Gray_Lensman wrote:edit> There's another aspect to this that sandbox players fail to realize. AGEod probably relies on more than 75% of it's database development for all their games from dedicated historical buffs. They attract such help by keeping their games as historically based as possible. Without the emphasis on historical accuracy most of these individuals would take a quick look at the game(s) and walk away to find other games more satisfying to their historical dedication and as a consequence AGEod's overall game design output would drop off drastically.
Gray_Lensman wrote:edit> There's another aspect to this that sandbox players fail to realize. AGEod probably relies on more than 75% of it's database development for all their games from dedicated historical buffs. They attract such help by keeping their games as historically based as possible. Without the emphasis on historical accuracy most of these individuals would take a quick look at the game(s) and walk away to find other games more satisfying to their historical dedication and as a consequence AGEod's overall game design output would drop off drastically.
The following additional changes were made to restore some of the balance to the game.
55. McClellan/McDowell in 1861: (1861 Threaten Richmond event replaced by the "USA Army In Manassas" event)
a.) McDowell will remain activated "every" turn throughout the "Army In Manassas" period (1861 Early May thru 1861 Early Sept)
1.) If the USA establishes Military Control over Manassas (Fauquier, VA), the Army In Manassas event is satisfied. McDowell retains command and McClellan is left in Ohio.
2.) If the USA fails to establish any Military Control over Manassas (Fauquier, VA) by the expiration of the Army In Manassas event:
a.) USA loses 10 National Morale points. (the same ones previously lost in the failure of the now defunct 1861 Threaten Richmond event.
b.) Irvin McDowell is automatically removed from command of the Northeastern Virginia Army at no cost and McClellan will be moved to the same location as the Northeastern Virginia Army commanded by Irvin McDowell
1.) If the USA is being handled by the AI: McClellan automatically becomes commander of the Army of the Potomac. McDowell remains in the same stack without command.
2.) If the USA is being handled by a human: McClellan, McDowell and the Army of the Potomac HQ unit are stacked separately for the player/gamer to decide who retains command.
56.) McClellan/McDowell and the new "Threaten Richmond" events in 1862:
a.) Two new "1862 Threaten Richmond" events created to add political pressure on the USA player to threaten Richmond in 1862. One event expires 1862/06/30. The other expires 1862/10/30.
b.) If you satisfy the "Threaten Richmond" requirements prior to the first expiration, there is no NM penalty at all for 1862.
c.) If you don't satisfy the "Threaten Richmond" requirements before the 1st expiration there is a 10 NM penalty.
d.) If you don't satisfy the "Threaten Richmond" requirements before the 2nd expiration there is another 10 NM penalty.
e.) McClellan or McDowell (depending on the Army In Manassas outcome) will remain activated "every" turn throughout the "1862 Threaten Richmond" period up until the 2nd expiration or the successful completion of the requirements whichever comes first.
f.) The 1862 "Threaten Richmond" events will be made optional once Pocus provides the on/off support capability.
Heldenkaiser wrote:B) Now on the other hand there is the school that believes that the true mark of historical accuracy in a strategic wargame is the simulation, not the recreation of history. In other words, this school advocates that a historical conflict simulation ought to put the player in the shoes of historical actors by recreating as faithfully as possible the historical conditions that determined their actions, but then give him, within this framework, the greatest possible freedom of action. This school says that the player has a distinct historical role in the game; that for a strategic war simulation like AACW this role is the overall military and political decision-making for the national war effort, i.e. the role historically held by Lincoln and Davis; and that decisions that were historically within the purview of this role should be possible for the player to take. [color="Red"]Each decision should have benefits as well as costs, and the player should be forced to make difficult decisions, i.e. weigh for himself whether the benefit is worth the cost.[/color]
ShovelHead wrote:If you make non-historical decisions the game model should simulate what these non-historical decisions would have had.
Spharv2 wrote:Your option for liquidation is to not choose the embargo. The money the embargo costs is the average loss of income you're giving up for not selling your cotton. I'd like to see it be a bit more variable in costs. At the start of the war, there simply wan't a lot of cotton to sell. It was spring/summer and most had already been shipped prior to that. In the fall is when the costs should go up and the risk/reward should be higher since that's when the other countries would normally be importing.
02Pilot wrote:I would love to see the whole cotton market aspect expanded. Rather than a fixed figure, some sort of formula based on blockade state, number of Confederate blockade runners active, percentage of Union blockade, and the passage of time (as alternative sources of cotton were developed) would make the choices available to the South much more difficult. David G. Surdam's Northern Naval Superiority and the Economics of the American Civil War has excellent information on all of these factors.
richfed wrote:I just want a game that simulates the conditions of the time for each side. Then, let Davis and Lincoln - aka The Player[s] - make their choices, within the confines of the conditions, to affect the ultimate outcomes ... A touch of gameplay balance has to be added, but other than that, very simple.
AACW does this near perfectly.
richfed wrote:I just want a game that simulates the conditions of the time for each side. Then, let Davis and Lincoln - aka The Player[s] - make their choices, within the confines of the conditions, to affect the ultimate outcomes ... A touch of gameplay balance has to be added, but other than that, very simple.
AACW does this near perfectly.
enf91 wrote:I voted B, just as almost everyone else.
The problem I have with a game engine requiring players to follow history is you get a situation like another Civil War game I have, called Robert E. Lee: Civil War General. It was a cool game, but what made it a little silly was the campaign had the player follow a strict set of battles, so the Battle of the Wilderness would still be fought even if Lee had devastated Meade at Gettysburg. Also, the units involved were the historical ones, with the only variation being the weapons assigned to them (in the campaign). I tend to follow a historical-ish approach against the AI, but that's only because -- let's face it, it worked. Took awhile, but it worked. But I know that if I had to follow that same strategy over and over and over, including against humans, I would lose interest in the game. It's part of the reason I stopped playing Call of Duty and Metal of Honor.
kwhitehead wrote:I voted B but with a stipulation. A perfect Historic simulation will reproduce the "A" situation. That is, if it really simulated all the problems of command, the personalities you have to work with, the political situation you must deal with, etc. the outcome will tend to be the same. Be it Antietam, Chancellorsville or the Peninsula.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Nothing like thread necromancy or voting in a poll that is well over 9 months old... Time to put this thread/poll to rest. It's now meaningless and irrelevant as far as AACW is concerned.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests