ZOC: The Untold Story

[arsan]

Yep! The USA stack lacks military control on neighboring regions and Polk stack presence is fixing them on place. Lyon will have to engage Polk and defeat him before being able to move around.

[andatiep]

Keeping a High Evasion
A large corps traveling with a wagon train is going to have a real problem retreating after combat, especially if the enemy can get around behind and block you from retreating back the way you came. You can greatly increase your evasion value by not traveling with wagons or any unassigned, corps-level artillery. If you leave these units with the Army HQ stack, and keep the HQ behind you in an adjacent region, you’ll still be able to draw supplies, and the HQ can still march to the sound of the guns and bring along his support artillery. After the battle, the HQ would revert back to his original location, which would be open for your corps to retreat through if necessary.

If it is true, it change a lot of things :
Why then keeping Supply units with 1st line positioned Corps ?
- at least to get its 10% bonus during the fight...
- maybe to be sure to have enough ammo if Corps have to fight many times in the same turn ???
- whatelse ?

[Heldenkaiser]

If it is true, it change a lot of things :
Why then keeping Supply units with 1st line positioned Corps ?
- at least to get its 10% bonus during the fight...
- maybe to be sure to have enough ammo if Corps have to fight many times in the same turn ???
- whatelse ?

Protection from weather effects?

[marecone]

this thread should be stickied ASAP.

Seconded. Great job Major Tom

[Rafiki]

There's already a bit too many stickies up there...

How about putting together a wiki article on this? Excellent work was done on the "Supply" article, so I know it can be done

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Rafiki]

Nah, wiki all the way!

[Major Tom]

The Wiki's great, but it's still nice for peoiple to have easy access to the entire thread and all of the discussion.

I think it makes sense to have a single sticky thread that consists of links to the most useful informational threads in the forum.

One problem with the Wiki is that it won't let you upload xls files, as far as I know. In my Wiki article on frontage, I had to link to the original forum thread to point people to the xls document.

[Rafiki]

Depending on how diligent you are in linking/referencing, people can easily find the thread if they wish to see the whole story.

As for xls-file uploads, I have set "xls" as an acceptable file extension. In any case "zip" and "rar" are allowed, so if one wishes to upload something that the wiki doesn't allow directly, you can always put it into an archive

[andatiep]

Nah, wiki all the way!

+1
Wiki rules for ever !

...But if so, the Wiki should be more integrated to the Forums (and more or less to the official Ageod web site). For now it's almost confidential links and patchworked design.

It need to have clear areas visible when you visit all this mess, for example : Official presentation (offical ageod's website), Community Forums (the current forums), Community Documentation (the wiki).

And it would be nice too if the community Documentation (wiki) be regularly validate officialy by the coordinators, with some sentence like "This documentation page is valided for the patch 1.13" etc.

The game rules are always mooving and evoluting (and it's good BTW), so the beginners (as the veterans) need a visible place where to find the last updated documentations on rules or elementary strategic advices. The wiki could do it if more accessible. The Forums can't do it well for beginners (only for the forum's talkatives we're).

I'm ready to help on the topic if need.

[Gray_Lensman]

<snip>

And it would be nice too if the community Documentation (wiki) be regularly validate officialy by the coordinators, with some sentence like "This documentation page is valided for the patch 1.13" etc.

<snip>

Nice idea, but I've got enough work all ready to keep me busy non stop for the next 6 months. Maybe you should take a stab at it. You could start by checking the wiki against all the changes listed in the AACW Updates.rtf file that comes with the "official" update patch. Get back to me in a couple of months with a progress report.

[Major Tom]

Get back to me in a couple of months with a progress report.

That's cold.

[andatiep]

Nice idea, but I've got enough work all ready to keep me busy non stop for the next 6 months. Maybe you should take a stab at it. You could start by checking the wiki against all the changes listed in the AACW Updates.rtf file that comes with the "official" update patch. Get back to me in a couple of months with a progress report.

Nice challenge...
In fact maybe we don't need the coordinator to validate 1.13 each page of the wiki manual & documentation. That's true you have enough and better to do elsewhere.

So i'm ready to work on it within a couple of months ( ), hopefully with others, but i want to be sure that it will be usefull, and for this :

1. Wiki need to have better links and "advertising" (not later than last week, a friend told me the better way for him to find the AACW-WIKI link is still to look randomly in the forums to see a user who got the link inside it's signature...). Forums and Documentation should have the same "designed proportion" when beginners arrive on the website.

2. When the hard update to 1.0xx (2007) from 1.13 (2009) is done, it will be nice that when the coordinators write next AACW Updates.rtf, they just add also the few change in the chapters of the wiki documentation. Because it's useless to update manual and documentation each 2 years.

Deal ?

[Major Tom]

1. Wiki need to have better links and "advertising" (not later than last week, a friend told me the better way for him to find the AACW-WIKI link is still to look randomly in the forums to see a user who got the link inside it's signature...).

The Wiki is advertised and linked to in a sticky post at the top of the forum. That's how I always navigate to it, so it's not that hard to find. No need to randomly search the forum. Still, I agree it could be better publicized.

[Gray_Lensman]

That's cold.

Seriously fellas, that would be a lot of work rechecking the wiki for accuracy against known game rules past and present. For me, I could only devote time to it if I had everything else done and that's way down the road yet. I do get amused when I see the threads posted about AACWs demise. To paraphrase an old saying.

It ain't over till the fat Gray sings!

This latest Public Beta update required almost 4 months of constant work, on and offline and though you can read a lot of OOB changes, there are more to come as soon as the new data is validated. This doesn't even take into consideration rework involving the wholly inaccurate resource accumulations nor non-historic drafts in 1861. Not only will those be reworked, but they will require a lot more time consuming game playtesting before actual release.

[Rafiki]

OK, good to get some feedback on this

To address some of the observations about visibility, I've added a link to the AACWWiki main page as a "subforum" for the AACW forum here:

[ATTACH]7042[/ATTACH]

(Screenshot taken of the main forum page; more info about the wiki presented when you look at the subforum-listing in the main AACW forum, i.e. this forum)

[Rafiki]

Also, while I', at it, I'd like to emphasize that the "real" address to the wiki is

http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki

there's a different address floating around, but that's from before the ageod.net-domain was registered and taken into use

[Aphrodite Mae]

Would it be possible to add "Wiki" as one of the options on the "Quick Links" menu, on the main menu bar?

If not there, could a link be added in the User CP side menu, maybe under "miscellaneous"?

Or another idea: would it be possible to ditch the useless "calender" menu on the menu bar, and maybe provide a menu of key Wiki pages, instead?

[Rafiki]

Good points, but the wikis deal with specific topics, and I think that the "subforum"-quicklinks in the relevant forums works fairly well for highlighting them.

Good point also about the calendar, though; I'll follow up on that

[Clovis]

In the ARR game going right now I got this show up on the screen and I hope some one can interpret it for me. I hope it means that the Reb unit can not retreat?



That mudmarine is Injun gots me handles mixed

beginning to question this feature.

A stack with one wagon will not be able to leave the region. If it splits with the wagon unit, it will be able to. Human player may, AI doesn't.

Then 2 historical examples:

- after Gettysburg, Lee retreated through Pennsylvania WITH the supply train, protected by a defeated and weakened Army. Meade was considered too pusillaminous on this one, but the fact remains in any case, going trough Northern region where civil support was nil and under union pressure was possible

- the end of the Petersburg siege and the retreat to Appomatox in 1865: lee was much weaker than Grant but once again he was able to disengage and begin a retreat. After several defeats, Confederates were surrounded and so weakened they couldn't fight another battle and so surrendered. But at start, supply train, as weak it was, was too accompanying the retreat.

I feel so the rule arbitrary. Supply wagons are in the current system unable to retreat with the main army and I don't see why a civil population would be sufficient to block a retreat path...

[Mickey3D]

I agree with Clovis, there is something strange in the ZOC rule.


In a game (see attached image) Johnston corps (30'000 men) was blocked by a militia unit


[ATTACH]7466[/ATTACH]

[Clovis]

I'm going to undertake some tests about. This could considerably change the gameplay with many side effects. But I persist to think pinned situation should be reserved to situations where the enemy force is much larger than the pinned one...