Battle

[marecone]

Will this game have some tactical options and screens or no? How do you resolve the battle? When it starts can you influence the outcome or no?

Thanks and sorry if this was already asked

[PhilThib]

For the time being, no. leure:

The game is essentiellay a strategic and operational game on the American Civil War, so no tactical engine is forecasted or planned by design (that would be just TOO much).

Who knows, in the future, we might have something in the tactical field, but we just lack human resources and time to do so now

[marecone]

Thanks a lot. No need to cry . I just joined and didn't find post where you say that this is only strategical game. Plus, I apologized in advance if this was asked before.

Could you answer the rest of my questions please or direct me to thread with the answers.

Thank you

[PhilThib]

There are still some "tips of the day" coming up, with data on how combat is handled.

The combat engine works the same as in BOA, but with enhanced feature, the most notable of this being the notion of troops cohesion.

Also, leaders traits and abilities have quite an influence on combat

And no, there are no ways to influence the battle once it started.

[marecone]

Ok. Thank you. Haven't bought BOA yet but will download demo right now. I own FoF and all other ACW games that were published.
I will wait for further tips and ask one more q.
Chance of reinforcements? Can you like start one battle and ask another army or corp to join your battle?
Many CW battles were lost/won because of the in/ability to get reinforced.

Thanks

[PhilThib]

Yes, we have an option for "Synchronized Move" and plan one for "Reaction Move"...that would cover a lot of cases.

In addition, those interventions are highly dependant on the initiative of the various commanding officers, a variable that our "Strategic Value" of leaders shall cover.

[mcf]

I like the BOA format but I wonder whether there's a chance to stop the game and get the results as the turn unfolds rather than simply watch the needle swing from victory to defeat and then sift through the results later?

And another one which might be interesting for players would be some kind of tabulation indicating most successful units where they achieved notable successes, how many battles they've been in etc. Maybe they could get medals or something silly like that?

But then again maybe I'm thinking that ACW is not a strategy game but rather something like Football Manager where you wait for results to come in after the Saturday round of premiership matches?

Anyway of course there's no need for something like this. Just seems another way of hooking players into the game by getting them to feel attached to particular units or leaders.

All good stuff though keep up the excellent work!

[Spharv2]

Already an option in the game under options to pause the turn resolution after the battles to review each battle screen as it happens.

[benpark]

The system works very well, but I would love to feel a bit more involved in the action of battles. The Napoleonic era board game "War and Peace" had a great system of chits that each opposing player would simultaneously choose, then throw. They were tactics like "bombard" or "charge". Basic, but these commands would add a benefit or harm to the die roll for that phase of combat. At times, it could even mean that no combat takes place. Bombarding a "square" chit, however meant carnage.

The commands in a game like the one underway on the ACW could depend on who the commanding officer is. Jackson could be ordered to "Attempt to flank right by forced march", while the computer opponant might "Refuse right flank". No modifier for that phase, because the two cancel each other, and so on. Much of this seems to go on under the hood of the system as it is, but a bit of relinquishment to the human player might be nice to see.

In the games that AGOD is doing, something basic like the above (but tailored more to each strategic situation) would be high on my list of additions.

[marecone]

How unit performed was important in ACW and should be important in your game. Over 100 regiments and brigades got various nicks because of their combat performance. Also, it would be very nice to know that your 9th Mississippi carried the day and saved your army from defeat or something like it. I belive it would be a nice touch.

[marecone]

The system works very well, but I would love to feel a bit more involved in the action of battles. The Napoleonic era board game "War and Peace" had a great system of chits that each opposing player would simultaneously choose, then throw. They were tactics like "bombard" or "charge". Basic, but these commands would add a benefit or harm to the die roll for that phase of combat. At times, it could even mean that no combat takes place. Bombarding a "square" chit, however meant carnage.

The commands in a game like the one underway on the ACW could depend on who the commanding officer is. Jackson could be ordered to "Attempt to flank right by forced march", while the computer opponant might "Refuse right flank". No modifier for that phase, because the two cancel each other, and so on. Much of this seems to go on under the hood of the system as it is, but a bit of relinquishment to the human player might be nice to see.

In the games that AGOD is doing, something basic like the above (but tailored more to each strategic situation) would be high on my list of additions.

Very good idea. I second that.
Even if you guys don't implement this I belive that your game will be very good, if not excellent.

[marecone]

Another idea would be to implement something similar to old Frank Huter game plus some new ones. Like options:
1. Would you like this battle to be a delaying action, skirmish or hughe battle?
2. Do you want to press hard and risk many casulties?
3. Direct attack or flanking manuver?
4. Defend at all costs?
And similar
...
Outcome would ofcourse depend on your general. Is he better or worse then enemy general. What is his tactical knowledge or initiatieve and such...

I didn't play BOA yet so sorry if that is already in the game.

[Pocus]

Well... the battle engine is indeed a very detailed combat simulation, but you only see the result of the many subtleties involved in it. We would definitively like to add first a battle log option in the battle report window, where you would see, with your choice of the detail level, all the actions, but in text mode with some nice icons to color a bit the log ... as you can guess a graphical report replaying the battle is beyond our capacities for now. We plan to add the log system into our 3rd game, but it should be retrofited in BOA and AACW around Q3 2007 anyway (and if are on schedule...).

As for options chits and such... I see many problems on that. For example you should theorically be able to set that for each region moved into... What if Jackson should be at the Right Flank when with Lee, and with the 'Left Envelopment' option when moving alone, in the same turn, etc.

[Pocus]

Another idea would be to implement something similar to old Frank Hunter game plus some new ones. Like options:
1. Would you like this battle to be a delaying action, skirmish or hughe battle?
2. Do you want to press hard and risk many casulties?
3. Direct attack or flanking manuver?
4. Defend at all costs?
And similar
...
Outcome would ofcourse depend on your general. Is he better or worse then enemy general. What is his tactical knowledge or initiatieve and such...

I didn't play BOA yet so sorry if that is already in the game.

This is planned, would be called 'disposition' or 'Retreat Ratio'. How you want to fight (delay, skirmish, defend at all costs) etc. Planned, but for a patch for AACW (being part of the development of our 3rd game).

[marecone]

Thank you Pocus. This game keeps getting more and more interesting! Just downloading BOA demo. Can't wait.

[saintsup]

I, for my self, prefer a game that has a clear direction in design, and a clear point of view for the player (i.e head of state or commander in chief or army commander or ...) ... and does it well than games that try to do everything badly.

So IMHO investing in a tactical module for the BOA/ACW engine is not a good direction.

[marecone]

I don't say they should invest heavy in tactical aspect but some would be nice. Like, Frank Huter's game did have option for battle intensity and that was it for tactical options and it still added so much. I liked it a lot.
I don't expect this game to have graphics and stuff for tactical aspects but few options would be good in my opinion.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

As my interest is in strategy and not tactics, I naturally think it's a good decision not to have a tactical module.

There's enough to think about in the strategy of the war without trying to fight battles as well; and I want a game I can finish in a reasonable time, not one that goes on for ever.

That being said, as a player I like to understand why I won or lost a battle. Sometimes battle results computed by the program can be surprising, and in those cases I want to know, "Was it just luck? Or should I have expected that result?"

So it would be nice to have some kind of post-mortem information available about each battle, showing not just what happened but why.

[marecone]

Yap. This is very important. I agree that if you won or lose a battle you should get some info telling you why you won/lost.

[Elmo]

I'll take the dissenting position here. I really like the Total War series games and FoF where you have the option to fight a tactical battle. If nothing else the eye candy is spectacular in the TW series. Clearly that would not be practical in a PBEM game but it would be great as an option against the AI.

I fully realize that is not going to happen for these games but just wanted to plant the seed that not everyone shuns tactical combat in an operational/strategic game.

[Spharv2]

I'll take the dissenting position here. I really like the Total War series games and FoF where you have the option to fight a tactical battle. If nothing else the eye candy is spectacular in the TW series. Clearly that would not be practical in a PBEM game but it would be great as an option against the AI.

I fully realize that is not going to happen for these games but just wanted to plant the seed that not everyone shuns tactical combat in an operational/strategic game.

While I agree that the TW series looks nice, you can see what they've sacrificed to get where they are, and that's the AI. The tactical AI is complete crap, and the strategic AI has gotten worse as the series has gone on in my opinion. The problem with that type of game is that companies have enough problems devoting time and money to one level of AI anymore, let alone trying to implement a tactical and strategic layer on top of that. The spread of head to head gaming, though still a small percentage has made it even worse, because now I've even seen companies using the, "Well, it was really meant for head to head, the AI wasn't fully developed" line. If you're not even going to try, then market the thing as online only.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the option to zoom in and at least watch my little rebs put a beatdown on McClellan, but being realistic, it just isn't going to happen, and if it did, the game would be delayed for a couple of yearsand probably be released with substandard AI...not to mention drive the devs crazy. It's something to shoot foras an option, like you said, just not with this game, and not it it means cutbacks anywhere in the strategic layer of the game.

[Carrington]

I, for my self, prefer a game that has a clear direction in design, and a clear point of view for the player (i.e head of state or commander in chief or army commander or ...) ... and does it well than games that try to do everything badly.

So IMHO investing in a tactical module for the BOA/ACW engine is not a good direction.

Agreed.... The thing I like about BOA is that it has a finely pointed design philosophy and focuses the player on important decisions.

On the one hand, adding extra tactical features increases player interest for solitaire games, but it also weakens the A/I (the A/I programmer who programs everything programs nothing).

On the other hand, tactical features in multiplayer can allow for a much stronger opponent, but it slows down the flow of the game and, as a result decreases immersion.

I think the strategic/operational focus of the game will be fascinating, and I am very excited that AGEOD, like SSG and some other studios, is putting together great games that seem unlikely to become obsolescent with the next new graphics card.

World enough and time AGEOD will do a tactically-focused game, but I think that's a more crowded and somewhat more ephemeral market.

[PDF]

For the time being, no. leure:

The game is essentiellay a strategic and operational game on the American Civil War, so no tactical engine is forecasted or planned by design (that would be just TOO much).

Who knows, in the future, we might have something in the tactical field, but we just lack human resources and time to do so now

I don't think a real "tactical module" is necessary, I agree on focusing the design to operational/strategic sides.
Yet I'd really like to be able to give more tactical "stances" to unit : what % of force to commit to reserves, when to retreat, trying or not for envelopment, creating diversions...
Currently we're rather stuck with only a few choices, and the battles are very "arid" and not immersive: we only get the eventual results and losses count (plus some stats).
IIRC Pax Romana ( ) had a nice battle system along those lines...

[Hidde]

While I like the concept of a tactical layer in theory I believe it has one big thing going against it.
It makes the game very time consuming. Furthermore, most all wargames also seems to have battles occur much more often than in real life. This was true for BoA as well I think but it was kind of appropriate for that conflict I suppose.
One thing I hope for is that in AACW big battles will be harder to achieve and that the outcome will have quit severe impact on both sides. Loss of moral and cohesion for the losing side and a boost in morale for the winning side, naturally.
That said I still want to be a bit more involved with the battles. Sometimes in BoA a big battle could take maybe 5-10 seconds to resolve. It was exciting to see the needle swing from left to right before one side got the upper hand and won. It would be great if that sequence could be longer and also with the possibility for a few inputs from the player.
I remember a game I played several years ago. One of the first football(soccer) management games. After a week of training, hiring players and choosing a team(strategy) it was time for the match(battle).
The rendering of a match was very simple with only a horizontal graph where a ball were moving from side to side. It went on for 3-4 minutes and you could change a couple of players, that was all. It could be a nail-biting experience.
It's difficult to describe how I think this could translate to battles in a game like AACW but I'll try to give an example of how it could be done.
Let say the battle start with a window divided in sections. The simplest battlefield could have three: (centre, left flank and right flank). Each section is half filled with your colour and the other half with the enemy's colour. Before the battle starts you have the opportunity to assign units to each section and if and how many you want to have in reserve. You can also give the troops in each section an order like advance, defend, probe and so forth.
When the battle start all you would see is how the staples slowly is moving for or against you. Perhaps colour changes in one staple could give a hint of the moral and cohesion of the troops in that section. Your input could be to change orders, commit reserves and sometimes when troops arrive late to the battle decide where and when those soldiers should join the fight.
Some text messages regarding events on the battlefield could arrive. The quality of messages and how quick and exact the troops follow your orders should depend on the quality of the general involved.
I fully understand if my description is hard to comprehend. It's only a couple of ideas thrown out from the top of my head after all. What I want to say is that it would be fun to have the battles last for 3-4 minutes instead of just a few seconds. Some broad decisions thrown in from me as a player to effect the outcome would be great as icing on the cake.

PS All the above are hopes for the next game(s), of course. I'm perfectly sure AACW will be a marvellous game in any case. DS

[Hobbes]

I hope they add a parameter to give the player some control over battle length with zero removing the needle altogether.

Cheers, Chris

[jimkehn]

Needle? What needle? Is this feature in BoA???

[bboyer66]

Ya what happened to the needle? When I installed the latest patch and played a few weeks ago the battle needle was gone. You can still look at the details after the battle but the needle was gone.

[Pocus]

in 1.10d when you are not in 'pause after battle' option, you see the needle. If you have the pause, you don't see it. I have changed that so that you always see it.

[jimkehn]

OK.....makes sense. I have never played anything but 1.10D. Nor have I ever selected no pause during turn resolution for battles. I thought I missed something. While not having the needle is not a gamebreaker for me, I think it would help in-game saturation to watch the ebb and flow of the big battles. The small battles go by so fast, I think the needle is inconsequential.

[Hidde]

Hobbes
Do I understand you right that you want the option too have instant battle results without any resolution phase at all? My hopes for future games are a slightly longer battle phase as my post above suggested. Can't be easy for Pocus and co. to please everyone