is so much for fun for the climb.

Perhaps I am mistaken or just not reading it right, but Ageod has done a good job and I believe this game will stand up to the test of time (which is really indicative of its quality). BUT, no one has to defend this position. Time will tell. Again, great job!!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Pocus]

Options can be activated at any time, like the Emancipation option. And they can be removed also. Or their cost changed. I really don't see a problem here, people can mods the game as they wish

[tibo22]

Sure that you can mobilizate any time you want, but if your opponent practise that, you won't hold very long if you does'nt do also. So you are obliged to build a huge war machine since the first day of the war, moreover if you are a reb'

[Pocus]

Or you can propose the option asap, at a huge cost, then propose an alternate, cheaper version, in 1862 and so on...