Bull Run scenario?

[Izver]

Hi,

I just bought AACW the other day, game looks terrific, beautiful to look at, rich in detail, easy interface. A dream come true for old 'cardboard' wargamers. Still, I'm trying to figure out the rules by playing Bull Run scenario, and I must say that it's bit disappointing. I just load all the units from Fairfax (except the garrison) into McDowell's army and head straight to Richmond (via Stafford, Spotsylvania and Hanover) without any regards for supply or lines of communication (even when he fails the 'command roll') - and in five tries I won five games by capturing Richmond. Now, I know that my actions are not very historical - but surely there should be some sort of constraint or punishment for such behaviour, even in the context of a battle scenario? Or am I missing something?

Please don't regard this as knocking down of your game - I really think that I will enjoy it when I figure everything out and star playing campaigns - but now, for me, this scenario is not looking very good.

[GShock]

The AI doesn't cope as it should in the scenarios. They are devised to teach how to play in the campaign...i did the impossible with CSA in that scenario too...it's normal.

Now do that in the Campaign and then we'll talk about it again

[Hobbes]

Hi Izver, the small scenarios are really just tools to learn the game - some odd things can happen. The full campaign against the AI or PBEM is far better.

Cheers, Chris

[Izver]

Thanks, guys - I thought that it might be the case - just wanted to check. Can somebody of you answer me a quick (and probably dumb) question - I looked all over the manual and the web, but can't find what the various "lights" at the bottom of the unit counter mean - both their colour and their number. Do they have a different meaning for armies, corps and independent commands?

Many thanks in advance

[Rafiki]

AFAIK:

The more lights, the larger the number of units. Note that a regiment counts as much as a division for this.

Color of the lights show the general supply status of the stack; green = good, orange = not so good, red = bad

I don't think they mean different things for different types of stacks

[GShock]

Raf didn't we put this on the wiki yet?

[Jabberwock]

What the colors mean depends on the view you are using. In supply view it denotes supply status. In other views I think it denotes either cohesion or manpower losses.

Izver - that wasn't a dumb question at all.

G - Is that the battle flag of the CSS Shenandoah?

[Jabberwock]

What the colors mean depends on the view you are using. In supply view it denotes supply status. In other views I think it denotes either cohesion or manpower losses.

Izver - that wasn't dumb at all.

G - Is that the battle flag of the CSS Shenandoah?

[Rafiki]

Raf didn't we put this on the wiki yet?

Kinda (http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Stack)

Might be a bit too hidden away, though.

[Izver]

Kinda (http://ageod.nsen.ch/aacwwiki/Stack)

Might be a bit too hidden away, though.

Again, many thanks - and I think that you should put it in the FAQ section of the Wiki - it seems to me that it's one of the first things that a new player (especialy one who comes from cardboard wargames) is going to notice on the map.

[GShock]

Again, many thanks - and I think that you should put it in the FAQ section of the Wiki - it seems to me that it's one of the first things that a new player (especialy one who comes from cardboard wargames) is going to notice on the map.

Actually Izver, the meaning of those lights has been asked about by every single new player i saw from august till now
IMO Faqs shouldn't exist in forums, it's the typical subject to give totally to the wiki.

[Rafiki]

Though the wiki lends itself quite nicely to maintaining a FAQ, there are some other factors that also enter the mix.

- The wiki is English only, and here we have French and Spanish forums, where I expect there are people that don't understand English well enough to benefit from a FAQ at the wiki; those people deserve a FAQ as well

- I've seen elsewhere (not at AACWWiki) that people have used the FAQ to ask questions, i.e. they edit in their question without providing any answer. Neither should answers provided by a FAQ be unsure; they need to be as reliable as can be. Since I haven't seen The Definite Answer for the stack lights yet, I've been hesitant to add it to the FAQ.

- The question is definitely "Frequent" enough to warrant inclusion, though

[dutch81]

If the game engine does not performs well in scenarios ... but works much better for the grand campaign ... what does this say for the future release of Napoleon (which will be all based on small and or not so small scenarios). I have to say that I was a very dissapointed to hear there was no grand campaign for Napoleon and that the great wonderfull map in it would never be used to its full potential.

A campaign that would take you from the birth of the revolution to 1815 is what I wanted to play most!

[Le Ricain]

If the game engine does not performs well in scenarios ... but works much better for the grand campaign ... what does this say for the future release of Napoleon (which will be all based on small and or not so small scenarios). I have to say that I was a very dissapointed to hear there was no grand campaign for Napoleon and that the great wonderfull map in it would never be used to its full potential.

A campaign that would take you from the birth of the revolution to 1815 is what I wanted to play most!

Well, I guess that it depends on what your focus is on. In AACW, the main drive are the campaign games. I would venture a guess that majority of players play these games. Being a company of limited resources, the effort would be in this area with the smaller scenarios receiving a lesser effort.

As NCP is being designed initially without a grand campaign, the effort is going to be placed on the smaller scenarios. They will be on a class at least equal to the AACW campaign games.We can but hope that a later release will have a grand campaign.