Mixed brigades

[Nial]

They will have the same weight whether they are in one big brigade or several smaller ones. Sure you have to line them all up in the right region, but you always have to do that. What's the big deal?

Huh?......If a brigade is not using rail? It's not using rail and costs no points. If it is using rail? It is using rail and costs points. Not sure what your point is?

[soloswolf]

My point is that if you have to move one large brigade or several smaller ones, they have the same total weight. (provided of course the composition is the same) So that there is no difference in moving them by rail with regard to using more or less capacity.

As far as having to coordinate their junction, half of the game is about trying to align your forces properly. Why would this change so much?

[Nial]

My point is that if you have to move one large brigade or several smaller ones, they have the same total weight. (provided of course the composition is the same) So that there is no difference in moving them by rail with regard to using more or less capacity.

As far as having to coordinate their junction, half of the game is about trying to align your forces properly. Why would this change so much?

You need to reread my post. The mixed brigade is already where I want it. It isn't using RR movement.

[soloswolf]

Right, but the objective here is to get the brigades aligned with historical units, as well as to correct a big cp discount. Now, I'd imagine this would involve the addition of some more leaders to account for this, but it would be interesting to take this first step and see how many more generals it seems are necessary.

[Redeemer]

You need to reread my post. The mixed brigade is already where I want it. It isn't using RR movement.

Welcome to some of the historical headaches the CSA actually had to deal with. You are lucky you can expand your rail capacity in game, when in actuality the CSA barely had enough steel production to maintain what it had. How many brigades do you think were formed where they were needed as a combined instant unit?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Nial]

My point is that if you have to move one large brigade or several smaller ones, they have the same total weight. (provided of course the composition is the same) So that there is no difference in moving them by rail with regard to using more or less capacity.

As far as having to coordinate their junction, half of the game is about trying to align your forces properly. Why would this change so much?

And we are not talking about just moving 1 or 2 extra brigades here. I have produced upwards of 10 brigades in a turn on many occasions. Thats 20+ extra brigades to move in one turn. Thats a significant increase in time.

[Nial]

Also, if I chose to separate out the Artillery and Cavalry elements for use in specific scenarios, do you think I'd neglect to create some "same" state individual element reinforcements to make up for the changed "Mixed" brigade for those same states... C'mon... give me more credit than that.

*nod* In my experience. If it's not said? It's best not to take for granted. That would certainly make it easier to deal with Gray.

Nial

[soloswolf]

And we are not talking about just moving 1 or 2 extra brigades here. I have produced upwards of 10 brigades in a turn on many occasions. Thats 20+ extra brigades to move in one turn. Thats a significant increase in time.

But this is a hurdle both sides will be dealing with. Yes, the Federals have more to work with, but they will also be moving more units and trying to get them to where they need to be. It'll all come out in the wash.

[Nial]

Welcome to some of the historical headaches the CSA actually had to deal with. You are lucky you can expand your rail capacity in game, when in actuality the CSA barely had enough steel production to maintain what it had. How many brigades do you think were formed where they were needed as a combined instant unit?

Agreed, but then the CSA IS supposed to be able to win in this game. I think most would agree that if the CSA in AACW only had the % chance to win that they had in real life? It wouldn't be as fun a game. Certainly the CSA player would be severly more restricted than he is now.

Nial

[Gray_Lensman]

Right, but the objective here is to get the brigades aligned with historical units, as well as to correct a big cp discount. Now, I'd imagine this would involve the addition of some more leaders to account for this, but it would be interesting to take this first step and see how many more generals it seems are necessary.

Thank you Mr. soloswolf...

You're one of the few who grasp how my historical changes are implemented. I don't change everything all at once due to the complexity involved, but I tend towards historical context with an item or two, then adjust other items as necessary after observing the effects and/or reading the feedback from the first change. This avoids having to go back and remove several overlapping changes affecting the same game concept all at once (if by the rare chance it is totally out of whack), which is a real PITA depending on what may have been changed. Incidentally, this has worked quite well to reduce the possibility of new bugs being introduced. I've been doing things this way for 18 months now, but most everyone understandably seems to see only the small individual changes and not the "big picture" since it's hard to convey this approach.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Nial]

Thank you Mr. soloswolf...

You're one of the few who grasp how my historical changes are implemented. I don't change everything all at once due to the complexity involved, but I tend towards historical context with an item or two, then adjust other items as necessary after observing the effects and/or reading the feedback from the first change. This avoids having to go back and remove several overlapping changes affecting the same game concept all at once (if by the rare chance it is totally out of whack), which is a real PITA depending on what may have been changed. Incidentally, this has worked quite well to reduce the possibility of new bugs being introduced. I've been doing things this way for 18 months now, but most everyone understandably seems to see only the small individual changes and not the "big picture" since it's hard to convey this approach.

*laugh* Oookk then. Being one that obviously doesn't grasp the complexities of the work thats being done. Or the effect that work is having on the game. I'll refrain from commenting about the changes that are being made.

Have a nice day

Nial

[soundoff]

I have just one comment which I hope is not contentious. Its that whatever happens that CP discount needs altering darned quickly. If as I understand it we are going to shortly get no divisions until October 61 then once thats implemented if the CP discount is not removed very quickly afterwards I can see the 'cuter' CSA players marching into Washington by October with mini divisions incurring no CP penalties......just my penniworth

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soloswolf]

I have just one comment which I hope is not contentious. Its that whatever happens that CP discount needs altering darned quickly. If as I understand it we are going to shortly get no divisions until October 61 then once thats implemented if the CP discount is not removed very quickly afterwards I can see the 'cuter' CSA players marching into Washington by October with mini divisions incurring no CP penalties......just my penniworth

The Federals happen to get a lot more of everything, including leaders and unique brigades that have little or no cp cost, strong morale and solid composition. I've never understood the concern about this particular angle. The south will still have a slight edge on a stack for stack basis, but they will have far less stacks to operate with. I think you can (at the very least) hold the Potomac until October.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[77NY]

I have a question that's probably already been beaten to death someplace else, but here goes anyway: why do all * unattached leaders get 2 CP? Seems to me that part of the issue is in the decision to homogenize the abstraction of brigade-level C&C.

[Heldenkaiser]

Agreed, but then the CSA IS supposed to be able to win in this game.

I have never given this any thought so far, just taking for granted that AACW is a serious historical simulation in the first place and a "game" second, but I do hope "to win" for the CSA means "to survive the war at least until 1865 and still be able to fight on". So implying that the South would win its independence because for the North the price of reconquest becomes to high.

Should "to win" however mean "to be able to force a military decision in its favor" or even "to conquer the North" then I sincerely hope that AACW is NOT supposed to enable the CSA to achieve that unless as a extreme rare event (say with a very experienced Reb player against a Union novice). Or else it would indeed be just a "game" and I could as well play chess.

No offence intended to all those gentlemen who prefer to play CSA. I might give it a try myself one day.

[soundoff]

I have never given this any thought so far, just taking for granted that AACW is a serious historical simulation in the first place and a "game" second, but I do hope "to win" for the CSA means "to survive the war at least until 1865 and still be able to fight on". So implying that the South would win its independence because for the North the price of reconquest becomes to high.

Should "to win" however mean "to be able to force a military decision in its favor" or even "to conquer the North" then I sincerely hope that AACW is NOT supposed to enable the CSA to achieve that unless as a extreme rare event (say with a very experienced Reb player against a Union novice). Or else it would indeed be just a "game" and I could as well play chess.

No offence intended to all those gentlemen who prefer to play CSA. I might give it a try myself one day.

+1 but I would go slightly further in that in order for the CSA to have a chance of surviving the Union player must adopt an historical stance (by that I mean attempting to take the initative and not simply sitting back until the jugganaut effect kicks in) otherwise it still just becomes a 'game'

[Nial]

I have never given this any thought so far, just taking for granted that AACW is a serious historical simulation in the first place and a "game" second, but I do hope "to win" for the CSA means "to survive the war at least until 1865 and still be able to fight on". So implying that the South would win its independence because for the North the price of reconquest becomes to high.

Should "to win" however mean "to be able to force a military decision in its favor" or even "to conquer the North" then I sincerely hope that AACW is NOT supposed to enable the CSA to achieve that unless as a extreme rare event (say with a very experienced Reb player against a Union novice). Or else it would indeed be just a "game" and I could as well play chess.

No offence intended to all those gentlemen who prefer to play CSA. I might give it a try myself one day.

I can only answer this for myself. Personaly I try to play for the historical aims of the CSA when I play that side. Those consist of protecting my borders to the best of my abilities.

I rarely invade the North unless it is to force a battle with a specific Union army. When that battle is complete I almost always withdraw back across my own border. But as I said, that is just how I like to play.

There is no real challenge in conquering the North. It is too easy to exploit Athena's flaws and accomplish that. It's more of a challenge to me to react and hold long term. Especialy in the west where the supply issue can become acute if one does not stay on top of it.

But it's also not for me to say how others should play. If another player wants to conquer every city north of the Mason dixon line? More power to them. It's a game.


Nial

[Heldenkaiser]

There is no real challenge in conquering the North. It is too easy to exploit Athena's flaws and accomplish that.

Just to be sure, I was really talking strictly PBEM.

[Nial]

Just to be sure, I was really talking strictly PBEM.

Ahh...I haven't played PBEM in a long time. Then it's very useful to establish some house rules as to what is expected of each side.

[soundoff]

Ahh...I haven't played PBEM in a long time. Then it's very useful to establish some house rules as to what is expected of each side.

An easy thing to do as IMHO this site is infested with honest players

[Nial]

An easy thing to do as IMHO this site is infested with honest players

*nod* Well put.

[soloswolf]

An easy thing to do as IMHO this site is infested with honest players

Watch out for this guy though...

[ncuman]

Getting (sort of) back on topic, does anyone know why this game originally went with the apparently unhistorical mixed brigades in the first place? Honestly I prefer keeping things the way they are because as others stated it maked things more logistically convenient to have mixed brigades, but I am willing to go along with the change if it is more historically accurate. Having said that, I think it is important to know why things are the way they are. If you don't, then my experience says that you can solve one problem but create 3 more unforseen problems later.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

Taking it slightly off target again. Are the number of elements per division set in stone? I was thinking if you are making things more historical, CSA divisions should be slightly larger for the same CP cost.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted