User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Ideas for AACW II

Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:53 pm

I know it's far off in the distant future, considering AGEOD already has their plates full for the forseeable future, but I also think that AACW was probably the best selling product in the catalogue, and eventually will need to be replaced. I was thinking about this when I was considering ideas for the VGN beta, and considering what changes I would make to AACW that don't fit in the sphere of tweaks (Of which I'm sure Gray has plenty in his nefarious brain) that can be made to the current game. Anyone have any ideas?

A couple I considered:

1. Letting the CSA player choose the location the Capital moves to when it leaves Montgomery. Have penalties for small city size, so players can't just set it up in the middle of nowhere, but I would like theoption to set up somewhere different aside from Richmond. Could provide a boost in loyalty for the state it's located in. I remember in No Greater Glory, I often put the capital in Atlanta, as it provided a more centralized location, and had good natural defenses with the mountains to the north.

2. Completely randomized generals, with hidden stats until they have participatedin battles. Personally, I'd like to see the stats be "fuzzy" until they've been in a good number of battles, meaning, after one battle General John Doe could look like a worldbeater, and you'd see his stats at 7-6-7 or something, but they would be refined after more fights. So while his actual stats are more along the lines of 3-1-4, it would take a few opportunities in combat to actually see that. After his second battle, they may go to 4-5-5 or something. Having that would have to be optional, because I'm sure it would irritate a lot of folks. :)

3. All generals promotable to all ranks. Even if it was done like my mod, where they just keep the stats and traits from their last known rank. Or perhaps randomization could be added to the process where once a general is promoted past his historical rank, a random +/- 1-2 points modifies each stat.

4. (Some of the) General's traits based on the forces they command, not their number of stars. I just thought about this today, and it makes no sense that someone like Burnside, (Who, as a corps commander under aggressive generals, gave a pretty good account of himself) when he's promoted to 3 stars, gains Dispirited Leader regardless of whether he's commanding a division, corps, or army. It should only apply to him as an army commander as he was dispirited because he knew the job was over his head. Once he tore up his army, he was reverted to corps command and performed well the remainder of the war. Some of the additional traits, like the Quickly Angered should remain, because that's something inherent, and even if the leader has been reduced to corps or division command, he still has the rank to make himself a pain. The stats aren't as important as they are modified by superiors.

5. Leaders lost due to illness. It wasn't only bullets generals had to worry about, some, like A.P. Hill spent more time in the sickbed than in camp. Randomized illnesses could sideline an important general for weeks or months at a time, just as easily as injuries.

6. Injuries to leaders modifying stats. It's hard not to be affected when you've had an arm or leg blown off in battle, just ask J.B. Hood. Make a random die roll to add or subtract from stats when a leader is injured. Seems a bit counter-intuitive to add to their stats, but consider it this way. If a general is reckless and sloppy about his dispositions, maybe the injury would make him a bit more cautious about the little details before a battle, which could increase his offensive or defensive effectiveness. Or, it could make him cautious to the point of indecisiveness, dropping his Strat rating, or it makes him (more) reckless and impulsive, like Hood...but there should be a chance of it having some effect. Perhaps an Injured trait could be added to any general who gets put out of action for a time, that would modify his stats or something.

7. The ability to set up mustering areas for new troops. Either be able to set specific locations new troops are actually built in, regardless of their actual home area, or do like a lot of RTS games, and be able to have them start marching for the area you designate once they're unlocked. It would be nice to have a set location for each theater, Richmond or Annapolis for the east, Nashville or Louisville for the Central, St Louis or Ft Smith for the west. Delay their production time to take into account travel time if you use the option, but it would be a handy addition for players I think. To go along with that, be able to choose what theater your support units are created in. Not HQ units, since I would think those being in the capital region makes sense, but the others should be choosable as with troops, in my opinion, I've had medical units show up in some really odd out of the way places.

