Page 1 of 1

Feature #26 : Military control and its subtleties

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:40 pm
by Pocus
Military control in AACW is one of the features that are not readily apparent when you start playing. As with many of the features of the game you can even ignore it during some games and still have fun. But it is there, and it works in a discreet way to further the realism and historicity of the game.

What must be known regarding Military Control is that it is not binary. In most games, you either possess a region or you don't, period. Not so in AACW, you can have a share of the region and your opponent can have the rest. Just imagine that, as in real war, you hold a part of the region, and your enemy is just 5 kilometers ahead of your positions and is ready to welcome you if you try to go on the offensive. In the game, you can coexists in the same region without fighting your opponent if both armies are in defensive posture; and both can also entrench! If one switches to Offensive mode, it won't get any terrains benefits but your foe will. And if you succeed in inflicting more losses compared to him, even if he doesn't retreat you will have gained ground (expressed in ... military control percentage as you probably guessed). This can occur up to a point where he has such a small percentage that he will have no others option but to switch to the offensive (this will be done by the engine as a mandatory posture) or retreat.

Another set of niceties impacted by this rule is that if you don't hold part of a region while you cross a river, you are considered to cross it under fire. On the other hand, if because of a previous action you already have a given percentage (11%+) representing a bridgehead, an army crossing it and attacking the enemy won't suffer any penalty.

Military control can be gained rather easily when you are alone. Leave some units in a region for 1 or 2 turns and voila it is entirely yours. If there is a enemy, the percentage won't move at all unless you gain some ground with an assault. This helps the game simulate intricate situations like the Petersburg siege, where each side was facing each other on a 30 miles long network of trenches and had to use all kinds of tricks to gain some ground (see the Battle of the Crater for one truely amazing story of what happened during this siege).

Finally, military control is heavily tied to the concept of zones of control. This feature represents how tightly an army asserts its control in a region, in case of enemy presence. Each of your stacks generate ZOC points in the region they are in (and not to adjacents regions, contrary to boardgames). This ZOC rating will lock enemy into place, preventing them from bypassing your army to wreck havoc in your rear (but cavalries and irregulars are adept at bypassing ZOCs!). See the screenshot below for a example of this feature.



On this screenshot, the AI sent Magruder's Division to push back the Peninsula Army. After a short fight, the Union detachment (not a real army as you see) breaks battle and retreats into the town, still in the same region. Now if you select the Union stack, you see that the region behind the CSA force is in red... why? because Magruder is preventing the yanks from moving past him towards Richmond. If you want more details, a tooltip also provides you with more information.

Image

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:57 pm
by Florent
Nice features again ! And we have level 4 trench with palissade. I saw fort Montroe on the screen, is it not Fort Monroe ? All my books say Monroe. Sorry for the nuisance.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:00 pm
by Spharv2
Man, I can't believe I missed that one. :) One of the advantages of posting these shots for everyone to look at I suppose.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:09 pm
by Pocus
You are not a nuisance by far Florent, players are the lifeblood of the studio, we never forget that.

Yes it's Fort Monroe, but understand though that most sprites are still not well placed, and that some writing on the map like duplicate places names, will be removed to. You should not get icons overlapping on others in the final version (well not too much ;) ).

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:15 pm
by Florent
Thanks Pocus. It seems that the battle of Big bethel had an historical end after this shot.

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:55 pm
by veji1
I want this game... I want this game... I want this game...

Rhaa...

Hmmm... A bit more seriously, I hope that as you said the map won't be too crowded, or that at least lots of it will be made of overlays you can switch on and of ( for example all those little flags ).

Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:15 pm
by WallysWorld
veji1 wrote:I hope that as you said the map won't be too crowded, or that at least lots of it will be made of overlays you can switch on and of ( for example all those little flags ).


Or else keep the control flags, but make them half the size of want they currently are.

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:10 am
by Pocus
in the 'crowded' department we where asking ourselves if the small regions names in black, below each flag was useful, as you have the name of the region in the tooltip each time you mouse over.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:06 am
by Carrington
Is there really a "Tappahanock," or is it that R and T are too close together on a keyboard?

Edited:
Guess so,
Learn something new every day.

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:02 am
by Conhugeco
Carrington wrote:Is there really a "Tappahanock," or is it that R and T are too close together on a keyboard?


Yes, there really is a Tappahanock, and it looks like it is placed correctly, between the Rappahanock and York rivers.

DickH

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:55 pm
by Carrington
Conhugeco wrote:Yes, there really is a Tappahanock, and it looks like it is placed correctly, between the Rappahanock and York rivers.

DickH


Guess I should have gotten out my atlas... Cool.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:21 pm
by PDF
Pocus,
Don't you think the "Features" threads deserve to have their own sub-forum ? It'll be easier to go back to the oldest ones, see the progress, cross the questions ... :sourcil:

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:22 pm
by marecone
PDF wrote:Pocus,
Don't you think the "Features" threads deserve to have their own sub-forum ? It'll be easier to go back to the oldest ones, see the progress, cross the questions ... :sourcil:


I second that.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:39 am
by Pocus
I don't know, this would strip the main forum of many threads and the separation is rather artificial between a feature I posted initially and a feature which is discussed because a player start the subject. The 30 features are not aimed to be a knowledge base, they are just some fuel for thoughts.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:57 am
by Korrigan
I agree with Pocus, however I will post today in the headquarters a giant thread with all "features" compiled. Would this suits you?

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:00 am
by marecone
Korrigan wrote:I agree with Pocus, however I will post today in the headquarters a giant thread with all "features" compiled. Would this suits you?


That would be fine with me. But if this mean that this game will be released one day later then NO. :niark:
I want to see this baby ASAP :coeurs: