Too tedious to even try?

[soundoff]

Hi!

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.
Regards

I know I said I would not come back but I have to ....just for clarification. Is it 4 elements, effectively 2 units or is it 4 units (8 elements)?

Now I'm totally confused leure:

[arsan]

Hi

The current rule is 4 element's (like two gunboat units with 2 elements each).
The proposed rule is the same i think.
We always talk about elements, as units had different numbers of elements.

[Loops]

Hi, I haven't posted before but I've been playing this (very fun and interesting ) game and reading these forums a few weeks now. I wanted to speak up because the original poster's main point (I think) has been almost completely overlooked in the never-ending discussion of naval interdiction mechanics.

The game could really benefit from a new command option (not sentry) that would take a unit out of the next/previous unit hotkey cycle for just the current turn. (think: "Hold" or "Wait" or "Rest") I imagine this would not need any graphical display to be useful - just a hotkey assigned to it. As far as I know this doesn't exist - please let me know if it does!

The purpose of this change would be to make going through your turn with the next land unit/ship hotkeys much easier since you would now have a way to take a unit out of the list for that turn only without using sentry or issuing some movement command. Skipping units (just hitting "next" again) with the way it works now causes headaches because it will restart at the beginning of the list if you hit the "next" hotkey with no unit selected. I habitually deselect a unit I have just issued an order to, so I am constantly having to click "next" to get through the list of units I've already looked at that turn but don't want to move or lock in place permanently.

Not having a good way to tell the next/previous cycle to ignore a unit for the rest of the turn makes managing units staying in one place on a non-permanent basis, such as ships on offensive interdicting a river, very tedious and time-consuming since you end up going over them again and again with "next".

Sentry is nice and has the envelope display to let you know you have it set, but I find I have to save that for the many militia units assigned to permanently guarding towns and depots. For a while I tried unlocking sentry each turn and just using it for everything, but sorting through all the rear area units each turn to find the couple new ones that actually need orders was a real hassle.

Using sentry for permanent assignments and repeatedly hitting "next" each turn is an alright solution, but around the 15th time I've had to hit "next" get past that cavalry brigade in Texas regaining some cohesion for a turn I start thinking there has to be a better answer.

[pepe4158]

Again, all great suggestions, but it would entail a total rewrite of the river movement/transport code. If it were a new game in development, these would be worth considering, but it's not a new game in development, it is a finished product that just needs some tweaking to fix some flaws.

Yeah realize that....maybe at some time pocus would follow up with AGEOD CWII

[Jabberwock]

The most useful employment of this tactic is to attempt to close off most traffic across the Mississippi, and to severely limit the Raider/Cavalry raids across the Ohio, which is quite historical in behavior. Morgan slipped across this (interdiction) but had a hell of a time trying to slip back. This is why I somewhat agree that the interdiction should not be airtight.

Nope. That's not the most useful employment of this tactic.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I am running the Union navy in the Grand Campaign, and I have the perfect opportunity to display what I believe is the perfect gamey use of this tactic ... given time. Part of my plan has already been mentioned in the Washington Telegraph Office thread, but I really can't go into more details here.

Unfortunately, given the history of naval rules in this game, time is what I do not have. If I can't convince enough people to raise enough voices to get a different option available soon, we are going to be stuck with this system. At least shore bombardment is moddable.

BTW - Loops & willgamer are right. The sentry thing could use some attention, too. Sorry, willgamer, for hijacking your thread.

[mikee64]

Hi, ...

The game could really benefit from a new command option (not sentry) that would take a unit out of the next/previous unit hotkey cycle for just the current turn. (think: "Hold" or "Wait" or "Rest") I imagine this would not need any graphical display to be useful - just a hotkey assigned to it. As far as I know this doesn't exist - please let me know if it does!

The purpose of this change would be to make going through your turn with the next land unit/ship hotkeys much easier since you would now have a way to take a unit out of the list for that turn only without using sentry or issuing some movement command. Skipping units (just hitting "next" again) with the way it works now causes headaches because it will restart at the beginning of the list if you hit the "next" hotkey with no unit selected. I habitually deselect a unit I have just issued an order to, so I am constantly having to click "next" to get through the list of units I've already looked at that turn but don't want to move or lock in place permanently.

Not having a good way to tell the next/previous cycle to ignore a unit for the rest of the turn makes managing units staying in one place on a non-permanent basis, such as ships on offensive interdicting a river, very tedious and time-consuming since you end up going over them again and again with "next".

Sentry is nice and has the envelope display to let you know you have it set, but I find I have to save that for the many militia units assigned to permanently guarding towns and depots. For a while I tried unlocking sentry each turn and just using it for everything, but sorting through all the rear area units each turn to find the couple new ones that actually need orders was a real hassle.

Using sentry for permanent assignments and repeatedly hitting "next" each turn is an alright solution, but around the 15th time I've had to hit "next" get past that cavalry brigade in Texas regaining some cohesion for a turn I start thinking there has to be a better answer.

I promise this is not me or even willgamer (I don't think) posting under an alias

But, this has been IMO since almost a year ago the most needed addition to the interface, and one that is common in other games of this type.

I have been reluctant to keep bringing it up because I see everyday how busy Pocus is adding fixes and features, and I can see that all are helpful... but when I came back to the game just last month this was the one thing I was surprised was still missing. E-R keys are great, but even after much play I find myself skipping in the order, and seeing the same units again I just want to tell "wait until next turn". I think it was jimwindsor way back last year that suggested something simple like <spacebar>, and Loops is right, no graphic is even needed.

regards,

[Jabberwock]

Hi Mike. Welcome back. You are you. We've missed you.

[mikee64]

Thanks Jabber. We will meet again in a pbem, or maybe even better in a Grand Campaign, or heck, maybe even on the same side, if you come over to the the secesh.

My summer looks pretty free if you have anytime off from your presidential duties in the new GC.

Are you still doing anything with general pics ? One dude has a really annoyingly small head!

[mikee64]

Hi Mike. Welcome back. You are you.

BTW Jabber I took this as a compliment, I hope that is how it was intended.

[Jabberwock]

Yes, I am still working on them, when I am not arguing about naval stuff. Tell me by PM who is the worst pinhead of the bunch, and don't say it is Jabber. (So this thread can go back to being about ... what was it ... oh yeah, a new non-sentry sentry feature.)

[willgamer]

I promise this is not me or even willgamer (I don't think) posting under an alias

I took a swing at this earlier this year as well-
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=7287


Jabberwock-

Not hijacked at all; my intention was to identify game UI shortcomings that are time wasting, mind numbing, tedium. Near as I can tell, posts here are on track.....

[pepe4158]

yeah I quess I get a little too hung up on this naval thing too, sure didnt mean to try to hijack the thread, just as pointed out here, you see something that seems so common to other games and it drives you nuts.
With me its definitly this transport thing...I mean comon, in PvP how many of you guys really build transports to actually transport troops...but HELLO, every frickin startegy game I ever played building transports, to ACTUALLY transport troops was a MUST! As there wasnt any other way around it and these cool looking transport icon ships really look superflous to me and kinda not worth building.

[Rafiki]

I promise this is not me or even willgamer (I don't think) posting under an alias

You can add me to that list as well

[arsan]

Me too!

I got used to the "one turn sentry" key playing hours and hours of CivIV.
It would be very useful!

[Evren]

I have another suggestion (maybe for the AACW2, even the idea of it gives me chills, so please do not ruin my dreams by saying "it is not in the plans right now" ).

I would like to see a military control percentage for river regions just like the land regions, which would be determined by the presence of river ships, the control of adjacent land regions and the control of harbors that are on a certain river. The presence of river ships should have an effect on the river region directly, just like military units in a land region. Control of harbors should have an effect like the loyalty check after capturing an objective city, thus changing the military control of the river, having the biggest effect on the adjacent river region, and decreasing effect with the distance. Also, the control of adjacent regions have some impact on the military control, in a similar sense. Military contol of 0% should force the player to use riverine movement or river transports for a crossing, (or 25 %, just like the military control needed to use the railroads of a region).

I'm not saying the idea is not flawed at all, but i think it can bring a whole new aspect to the naval side of the game. Players would be free to use the ships to have a sudden impact on certain river regions, thus allowing the player to use the ships on a more strategical level, reducing micromanagement overall. I can give further examples, but i think you got the main idea.

PS: I agree with Jabberwock's complain about the reduced effects of naval bombardment, trying to correct the Iwo Jima effect. Mobility of the ships only is a reason to increase the bombardment value.

[bk6583]

yeah I quess I get a little too hung up on this naval thing too, sure didnt mean to try to hijack the thread, just as pointed out here, you see something that seems so common to other games and it drives you nuts.
With me its definitly this transport thing...I mean comon, in PvP how many of you guys really build transports to actually transport troops...but HELLO, every frickin startegy game I ever played building transports, to ACTUALLY transport troops was a MUST! As there wasnt any other way around it and these cool looking transport icon ships really look superflous to me and kinda not worth building.

I hesitate to add to this because as a previous poster said, Pocus is consistently working really hard to take our inputs and improve the game, particularly Athena. That said, the river transport aspect of this game is rather bizarre, as I discovered by accident when I moved a whole Union corps from Paduca to Donelson and just for the heck of it clicked on the river transport icon. Travel time went from 38 days to 7 days - all via a river with CSA controlled regions on all sides. You're right, other than building depots, one really doesn't need to build actual river transports - just go into the F6 screen and keep increasing the river transport there. And of course you have CSA units also using river transport w/o actual transports cruising all over Union controlled rivers. At least there, a Union player can add arty to river cities and inflict some losses over time. Against Athena though, using this transportation quirk as the Union I almost think has turned into abuse.

[Jabberwock]

If we had one week turns, I'd agree about the transports. Given the two week time scale, something a little quicker is needed, due to the built-in delay in unloading ships. River transport also reduces micromanagement, and makes strategic surprise via amphibious movements much more likely.

[pepe4158]

If we had one week turns, I'd agree about the transports. Given the two week time scale, something a little quicker is needed, due to the built-in delay in unloading ships. River transport also reduces micromanagement, and makes strategic surprise via amphibious movements much more likely.

Yeah the time factor is the real problem! However even with the current game engine, would it be possible to make land units be able to exit and enter transports without a delay.
Im certainly not the greatest at programming, though I agree quite a chore I think this coding chore is possible in a patch, and due to the time thing would IMO greatly improve the game and once again make transports valuable.

The suprise is the key as Jabber alluded to, but think of this, I have x number of land units and x naval transports in Cairo. With out a delay I leave Cario, units were stealthed from opponent due to being inside city, and attack Memphis in one turn due to no exit delay from new patch, and because of my superior navy as confederate player pays the price of hiding his navy away.....I really think this was how Pocus first envisioned the game if I may be so bold.

Historically there were reasons the confederate navy DID rush out and engage the superior union navy, part was false bravado but there were real strategic reasons of not wanting to give union transports full access to their shores....in our current game version not a worry as it takes a fricking month or more to transport troops using transports so the confederate player just hides his ships with no worries

[Coregonas]

I believe the way to improve on the original system is to change the level of abstraction either direction. Simplify to boxes, or implement Jabberian detail.

Of course, a "River Handling Option" checkbox at setup would be ideal!

This idea is VERY good, but seems to me not good to abstract. Seems to me it should be a mistake as the game is designed.

If these boxes are to be done, those should be somewhat FIXED in a River AREAS between "FORTS".

But.. What if I construct a FORT in a region between? (As now it is designed, a fort is also a 5 level trenched Army)

Should then Forts Markers be included INSIDE these BOXES?

AACW2 - to implement this properly?

[Coregonas]

If I can't convince enough people to raise enough voices to get a different option available soon, we are going to be stuck with this system. At least shore bombardment is moddable.

I agree Naval warfare has some flaws.
But this is a problem in nearly ALL good wargames I know. Seems as wargaming "TECH" has achieved a good simulation in LAND warfare...
but NAVAL, AIR, (and SPACE 3d & MAGIC ) warfare is still to be improved!

This one (AACW...) is really good, but unfortunately once a limit gets passed yes gets an OVERFLOW result...

Jabber please, can you explain in an easy resume us (slow braineds like me) what do you want to "convince" ?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Jabberwock]

I agree Naval warfare has some flaws.
But this is a problem in nearly ALL good wargames I know. Seems as wargaming "TECH" has achieved a good simulation in LAND warfare...
but NAVAL, AIR, (and SPACE 3d & MAGIC ) warfare is still to be improved!

This one (AACW...) is really good, but unfortunately once a limit gets passed yes gets an OVERFLOW result...

Jabber please, can you explain in an easy resume us (slow braineds like me) what do you want to "convince" ?

My big problem is with rules that discourage any interaction between naval forces and land forces, or limit those interactions to major engagements. This has been the unfortunate historical (or ahistorical) trend for AACW.

Unbalanced shore bombardment does this, by discouraging players from putting ships anywhere they can be bombarded, except in very large convoys/fleets, and not attempting to use them historically to threaten coastal forts. The requirement for an amphibious landing or explicit bombardment orders to the land units do this. The inability of shore forces to bombard stationary ships does this. These were all needed under the "Iwo Jima" rules. As long as shore bombardment is so unbalanced in the other direction, there is much less need for them. The requirement for level 5+ entrenchments does this. It takes three months before a shore battery has a chance to interact with ships. Those are the pesky little rules that get added to compensate for a basic flaw.

Total interdiction does this. It is an on/off switch at an arbitrary number of ships, that leaves no room for actual interaction between the forces involved.

The option I would like to see available is deterrence (or JDS for Jabberian Deterrence System - credit should go to Skibear too, he had the idea first - so maybe we should call it the Skibear Deterrence Initiative instead ), where any land unit crossing a river or traversing a shallow water region would be at great risk of encountering naval forces at a severe disadvantage (as severe as shore bombardment currently is the other way). Fear would keep those "suicidal" cavalry raiders from using the rivers willy-nilly to get wherever they wanted in enemy territory; fear would keep larger forces from crossing rivers without setting up some kind of security first; and fear would keep very small naval forces from attempting to interdict near large land forces. This would certainly account for the lack of historical data about opposed crossings. However, there would still be a chance at interaction. Fear is generally learned by experience.

The arguments in each specific instance tend to come down to: "I don't personally use the navy that way, so it is not worth the effort, why are you so worked up anyway?" or "I agree with you in general that there is a problem, but I think there is a valid historical argument for this particular feature." or "I just don't want to go back to Iwo Jima." (I haven't seen that one specifically in a while, but it is definitely still in some people's minds.) The combination, plus the perfectly natural tendency of everyone here to go off in a half dozen directions at once, pretty much ensures that there will never be a consensus in any other direction than towards limiting interaction.

That is why I am so fanatically strident and single-minded about these issues.

My little problem (or jds [lowercase] for jabberian detail syndrome) is with a lack of details like elevation, torpedoes, etc.

EDIT: Another big argument that I missed is "This would be too hard for Athena to figure out." While generally a valid point, This will always be an argument in favor of non-interaction. So more interactive rules should be optional, and mainly used for PBEM, until and unless Pocus has considerably more time to invest for improving the AI in the naval/amphibious area.

[berto]

FWIW, I too favor greater interaction and modeling the land-naval nexus and other aspects of naval warfare with greater realism and more historical detail.

[AndrewKurtz]

However even with the current game engine, would it be possible to make land units be able to exit and enter transports without a delay.

Look at the coming features in BOA2.

Special Orders: Distant unload: Order your naval unit to sail to a coastal region and unload troops in the same turn.


I believe you will soon have your wish granted as these enhancements usually work their way into the existing game (just my guess though).

[pepe4158]

Look at the coming features in BOA2.

Special Orders: Distant unload: Order your naval unit to sail to a coastal region and unload troops in the same turn.


I believe you will soon have your wish granted as these enhancements usually work their way into the existing game (just my guess though).

COOL yeah same engine almost...if BOA had RR's I'd get it LOL...but Im not really an ancient war type guy in strategic only mode, prefer at least ACW time period and beyond as this time had also gone a weapons improvement blitz.

This will revolutionize warfare IMO as PvP players will now possibly build transports.

[willgamer]

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

Kudos on the latest patch!

However, now that 1.10c is out, I like to inquire about the above point, namely enhancement of the Sentry option. Many players, tyros and grognards alike, since the release of AACW, have requested it in one form or another. Lack of this improvement is keeping me from starting a new Union full campaign game (hence its contribution to the thread title). leure:

Pocus: Is it realistic to expect that there will be time to add the enhanced Sentry feature, or is it now too late?

[Pocus]

I can say that it made in the TODO list, so it means it will be done as soon as there is a gap between 2 features.

[arsan]

Good news, thanks!!
That shortcut key will be a very good addition to the engine.
Specially for AACW which can have massive numbers of units and stacks walking around.

[willgamer]

I can say that it made in the TODO list, so it means it will be done as soon as there is a gap between 2 features.

Woo Hoo!

[Pdubya64]

My big problem is with rules that discourage any interaction between naval forces and land forces, or limit those interactions to major engagements. This has been the unfortunate historical (or ahistorical) trend for AACW.

The option I would like to see available is deterrence (or JDS for Jabberian Deterrence System - credit should go to Skibear too, he had the idea first - so maybe we should call it the Skibear Deterrence Initiative instead ), where any land unit crossing a river or traversing a shallow water region would be at great risk of encountering naval forces at a severe disadvantage (as severe as shore bombardment currently is the other way). Fear would keep those "suicidal" cavalry raiders from using the rivers willy-nilly to get wherever they wanted in enemy territory; fear would keep larger forces from crossing rivers without setting up some kind of security first; and fear would keep very small naval forces from attempting to interdict near large land forces. This would certainly account for the lack of historical data about opposed crossings. However, there would still be a chance at interaction. Fear is generally learned by experience.

I have been following this thread and find myself agreeing with Jabber here. I'd like to comment and tie this all back into a more general theme around the AACW gaming experience.

First, to dredge up a quote I have bandied about before:

[INDENT]'Great games are all about giving players interesting choices' - Sid Meier[/INDENT]

With regard to our AACW crossing issues, Jabber's suggestion would provide what has been missing in the system up to this point- a legitimate choice for the player when it comes to sending that cavalry unit on a raid or launching that amphibious assault to provide a flanking manuever for an offensive.
Choices must involve both Risk and Reward to be truly effective, otherwise, IMO, there really isn't a choice involved if "everyone" knows the smart move is to do "A" instead of "B or C". Cavalry raids are a perfect example of this- there is no real downside to deciding to send raids, as the only risk involves avoiding direct contact with the thinly garrisoned enemy. Well, that's what cavalry do best! So... not really much of a interesting choice after all. As Jabberwock put it, there needs to be a real fear that you might just lose that carefully nurtured cavalry unit before it even reaches terra firma again.

At least it would make a player think about the odds, and if you can get someone weighing the risk/reward of a particular action... you've won half the battle.
As to how it should get implemented, etc., etc., to quote "The Battle of Britain"- I'll "leave that to those with egg on their hat".