There are a lot of tweaks that can be made to AACW, namely in the AI dept, events, and accuracy, but those are things that can be worked on in the current iteration. I want to know what people thing should be included in (lord willing) a sequal to the best game I've played in a good long while. Thought about putting it in the beta forum, but why not throw it up out here, the people who play the game are the ones who need to drive the features in it I think. So let loose, tell me what you think.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

kyle
Corporal
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:45 pm

Re

Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:00 pm

I would like to see more of a Division/Brigade relationship, possibly similar to how army and corps act now. But more emphasis on the division and brigade at least. A possible scale of 8 to ten for stats could be in order than. I believe there is already frontage in the game, as an option, it would be cool to get to choose which brigades/divisions that have "arrived" are to take up the fighting. Which are to fight as a reserve. Depending on the scale/size of the forces involved, the frontage could be divided into "fronts" in which forces are committed to. Thus, perhaps on one "front" you win the melee, but on another you have lost. If you were an attacker and won, you "control" that front/field and forces are now more defensive? Each side as the option to withdraw from the field/but not the "hex", withdraw from field and hex (basically a retreat), Or stay on the field (multiple day battle). I think the operational hexes are the right size and movement rates are the right speed for the most part. Possibly restrict movement to Divisions, Corps, and Armies. Thus, if you were a brigade, you couldn't move and be limited to garrison duty until a division command structure came along or was created. I think that could help streamline movement, but also keeps things on the operational/strategic aspect of the war. I also think how the economy is handled currently and how men are raised works, it maybe could be improved but I would rather see more emphasis put into options and choices for effecting the battles. The only other thing that comes to mind is units. I think they should all come in groups of 3 or four, and either recruited at a capital or depot/recruiting location, or have the recruiting not just by state (and randomly have a city chosen for the unit to start in as it is now), but by state and city. I think battles should still be a sim , but more tactical involvement would be enjoyable; and I think it is the only feature that would get me to purchase a second civil war game. Of course if you want to make a game with the current strategy/operational format, but than also make a tactical aspect as good as the mad minute manassas games to resolve the conflicts :thumbsup: .

User avatar
Pubcrawler
Private
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:23 am
Location: Marching on Atlanta

Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:52 pm

some good ideas here. I'm particularly fond of #7 :thumbsup:
"General Grant is a great general. I know him well. He stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk; and now, sir, we stand by each other always."

- William Tecumseh Sherman

kwhitehead
Sergeant
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:26 am

Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:10 am

I am still working my way through this game so I am not all that confident in my observations of what is needed but I will give them anyway.

I would like to see a better Division/Brigade structure to. For that matter I would like to see HQ for Army, Corps, Division and Brigade levels with officers assigned to them rather than officers representing the HQ for the lower levels.

The game is very complicated. All the user interfaces need improvements to make managing the war and the economy easier. Some things high on my list would include Roster displays based on unit grouping (showing list by brigade/officer), summary reports for things like how many units you have of each type, etc., and some kind of intellegence report on the enemy's state (as in approximately how large their armies are).

There entirely to much activity in the game. Units are in a frenzy of movement. They all need a heavy dose of Ritalin. Not just a fix to the AI to stop cavalry raids. The whole activation and movement system needs a review and new constraints.

The graphics need a major overhawl as well. Representing the units as large chess like pieces with pictures may be nice but is not very functional. I have found times that I couldn't even look at underlying cities to see who possessed them because of the layers of unit "pieces" on top of them. Things high on the list of needs to be looked at are making "Units" easier to work with and smaller, graphics indicating who is moving and where clearer, and region boundaries more obvious.

A much better manual. Yours is the most complicated of the three strategic games that came out and has the smallest manual of them. I have seen more posts from people just giving up on the game due to the learning curve than any other ACW game that I have followed. The manual is part of the problem. The other part are the very busy graphics used in the game and the poor human interface.

User avatar
Jayavarman
Lieutenant
Posts: 132
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:31 pm

Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:49 am

Considering BoA got a sequel so soon after release, I also hope that AACW will get a sequel in 2010. It does seem to have been the best-selling AGEod game with the most active community.
"Sad fragility of human things! What riches and treasures of art will remain forever buried beneath these ruins; how many distinguished men - artists, sovereigns, and warriors - are now forgotten!"

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:28 am

kwhitehead wrote:There entirely to much activity in the game. Units are in a frenzy of movement. They all need a heavy dose of Ritalin. Not just a fix to the AI to stop cavalry raids. The whole activation and movement system needs a review and new constraints.


You tried using the locked option for inactive units? There's an option to completely constrain the movement of units with inactive leaders.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

ghostlight
Private
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:45 pm

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:21 am

Spharv2 wrote:You tried using the locked option for inactive units? There's an option to completely constrain the movement of units with inactive leaders.


Interesting. Anybody else use this? Or is that too unrealistic?

Really, other than #7 in original post, not sure anything else here justifies a new version except improved AI. As I've posted before, Ai should take historical strategies more into account. Not to reproduce historical results, but to acknowledge that at strategic level, generals at the time probably knew what they were doing. Little too much hubris imho to say we could do that much better.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:39 am

deleted

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:44 am

ghostlight wrote:Really, other than #7 in original post, not sure anything else here justifies a new version except improved AI. As I've posted before, Ai should take historical strategies more into account. Not to reproduce historical results, but to acknowledge that at strategic level, generals at the time probably knew what they were doing. Little too much hubris imho to say we could do that much better.


All of those would require either a rebuild of the engine, or more work than they can afford to put into the game. Making changes this extensive wouldn't boost sales that much, and so their time and energy is more productively put toward the newer games right now. I'd rather have them stay in business and keep putting out quality games than keep fiddling with one and going under. :) Most of them that don't require randomization could be handled by events, but creating the number they'd require would be a huge time sink really, and would end with fairly predictable results I think, though the work with the event engine in the mods has produced some very nice effects using it.

I also wanted to clarify something in #1 up there that Aphrodite Mae pointed out. I was referring to the "free move" that the CSA gets in the beginning of the war scenario, which moves the capital from Montgomery, AL to Richmond, VA. That would be the one and only time you would be allowed to choose to move your capital to a different location without penalty (Unless you chose a place that was too small, as that's why they left Montgomery in the first place). As it is now, you can move to Atlanta, it just requires a huge hit to do so....and would with this change any time but that one instance.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:57 am

deleted

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:03 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:The problem with moving the CSA capital to any other city other than Richmond requires designing some sort of major political penalty hit for Virginia itself since the capital was moved to Richmond to convince the Virginians that the CSA government was "dedicated" to a forward defense of Virginia. It was also the reason there were so many Virginian CSA leaders. Ignoring this and just allowing the capital to be placed anywhere without a corresponding Virginia penalty would be a major fantasy version of the Civil War.


I would suggest that Virginia start with very low loyalty numbers, if you move it there, they're boosted to normal levels, if you choose to move it elsewhere, then you forgo that bonus.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:17 am

deleted

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:13 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:Unfortunately, that's not the only thing that would have to change... A lot of leaders (including CSA army leaders such as Lee), may or may not have been a part of the CSA gov't. As I stated above, changing the capital to anything other than Richmond would be a major fantasy version of the game and since AGEod is primarily dedicated to designing historical games, any Civil War game that would allow a different national capital at the start of the game would have to have serious design changes (not just loyalty) to account for the historical political effects of NOT placing the capital at Richmond.


Not really. The generals weren't fighting for the CSA, they were fighting for Virginia, regardless of whether the capital was there or not. You really think that if the capital hadn't been in Richmond, Lee would have backed off and said, "Whoa...they didn't give us the capital? Screw this, I'm taking Scott up on his offer"? Virginia was already out, they were already fighting regardless. The president was a Mississippian, the Vice President was a Georgian. Maybe some politicians argue more, maybe some people in the state don't fight quite so hard, but the state seceded, and the people in it fought because Lincoln was planning to send a great big honking army through their state to have it out with their fellow southerners, not because the capital was moved to Richmond. I can see a loyalty hit, I can see, maybe, a production hit, but anything beyond that would be excessive. There had to be a forward defense in Virginia regardless, and everyone knew it. No other southern state even really approached Virginia for it's combination of wealth, population, and production capacity.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Dixicrat
General
Posts: 523
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:55 pm
Location: East Tennessee
Contact: ICQ

An English version of a Spanish summary will be available soon.

Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:29 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:...The current manual is fine. It just needs to reflect all the changes that have been implemented since the game's inception. However you can get a listing of all the changes by looking at the ACW Updates.rtf file located in the main game folder.


Aphrodite Mae is currently translating an excellent document by Picaron that covers these changes in detail. Picaron's version is in PDF format and lavishly illustrated. If you read Spanish, his document is available on the Spanish forum.
[SIZE="3"]Regards,[/size]
Dixicrat

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Basic Training for AACW newcomers

User avatar
Chaplain Lovejoy
Brigadier General
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:20 am
Location: Fairfield, OH (near Cincinnati)

Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:49 pm

Gray_Lensman wrote:The current manual is fine. It just needs to reflect all the changes that have been implemented since the game's inception. However you can get a listing of all the changes by looking at the ACW Updates.rtf file located in the main game folder.


Agree in terms of content. But there are two readability issues for my old eyes: (1) the font is too small and (2) the "parchment look" with shaded edges to the pages creates a contrast problem.

kyle
Corporal
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:45 pm

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:50 pm

ghostlight wrote:Interesting. Anybody else use this? Or is that too unrealistic?

Really, other than #7 in original post, not sure anything else here justifies a new version except improved AI. As I've posted before, Ai should take historical strategies more into account. Not to reproduce historical results, but to acknowledge that at strategic level, generals at the time probably knew what they were doing. Little too much hubris imho to say we could do that much better.


I agree for the most part. If they were to add a more tactical aspect of the game, it would deserve consideration, a thorough tactical aspect to the game, high consideration. But I think resources would be better served creating a Rome/Samnite/Carthage/Gaul/Macodonian type game with added diplomatic functions. Either way, more functions would be needed. I think the current engine/functionality has run its course.

An "engine" that can handle multiple countries and diplomatic/political interactions opens a lot more doors, in my opinion.

I think the graphics are perfectly fine, for what the game simulates.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:32 pm

Not sure engine should get changes for land warafre. The current is working well and accuately.

2 points could be refined:

1) naval and amphibious warfare: torpedoes, better depiction of coastal and naval gunnery...

2) leaders: I would like all leaders promotable, a posibility to get random variations when promoting a leader. let's imagine a game where Grant is good at divisional level but maybe poor when promoted to 2 stars rank..
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Aacw Ii

Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:46 pm

With all due respect: this is nonsense! Keep working to improve the present game, but another AACW is not needed. IMHO.

By the way I just received Gen. Phil Sheridan in my present game. I was overjoyed, He was a great leader!! His rankings: O-O-O!!!!! Surely something must be wrong!! t :(

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:07 pm

Agree with Tagwyn, improve current game.

And PLEASE change the cost of militia ! No WSu needed to buy them is IMHO a non sense.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:20 pm

deleted

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:01 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:Already done... Just a matter of placing the work in a near future update


:thumbsup:

User avatar
Rafiki
Posts: 5811
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:31 pm

tagwyn wrote:By the way I just received Gen. Phil Sheridan in my present game. I was overjoyed, He was a great leader!! His rankings: O-O-O!!!!! Surely something must be wrong!! t :(

I imagine that you have just made an administrative move with him, or given him a divisional command.? In both those cases, abilities receive penalties temporarily.
[CENTER]Latest patches: AACW :: NCP :: WIA :: ROP :: RUS :: PON :: AJE
Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER]

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:04 am

Gray_Lensman wrote:Already done... Just a matter of placing the work in a near future update


See? Gray is on top of things. :) Obviously, this game will continue to get updates, nobody is arguing that work on this should stop. What I am looking for are things that cannot be done in the current engine, that you think would add to the game. I realize the AI needs some work, it will be until we can make computers think like people (Preferably better than most people). I know not everyone knows what this engine is actually capable of, I'm not even sure myself, though it's on my to-do list since I have some work I'd like to do with it.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:19 am

First things first, I think that AACW is one of the GREATEST games ever made, period. That said, some improvements could be made, yes :)

- Some within the current engine, namely an even better AI - specially an USA AI that knew how to use her navy and make amphibious operations a reality - and point # 7 is also good.

- Some maybe in a AACW II (but I have some doubts that this is on AGEOD horizons... I think that now all their bets are on VGN (which may or may not be a good managing decision, but they should know), and next, who knows ?)
And of these last ones my favorites would be:
a. detailed battle reports :coeurs: and history - of generals and units
b. a tactical layer ?? :w00t: maybe only in scenarios ??

User avatar
Aphrodite Mae
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: With Dixicrat

Confusion

Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:08 pm

Franciscus wrote:...a tactical layer ?? :w00t: maybe only in scenarios ??


I don't understand what you mean, Franciscus. Would you explain, please?

User avatar
cwhomer
Private
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:41 am

Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:04 pm

Aphrodite Mae wrote:I don't understand what you mean, Franciscus. Would you explain, please?


I believe he means the ability to command in battles as in Forge of Freedom or Civil War Generals II.
I was not a Wisconsin soldier, and have not been honorably discharged, but at the judgment day I want to be with Wisconsin soldiers.

-John Gibbon, responding to a reunion invitation

User avatar
Chertio
Lieutenant
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:48 pm

Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:35 am

Supply is (and ought to be ) one of the fundamentals, and the supply network is obviously quite complex in ACW.

A graphic overlay showing roughly how much supply is being moved from where to where every turn, and where the demand is, a Quartermaster's picture, would be very useful for ACW2.

The existing graphic seems only to show which areas are capable of receiving supply, immaterial of whether they are or not, or how much. The heaps of cannonballs'n'crates against depots and cities is a very rough guide indeed.

A two-bar graphic on each region showing how much supply was demanded, and how much actually transferred, would make the Quartermaster happy - and does not seem to be too far different from the way the existing supply network is calculated.

User avatar
Spharv2
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 5:39 am
Location: Tallahassee, FL

Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:33 am

Chertio wrote:Supply is (and ought to be ) one of the fundamentals, and the supply network is obviously quite complex in ACW.

A graphic overlay showing roughly how much supply is being moved from where to where every turn, and where the demand is, a Quartermaster's picture, would be very useful for ACW2.

The existing graphic seems only to show which areas are capable of receiving supply, immaterial of whether they are or not, or how much. The heaps of cannonballs'n'crates against depots and cities is a very rough guide indeed.

A two-bar graphic on each region showing how much supply was demanded, and how much actually transferred, would make the Quartermaster happy - and does not seem to be too far different from the way the existing supply network is calculated.


Nice I like that one, would take a bit of the mystery out of the supply situation for new players.
Official Queen's Ambassador to the South

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Brochgale
Brigadier General
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 am
Location: Scotland
Contact: Yahoo Messenger

Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:53 pm

Fransciscus

I think you need to clarify what you mean by a tactical layer, it clearly means differnet things to different people.
"How noble is one, to love his country:how sad the fate to mingle with those you hate"
W.A.Fletcher "Memoirs Of A Confederate Soldier"

User avatar
Franciscus
Posts: 4571
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
Location: Portugal

Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:10 pm

Sorry for not being clear.
A tactical part of the game would mean at least some degree of control of indivdual forces in each battle, in a tactical map, which could be optional. In the limit, possible a dream and maybe unmanageable, the ability to fought each battle like the ones in the Take Command game :coeurs: :coeurs:

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests