Favourite game innovations and concepts

[veji1]

Yes but the point exists that if you have a stalemated war in 1864 ( say the CSA managed ot hold its own and establish strong defensive positions on all the main fronts ), even though the Union could and would win a protracted war at heavy cost, it might in the end opt for peace following a Democrat victory in the presidential election...

I don't know how that plays out on the national Moral front, but it should put pressure on the Union player to achieve big success in early mid 1864 or face defeat in presidential election...

This is a classic feature of ACW games that needs to be included imho because it gives a realistic, albeit far-fetched, goal for good CSA players.. Hold your own til 1864 and the Union might settle for draw through electoral defeat...

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Union morale was high enough for Lincoln to be reelected even after the heavy casualties of 1864.

Sure. I didn't say Union morale was low. I just said it wasn't as high as Confederate morale was low. The two weren't inversely related.

I reckon Union morale was lower near the end of the war than it was at the beginning. Both sides had unrealistically high morale at the beginning; especially the Confederates. But, as you say, Union morale would have needed to be much lower for Lincoln to have lost the election.

[Pocus]

OK, if that's true in the game. I don't think it was true in reality. At the start of the war, both sides had high morale simultaneously. Near the end of the war, Confederate morale was surely low but I don't think Union morale was correspondingly high. All those high casualty figures from Grant's offensives were not making people happy, even though the Confederacy was losing and in retreat.

I think it tends to happen in any lengthy war that the morale of both sides decreases with time. People get sick of war. Understandably so.

Jonathan,

In the game you seldomly win by attaining your high morale level, except if you manage to pull a victory very early by taking Richmond while inflicting considerable losses to the Rebs. What is to be expected is that you win by having the opposing side goes below is defeat level. Because the 'exchange' of morale (zero sum) between the 2 sides is a fact, but I forgot to say that the various options you can triggers attrition your morale away, as you request more conscripts and money from people. Overall I would say that a winner in 64-65 will have a morale near 100-110 (because he captured the capital) and the losser will have something like 0-20. Hope it makes senses.

Yes but the point exists that if you have a stalemated war in 1864 ( say the CSA managed ot hold its own and establish strong defensive positions on all the main fronts ), even though the Union could and would win a protracted war at heavy cost, it might in the end opt for peace following a Democrat victory in the presidential election...

I don't know how that plays out on the national Moral front, but it should put pressure on the Union player to achieve big success in early mid 1864 or face defeat in presidential election...

This is a classic feature of ACW games that needs to be included imho because it gives a realistic, albeit far-fetched, goal for good CSA players.. Hold your own til 1864 and the Union might settle for draw through electoral defeat...
[url=editpost.php?do=editpost&p=20564]editpost.php?do=editpost&p=20564[/url]

This is taken into account, the Union defeat Morale in 64 is risen by 20 points, so he must be very wary of the pre election period, as this is an opportunity window for the CSA. Then after the election is passed, it is restored to its previous level.

[DennyWright]

A very clever way to simulate a period of weakness for the Union!

[Jonathan Palfrey]

I'm not trying to suggest that this morale thing is a significant problem with the game. But, if the morales of the two sides are zero-sum in the game (or close to zero sum), I think it means that what you call 'morale' in the game is not what most people would call 'morale' in reality. It's a slightly different concept.

At the start of the war, Union morale was high; but Confederate morale was insanely high. It would have to be, for them to open fire on an enemy that had so many advantages over them.

[soccercw]

I wouldnt say either sides beginning "morale" was higher than the other. The colonial Americans fought the British, who also had more advantages. But that doesnt mean American morale was higher than the British at the start. In fact the British won almost every single early engagement. The Union morale was SKY high before the first major battle in the East. They were just going to sweep these rebels aside. Only after the reality of war sets in after 1st Manassas-Chancellorsville can you say that the South had a higher "morale".

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Maybe so. My main point was that, at or near the start of the war, both sides had high morale simultaneously.

[Barney]

The Pacific Coast and Far West are not forgotten

Whilst historically the majority of the ACW was fought on the battlefields of the East in Virginia, and in the West throughout the Mississippi region, Tennessee and Kentucky, Ageod's ACW does not ignore the Far West and indeed, as can be seen from the screenshots below, the Department of the Pacific is included also.

[ATTACH]308[/ATTACH]

Simulate Quantrill's raid into Lawrence County

[ATTACH]306[/ATTACH]

Alternatively manage the Pacific Squadron stationed in San Francisco Bay.

[ATTACH]307[/ATTACH]

The importance of the Pacific states of California and Oregon are not ignored and have an impact on the economy of the United States through the provision of war supplies simulating the timber sourced from the Pacific North West and the Gold supplied east from California.

Colorado Territory and the South-West of Arizona are included also. Ageod's ACW successfully manages to combine an intuitive map interface which provides enormous depth and detail without jeopardising playability.

[Benihana]

I realize this thread is old, but I just wanted to mention my absolute favorite innovation from AACW. I love so many things about it, but the one thing that makes it stand out from an enjoyment-playability aspect is that the game does not resort to artificial means to balance AI (as far as I know), unlike many other games I've played. The player and the AI begin with the same units (well if they were playing the same side), the same advantages and disadvantages, unless you tweak certain settings.

To put it another way, both chess players are beginning the game with the same setup. Again I realize North/South are not equal, but the AI plays either skillfully.