Too tedious to even try?

[Drambuie]

Just reading through this - seems to me that the idea of the 'blockade box' is better than assigning individual vessels (to me anyway) to blocking river sections but as said would also require a major graphics change that won't happen.

So ... how about having a tab similar to the economics map in the ledger stuff where you 'buy' gunboats as you do with factories and therefore there is no need to change the map graphics - the 'level' of interdiction whatever could be reported on tooltips for the river sections concerned and then the gradiated interdiction chances could be bought into play.

You essentially invest in a blockading force or have active individual vessels for other roles - or do away with the indiviual vessels totally (which I think would be a better option) and just have a more abstracted brown water naval function.

Some form of calculations could then be written/made to erode cohesion of this investment incorporating it with river transport values to work out available transport for power projection missions etc.

May be too complicated mind

[Jabberwock]

Here are direct links to volumes XIV-XVI of the Campaigns of the Civil War series. Three out of sixteen volumes is not insignificant. There are extensive details of INTERACTION between land and naval forces, showing what was and was not possible. The effects of naval firepower were not abstract or insignificant. The role that the navy played in operations was not abstract or insignificant. The effects that the navy had on the overall strategy and outcome of the war were not abstract or insignificant.

The Gulf and Inland Waters by Alfred Thayer Mahan
The Atlantic Coast by Daniel Ammen
The Blockade and the Cruisers by James Russell Soley

I didn't put them up here so people can say "That's nice, Jabber's read those books, he must be an expert." I've posted links to these and other resources in several places on these forums so that people here can read them and see for themselves what doesn't get taught in school about this subject.

BTW - this is not a comment on the blockade box/ledger page/autopatrol feature. Seems like an interesting idea. Maybe a way to reduce micromanagement, since Pocus & Co. seem firmly invested in tweaking total interdiction with non-interaction.

[willgamer]

Here are direct links to volumes XIV-XVI of the Campaigns of the Civil War series. Three out of sixteen volumes is not insignificant. There are extensive details of INTERACTION between land and naval forces, showing what was and was not possible. The effects of naval firepower were not abstract or insignificant. The role that the navy played in operations was not abstract or insignificant. The effects that the navy had on the overall strategy and outcome of the war were not abstract or insignificant.

The Gulf and Inland Waters by Alfred Thayer Mahan
The Atlantic Coast by Daniel Ammen
The Blockade and the Cruisers by James Russell Soley

I didn't put them up here so people can say "That's nice, Jabber's read those books, he must be an expert." I've posted links to these and other resources in several places on these forums so that people here can read them and see for themselves what doesn't get taught in school about this subject.

BTW - this is not a comment on the blockade box/ledger page/autopatrol feature. Seems like an interesting idea. Maybe a way to reduce micromanagement, since Pocus & Co. seem firmly invested in tweaking total interdiction with non-interaction.

Just want to say thanks!

I was immediately drawn into the first book by the popular passages reference at your link that sent me to the quote on p.34. From there, who could resist going on the amazing tale of the rams, first deployed by the South, but adopted and quickly used decisively by the North to defeat Southern boats.

Really good reading... thank you for sharing.

[willgamer]

I think we will remove the need for the offensive posture in the next patch, too much of a chore.

Thank you very much.

For the rest (25% per boat, I'll see what I can do). It is less simpler to achieve than the on/off test, but doable hopefully.

Hold on; I don't believe there is any community consensus that that's an improvement.

How about just fixing the current ability to mod the number of elements to interdict. My testing, trying to mod it to 1, seems to show it is not wad i.e. 1 gunboat element in offensive posture does not interdict.

For the 2nd point, that's by lack of time only.

If you ever have time on your hands to actually play the North from the 1861 campaign start, you'll never regret time spent enhancing the UI for two flavors of Sentry (this turn only/forever).

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[willgamer]

Willgamer:

You will wait until your face turns blue for community consensus in most cases. The proposal I put forward was a compromise to eliminate the micromanagement that will turn off most gamers, but still retain reasonable abilities to actually manage the interdiction of river crossings. From a coding point of view, it is not as complicated as changing the entire structure of the River Boat interdiction rules.

Also, as stated frequently, this game is a year old now, and AGEod is working on newer games. It is with this thought in mind that I find myself coordinating between gamers and AGEod to continue working on AACW itself, as long as the proposed changes are simple enough to implement for AACW only or would benefit the entire game engine for the other games.

Regards

Would you mind if we play a little devil's details-

1. Are you proposing removing the recently added option:
bloMinSUForLinkCut = 4 // Min nb of elements in offensive posture in a water region to cut the transition link between 2 adjacents land regions ?

1A. If not, do you support fixing it and working it into your proposal (as presumably the divisor that determines what percentage each element/boat is worth)?

2. Do you mean boats or elements (e.g. there are 2 gunboats/element)?

3. Is this resolved at execution time as go/nogo? If not, how?

4. Do you support any other ideas for reducing micromanagement in any aspect of the game?

[Franciscus]

I personally am not so sure about what would be the best way to go, but as the "riverine box" option is a no-possibility, I agree with Gray's sugestion of atributing a % chance of interdiction according to the number of shipes present. Nevertheless, I feel that the interdiction should never reach a 100% chance. Meaning, in this case, that what I propose is that "4 or more ship elements" would give say a 90% chance of interdiction, but never 100%, to maintain a certain degree of uncertainty, and also to try and reduce the possible tendency for the USA player to create a ship barrier in all the rivers.

Nevertheless, this discussion is relatively meaningless if the reported fog of war bug (reported by Skibear in another thread) is there

(Also please, could anybody - Pocus - explain what is the meaning of "ships needed to blockade" that appear in the river tooltips, even if no port is present ? If it is the number of ships needed to block the passage of supplies, why is it different, varying from 4 to 12, sometimes with no apparent logical reason ? And if this difference was implemented and works for the passage of supplies why is it not also implemented for the passage of troops - some rivers could possibly be made more difficult to interdict, if they are already more difficult to block, and this could be also another possible way to manage (with a little more JDS ) the crossing of troops ?)

[Coregonas]

Meaning, in this case, that what I propose is that "4 or more ship elements" would give say a 90% chance of interdiction, but never 100%, to maintain a certain degree of uncertainty, and also to try and reduce the possible tendency for the USA player to create a ship barrier in all the rivers.

I agree with this idea.

I think just giving a very small (i.e. 99% interdict posibility -> 1%) chance per day trying the crossing, could nearly assure a unit will cross some day, if time enough to try, allowing the ships not be totally God-like river-walls.

However, cohesion should be lost as if some kind of move.

[Jabberwock]

Also, as stated frequently, this game is a year old now, and AGEod is working on newer games. It is with this thought in mind that I find myself coordinating between gamers and AGEod to continue working on AACW itself, as long as the proposed changes are simple enough to implement for AACW only or would benefit the entire game engine for the other games.

Gray -

Deterrence is not a complex programming problem. Take the current shore bombardment rules, reverse the odds, and apply them to shallow regions. Leave interdiction in place for coastal regions. That's about as simple as any suggestion for an option that can't be created by a modder can get.

Could the suggestion be tweaked endlessly? Of course, that's one reason why it should be optional. Could your suggestion be tweaked endlessly? Yes, it's already starting. Will an attempt to use arbitrary numbers to create a total effect limiting player options lead to endless argument and tweaking? Definitely Yes.

Is this just going to become another "basicly flawed, but not important enough to fix" scenario? We can always find the time to add lots of complicated little rules to continually modify a basicly flawed system.

[berto]

Also, as stated frequently, this game is a year old now, and AGEod is working on newer games.

But newer isn't necessarily better, or better selling. Judging by the "Viewing" metric, the American Civil War Forum is consistently twice as active as the Napoleon's Campaigns and Birth of America fora combined. AACW continues to be popular, and its popularity doesn't appear to be diminishing. AGEod would be foolish to ignore this.

[pepe4158]

Say just a thought.....hope it doesnt seem to lame.

1. When I first bought the game, and I saw the transports, I thought to cross a large river surely you MUST need a transport to do this....but as I played the game more I saw that land forces could just cross willy-nilly and even use an abstract form of river movement, which seemed really redundant and making transports almost superfluous I dare say.
Yes they are still good for depots, but their current lack of real neccesity makes them really unnecessary to build which is a shame to me as they really have a cool icon....I realize though that rivers could be forded at some point, so maybe unpractical to say ALL rivers should require a transport.

What I would propose at some time is this:

1. Land units could move ON & OFF transports without a 2 week delay, but instantaneous....could this be achieved? Surely it didnt take 2 weeks to move on and off a transport.

2. Do away with the abstract river movement as they make transport building more unusefull and unnecessary anyway...that box would only be good for supplies. I fail to see these magical boats just appearing that could accomadate a large body of troop movements, being a real possibilty in a real life scenario.

3. Land units MUST use transports to cross certain bodies of water as this is the key to make transports and naval ships (river and ocean) really mean something.

4 The coup-de-grau so to speak would be the ability of any artillary to fire at ships (and recieve damage in return fire), but I realize this may be a pipe-dream.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

So you would modify it to something like this? (This is just an example interpretation of your suggestion.)

4+ships = 80% max chance of interdiction
3 ships = 60% chance of interdiction
2 ships = 40% chance of interdiction
1 ship = 20% chance of interdiction

Yes !

[soundoff]

So you would modify it to something like this? (This is just an example interpretation of your suggestion.)

4+ships = 80% max chance of interdiction
3 ships = 60% chance of interdiction
2 ships = 40% chance of interdiction
1 ship = 20% chance of interdiction

No

I must confess to getting slightly worried about where all of this river interdiction/numbers is going to end up.

We've already had 'Lets change 1 unit to 4' and 'Lets have them in offensive mode'

Now there is already backtracking on the 'offensive mode' aspect as folks come to realise that it requires too much micro management.

We are also told we can mod the 4 unit requirement back to 1. Why it was not left at 1 moddable up to 4 I'll never know. As if somehow conjuring the figure 4 out of the air is any more historically accurate than conjuring 1.

Now we are talking about 80% 60% etc. chances of interdiction. Why? More micro management. What audience is being satisfied? At some stage realism has to give way to gameplay otherwise it won't be a niche market that AGEod is filling rather a very few hardcore gamers.

By all means have percentage chances of interdiction as a mod if you must but for goodness sake keep it away from an official patch.

I'm all for improvements in the game. Gray's work on RR's and mispelt names etc is truely awesome and long may it continue. I can also agree with, for example, changes to how much supply is produced as it does not impact on the way supply works. A tweak to limit battle losses to a more realistic level I can subscribe too, even welcome. When it comes to fundamental game changes of this nature though I fail to be convinced particularly as they don't seem to be extensively beta tested prior to introduction.

[Franciscus]

No

I must confess to getting slightly worried about where all of this river interdiction/numbers is going to end up.

We've already had 'Lets change 1 unit to 4' and 'Lets have them in offensive mode'

Now there is already backtracking on the 'offensive mode' aspect as folks come to realise that it requires too much micro management.

We are also told we can mod the 4 unit requirement back to 1. Why it was not left at 1 moddable up to 4 I'll never know. As if somehow conjuring the figure 4 out of the air is any more historically accurate than conjuring 1.

Now we are talking about 80% 60% etc. chances of interdiction. Why? More micro management. What audience is being satisfied? At some stage realism has to give way to gameplay otherwise it won't be a niche market that AGEod is filling rather a very few hardcore gamers.

By all means have percentage chances of interdiction as a mod if you must but for goodness sake keep it away from an official patch.

I'm all for improvements in the game. Gray's work on RR's and mispelt names etc is truely awesome and long may it continue. I can also agree with, for example, changes to how much supply is produced as it does not impact on the way supply works. A tweak to limit battle losses to a more realistic level I can subscribe too, even welcome. When it comes to fundamental game changes of this nature though I fail to be convinced particularly as they don't seem to be extensively beta tested prior to introduction.

Let me clear things a bit. I for myself do not care very much about river crossing interdictions, as I always play as CSA vs AI, and I do not build large river boat forces and neither the USA AI leure: . I also do not understand exactly why the change 1 boat -> 4 boats was implemented, but I believe that was to prevent a gamey strategy of some northern players, that could easily build walls of boats preventing river crossings all over the map. It seems that this still happens with 4 boats, but maybe less...
What I (and others) defend is that if the 4 boat rule is kept, it is absolutely ilogical to have a yes or no rule, where 3 boats do nothing and 4 boats prevent absolutely the crossing of troops. War and wargames should have uncertainty, and my (and others) suggestions only try to achieve this, if river crossing rules are kept as they are now.

As a side note I fail to see how probabilistic rules increase micromanagement. I for myself tend to enjoy playing "intuitively". Is it not more intuitive and logical to know that if you manage to get more boats in a section of the river you will get more chance of blocking a crossing by the enemy (although not 100%) ? And also knowing that you may invest but sometimes your plans do not work the way you want ?. Is it not more FUN than to spend countless minutes building exactly 4 boats in all sections of the river (not one less, mind you) and keeping them in offensive mode ?

Regards

[arsan]

Let me clear things a bit. I for myself do not care very much about river crossing interdictions, as I always play as CSA vs AI, and I do not build large river boat forces and neither the USA AI leure: . I also do not understand exactly why the change 1 boat -> 4 boats was implemented, but I believe that was to prevent a gamey strategy of some northern players, that could easily build walls of boats preventing river crossings all over the map. It seems that this still happens with 4 boats, but maybe less...
What I (and others) defend is that if the 4 boat rule is kept, it is absolutely ilogical to have a yes or no rule, where 3 boats do nothing and 4 boats prevent absolutely the crossing of troops. War and wargames should have uncertainty, and my (and others) suggestions only try to achieve this, if river crossing rules are kept as they are now.

As a side note I fail to see how probabilistic rules increase micromanagement. I for myself tend to enjoy playing "intuitively". Is it not more intuitive and logical to know that if you manage to get more boats in a section of the river you will get more chance of blocking a crossing by the enemy (although not 100%) ? And also knowing that you may invest but sometimes your plans do not work the way you want ?. Is it not more FUN than to spend countless minutes building exactly 4 boats in all sections of the river (not one less, mind you) and keeping them in offensive mode ?

Regards

+1

[Pocus]

same boat here, I believe that probabilistic rule decrease MM, because you don't have to remember the exact number where the rule triggers. you only have to understand the notion that the more gunboats patrolling, the less chances you have to cross, period. seems almost logical

[Pocus]

about the modding of the number of necessary gunboats. it should work, can someone mod the number to his desired value and tell me if it is ok or not?

[willgamer]

about the modding of the number of necessary gunboats. it should work, can someone mod the number to his desired value and tell me if it is ok or not?

When I set bloMinSUForLinkCut = 1 and used offensive posture, it did NOT block in the test I did.

[willgamer]

... but I believe that was to prevent a gamey strategy of some northern players, that could easily build walls of boats preventing river crossings all over the map.

Wow! Just like the Union did in real life?!

While I understand the desire to go where no commander has gone before, the best way to proceed, as Jabberwock has so persuasively argued, is with an interactive system for land and water.

IMHO, the original system, 1 unopposed element in defensive mode interdicts river crossing, is supported by history and attempts to tweak it will distort American Civil War history of the overarching Union grand strategy beyond all recognition.

Therefore, I'd like to request that any new system that be at least moddable back to the original code.

[soundoff]

As a side note I fail to see how probabilistic rules increase micromanagement. I for myself tend to enjoy playing "intuitively". Is it not more intuitive and logical to know that if you manage to get more boats in a section of the river you will get more chance of blocking a crossing by the enemy (although not 100%) ? And also knowing that you may invest but sometimes your plans do not work the way you want ?. Is it not more FUN than to spend countless minutes building exactly 4 boats in all sections of the river (not one less, mind you) and keeping them in offensive mode ?

Regards

The truth is however that if you allow for a probability rule where the probability is known then most players will automatically attempt to block a river point with the number of units required to produce the best probability.

Unless you are totally strapped for resources and have no other option who in their right mind trying to blockade the Cumberland say is going to put less than 4 units (assuming that is the optimum number) unless they have no alternative. Respectfully I seriously think you are misguided if you believe the vast majority of players will put less than the optimum number of boats in a section of river in order to attempt to blockade it because it is more 'FUN'

Its rather like building a division and deliberately fielding it at less than 18 elements. Unless its for a very special reason or you have no option its just not done.

And you could have had a 'probability factor' into whether units crossed a river blockaded by riverines without any increase in boat numbers at all. Now if its purely uncertainty of river crossings I'm all for it but please dont dress it up by linking it to 1 boat gives 'x' percent chance 2 boats give 'y' percent chance. IMO thats just change for changes sake.

[Franciscus]

The truth is however that if you allow for a probability rule where the probability is known then most players will automatically attempt to block a river point with the number of units required to produce the best probability.

Unless you are totally strapped for resources and have no other option who in their right mind trying to blockade the Cumberland say is going to put less than 4 units (assuming that is the optimum number) unless they have no alternative. Respectfully I seriously think you are misguided if you believe the vast majority of players will put less than the optimum number of boats in a section of river in order to attempt to blockade it because it is more 'FUN'

Its rather like building a division and deliberately fielding it at less than 18 elements. Unless its for a very special reason or you have no option its just not done.

And you could have had a 'probability factor' into whether units crossed a river blockaded by riverines without any increase in boat numbers at all. Now if its purely uncertainty of river crossings I'm all for it but please dont dress it up by linking it to 1 boat gives 'x' percent chance 2 boats give 'y' percent chance. IMO thats just change for changes sake.

I agree to disagree with you

Regards

[arsan]

Well, FUN is why we play the game don't we?
All systems are abstractions, but at least the probability one is a progressive abstraction. Not a ON/OFF system where having 3 gunboats is the same than having zero.
Besides the not 100% guarantee seems more FUN and historic to me, as in history errors and shit happens (a lot) and one cannot be sure of anything.
About the just 1 boat instead of 4, it was lengthy discussed before and a kind of consensus was get then IIRC.
For me, 4 is ok. With just 1 boat / 100 % block the north has a too easy job.
In any case, this probability system does not involve more micromanaging which was (i thought) the main problem discussed here. And it is simple and intuitive (boats block, more boats block more, less boast block less...) and seems doable from a programming perspective, acording to Pocus.
I like it
Regards

[soundoff]

In any case, this probability system does not involve more micromanaging which was (i thought) the main problem discussed here.

Regards

With due respect Arsan yes it does if probability is linked directly to the number of boats. The inevitable outcome is that the majority of players, as they do now with divisions, will expand fleets to the optimum size providing they have sufficient resources. That means continually checking fleet sizes in every stretch of river and adding to them when possible.

I think though its time for me to bow out of the debate and simple say we agree to disagree.

Regards

[arsan]

Hi!
Bear in mind that now, the "standard" are already 4 elements, the same that will be the optimum % with this probability system. So its just the same micromanaging than now (stack two gunboats units together).
With the advantage that, meanwhile you manage to put together (or not) your perfect 4 elements fleets, they will have some reduced effect on the ability of the enemy to cross.
I understand that you would prefer to go back to 1 element, but that is another discussion, i think, not much related to micromanagement.
Regards

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted