New official 1.14 patch

[Mickey3D]

For the 1861 campaign -KY scenario(s) only, the draft options have been delayed until the date of their actual historical enactments.

For the CSA, the draft option (Partial and Full Mobilization) is enabled 1862/03/18 (1862 Late March).

For the USA, the draft option (Partial and Full Mobilization) is enabled 1863/03/03 (1863 Early March).

For both sides the Volunteer options are still available from the game start.

These may or may not restore some early game balance to the game in that the USA will have to spend more of his $ funds to buy more volunteers in order to keep up with the CSA 1862 volunteer recruitment + draft advantage for 1862. Once 1863 rolls around they'll both once again have the same volunteer recruitment + draft opportunities.

The only way we'll know if these changes work is for some enterprising volunteer individuals to give these scenarios some rigorous testing. I specifically picked these scenarios since they are slightly more historically specialized already with the secession events.
.

It seems to me to be an important but very interesting change in favor of the south. If anybody has already test it, I would be glad to hear of your experience.

[soundoff]

<snip>


Comparing numbers of men (historically) to the number of men displayed in the game is not a really valid way of guaging/comparing the game's army sizes to historic numbers. Now before you disagree with that keep in mind that the game does not directly use "men" as any sort of real value, but instead just calculates the number of men, horses, and guns from some internal multiple values that are applied against the number of hits a model has. When the game first was released it did not even display the number of men, horses, or guns. In order to enhance player/gamer immersion, "flavor multiples" were created into each of the model elements to translate the number of hits into men, horses and guns to display.

For example we'll use the very first CSA model "mdl_CSA_Inf1", which has 20 Hits assigned to it. When the game was first released it contained no flavor multiple values and of course there weren't any men, horses, and guns displayed.

A few months later Pocus introduced these multiples and the code was adjusted to multiply the number of Hits a model had with these new "flavor" multiples known respectively as MenPerHit, HorsesPerHit, and GunsPerHit. In the CSA model cited above the MenPerHit multiple was originally 50. This resulted in a "flavor" display of 1000 men.

Several months subsequent to that, it was pointed out through feedback that the armies were too "big" in the overall displayed number of men, so these multiples were adjusted and tested extensively in the Beta forums until we got the "flavor" display to be about right using approx 60% of the original value. Again using the CSA model cited above, the MenPerHit multiple was now adjusted to 30 or (50 x .60). Now this model displays a "flavor" number of men of 600 (20 hits x 30 MenPerHit). Incidentally, if the multiples were changed back to the first values used, your numbers cited above would be close to 638,000 instead of 383,000, much closer to the values you are comparing your numbers against. This shows why it is a misapplication to compare the "flavor" numbers against real historic manpower numbers.

Keep in mind that there were no actual changes in the number of units/elements in play in the game, but the overall displayed "flavor" number of men decreased to 60% of the original values. Basically, the displayed "flavor" numbers are purely for player/gamer immersion and cannot be used in any sort of programmer/database calculations except to adjust the final resulting overall displayed "flavor" values.

The above info points out the inherent inaccuracies in gamers trying to compare real historic troop numeric values with the game's rather convoluted internal means of translating the number of Hits an element has by some multiple value instead of using straight forward values. That's why I am more interested in percentage or proportional values of the historic numbers and not actual historic manpower numbers.

I'm going .....I really am going. I can assure you this definately is the last time I will look in on the AACW board. Sadly, and against my better judgement I just cannot let this post go. I've never read such a load of rubbish, codswollop, gobbledegook and downright hogwash in all of my advancing wargaming years.


Right...so the programme deals in hits not men....big deal. But and its a mindblowing but....unless those hits translate in someway back actual casualties ....then I'm sorry but the game becomes as historical as 'Star Trek'

Virtually every wargame thats ever been developed....tabletop, board and computer (unless it operates at the 1 to 1 level) uses 'hits' to calculate casualties whether they be dead or wounded or some combination.

Now heres the rub. Unless total hits available to one side versus the other equate back to actual combatants/ships/aircraft/ etc that each adversary had available to them......then the hits themselves become meaningless.

To explain hopefully much better. We have in this game many senarios. Lets just take a couple of them. Bull Run and Gettysburg. I presume in both instances the OOB and the actual numbers of combatants taking part as shown in the senarios are about right. If they are then the number of 'hit points' that each side has must be in direct proportion to the actual number of men that it fielded in the actual battle. Whether one hit equals one man, ten men, fifty men or five thousand men matters not one jot nor tittle. Unless hit points are tied into actual men then you can kick AACW being a historical wargame right into touch. It would be like saying well a hitpoint against the Union side is equal to X casualties but against the South Y casualties....totally ridiculous. So going back to the campaign and Barksdales original query. Its totally absurd to say 'well if flavour numbers were left as they were originally you'd have your 650,000 Union soldiers. Why is it absurd?. Simply that you need to multiple the Confederate numbers by exactly the same factor....then compare it to the actual number of men they fielded in early 63 to find out whether it was comparable.


In a nutshell it comes down to this. If I on one side I have forces comprising a total of 1000 hit points and each hit point compares to a flavour figure of say 100 men.....then I have the equivalent of 100,000 men in the field. Lets also say thats the maximum I can purchase, recruit, draft etc by a given date

If you, my opponent has 750 hit points in the field then you have the equivalent of 75,000 men in the field. Lets also assume thats the maximum you can purchase, recruit, draft etc by the same date.

Now if the game is historical those two flavour numbers...mine and yours should roughly equate to what each side was able to put into the field by the given date......or at least an equal proportion on both sides. If they are not then the game is automatically squewed for one side or the other.


I've heard you for too long bang on in defense of positions that actual numbers are only for 'flavour' and its 'hit points' that matter but as I said above if the total 'hit points' available to both sides dont match backwards in 'flavour' terms to the actual number of men that each side was able to field at a given time.... then its all a meaningless exercise.

<Edit>....Just so there is no misunderstanding. Given your past history not with me but with any poster who voices a different opinion to yourself I am fully aware that you will 'have a go' at my post. You should be able to defend your position. Just do it much nicer than you did with this little baby.... yep its your words from a different thread.

As an aside to soundoff: You were given the private opportunity to test the cavalry raiding and to give me feedback concerning its effects and how it played out. I was led to believe by your numerous positive feedback comments that it was accomplishing its purpose and that it suited your concerns about limiting the effects of Deep Cavalry raids. It strikes me rather odd that you now choose to post that the change is ill considered. Matter of fact, I'll call it what it really is... Two faced trolling... Why didn't you give me this type of feedback as I asked you to when you were privately testing it? I think you can pretty well rest assured you won't be bothered with any more opportunities to playtest anything else in the future.


I almost started action for slander against you for that given that I'm identifiable to those that know me from my profile........If AGEod had not stepped in I might well have taken it further. So keep it relatively clean Gray....if you please.

P.S. And I fully acknowledge that without your imput development of AACW over the past 18 months at least would have been as sterile as NCP but that does not give you the right to abuse the player base as you occasionally do........however misguided or misinformed they might be.

[CarnageINC]

This is @ Soundoff

As a neutral observer of this posting I can say, after careful reading of Gray's explanation, that even though he calls manpower figures as 'flavor', they went about attaching manpower numbers to elements in a backwards kind of fashion. Ageod started out with hits points then attached figures to them and adjusted from there. While it doesn't seem a good way to be 'historical' about manpower it was IMO a good solution to the problem. So Soundoff, they did make hit points and the manpower relate to each other.

What conserns me, which you brought up Soundoff, is this quote from Gray:

first CSA model "mdl_CSA_Inf1", which has 20 Hits assigned to it

do US and CS elements of inf., arty., etc. have equal numbers of hit values. If these are off or slanted toward one side or the other then there is a problem. The manpower numbers per hit point don't need to be equal, IMO, only because of differences in equipment, training, morale, skill, etc. can make a difference in the amount of firepower projected.

[Lew]

I'm going .....I really am going. I can assure you this definately is the last time I will look in on the AACW board. Sadly, and against my better judgement I just cannot let this post go. I've never read such a load of rubbish, codswollop, gobbledegook and downright hogwash in all of my advancing wargaming years.

Maybe Grey's right. Maybe he's wrong. But he really didn't deserve this broadside.

P.S. And I fully acknowledge that without your imput development of AACW over the past 18 months at least would have been as sterile as NCP but that does not give you the right to abuse the player base as you occasionally do........however misguided or misinformed they might be.

As far as I can see - and I speak only for myself - Grey's getting worse than he's giving in this particular situation.

I appeal for all parties to focus on the wargaming, not the personalities. We *all* mess up on this sooner or later. I sure have! But we also all have proven that we can disagree civilly.

Play on!

[soloswolf]

I'm going .....I really am going. I can assure you this definately is the last time I will look in on the AACW board.

(I didn't want to quote the whole post and have mine be eight miles long, but I will address a couple of your points, Soundoff.)

Firstly, I believe that Gray has always stated that the numbers being flavor was with regard to the way the engine interprets things. Essentially, that the hits are what matter in the way the game determines the outcome of fights. (While taking in the various fire ratings, etc., of course.) Further, while we'd all like the numbers to be as exact as possible, this is a simulation. Without a complete and accurate OOB, it is impossible to have the numbers be exact, not to mention all the variables that come into play once you actually start playing the game.

I think we can (and have previously) agree that this is the best ACW game out there. It has brought us all a lot of fun, distraction, excitement, etc. while playing and observing others games as well. The devs, Gray, Bigus, Dixicrat and lots of other people have all contributed in some way to making this a better game. (Those were the names that sprang to mind, I hope no one takes umbrage to not being listed. )

Honestly, Soundoff, I don't see the provocation for your post. I have spoken up when I thought Gray was being harsh, and this was not harsh, it was just the umpteenth time he has stated the way the engine works.

Gray takes this all very personally because he puts an incredible amount of effort into making this game better for all of us. For free. That humbles me because all I do is play and help out with the occasional post/tip. Gray's efforts have likely translated into a lot of money for Ageod, as well as countless hours of fun for a lot of folks.

The reason I say all of this is that I feel you have been too professional of a player and mentor to a lot of newer players and have conducted yourself as a model 'forumite' in my readings. Losing you around here would be a shame.

I guess this turned out to be pretty long anyways. I'm not trying to say that I am the better man here, and peacemakers in forums don't usually fare all that well. But if you feel there is a problem just try to lighten up and help fix it, rather than making boisterous statements.

We're all in this for the same goal: A great game that gives us lots of enjoyment.

[enf91]

I just hope we don't have another Grey/Bigus forum fight on our hands. For crying out loud, guys, can't you handle this in PMs or something? It really detracts to see two great people going at each other, especially where everyone can see it.

[LSSpam]

It's both of our first PBEM games but I have an opinion on the draft changes

1) Drawing out the deployment of manpower for both sides is good, it extends the game.

2) However the Union is extremely hard pressed to maintan even localized manpower superiority in mid-late 1862, which is a critical period of the war.

The compromise solution, to me, would be to simply give both the Union and the Confederacy access to Mobilization in Late March 1862. This seems the best compromise between balance and "history", as even a temporary Confederate strategic manpower parity is not historical.


I don't know if it's possible, but even better would be if both CSA and USA got access to Partial Mobilization in March 1862, but not Full, and only got access to Full Mobilization (again, both simultanously) in March 1863.

[LSSpam]

Right...so the programme deals in hits not men....big deal. But and its a mindblowing but....unless those hits translate in someway back actual casualties ....then I'm sorry but the game becomes as historical as 'Star Trek'

Hits translate into actual hit casualties. I'm not grasping your entire argument. Even with my limited grasp of the game it seems self-evident.

The translation of "hits into 'real' numbers" is fairly irrelevant for game play. What is relevant is the proportion/ratio between the USA and CSA. It would be nice to get a fix on the precise ratio of hits to 'real manpower' and to balance that according to history, but so long as the proportion of hits between the USA and CSA remains both historically correct and of sufficient amount as to allow both sides the appropriate strategic manipulation then the game should play historical.

The relevance of the changes made to the KY scenario in terms of gameplay then is not whether both sides can "raise" an appropriate amount of men quickly enough, but rather do they remain in balance between the CSA and USA.

In my limited experience this is not completely true, as it allows a, admittedly temporary, but nonetheless useful change in balance that favors the CSA from mid 1862 to mid 1863 when USA draft units come on-line.

[LSSpam]

Let me take this further.

So far as I can tell the primary problem in allowing USA access to Full Mobilization immediately is it allows for deep penetrations (beyond Tennessee) in 1862, shortening the game. The problem with the current KY setup is that the USA has trouble getting local manpower superiority due to a lack of suffecient strategic manpower superiority in late 1862, especially out West. This makes achieving what should be normal USA objectives (Nashville and Memphis primarily) difficult.

By not giving the USA the draft in 1861, but giving it to them in 1862 you should allow them to maintan localized superiority as well as strategic superiotiy in manpower, but not enough to allow the deep penetrations you might have if you had access to that manpower in 1861 because of your inability to fully secure supply lines past Tennessee.

Moves to Atlanta and Vicksburg would then likely have to wait until 1863 which is likely the intended design effect.


An even better fix, but maybe not possible, would be partial mobilization in 1862 for both sides and full mobilization in 1863.

[Jarkko]

An even better fix, but maybe not possible, would be partial mobilization in 1862 for both sides and full mobilization in 1863.

Having tested a bit against the AI (I have two campaigns going on, one as USA and one as CSA, both against the AI), I have to (somewhat) agree with this. The CSA seems to get a massive advantage in West during summer 1862 in the Kentucky scenario. Haven't played either of my tests to 63 though, but as CSA I was able to effectively cut USA in half by late -62 (just short of Chicago with a corps in my last save in late October), while as USA I have been been able to stop CSA from taking over Kentucky (even though the AI didn't use full mobilisation), but haven't had a chance to actually fight for the control myself Kentucky (too few troops are simply too few troops).

I would like to suggest (at least for testing purposes) CSA gets access to full mobilisation in 1862, while USA gets partial mobilisation then (and full mobilisation in 1863).


Also, the AI seems to be hell-bent on attacking Kentucky ASAP (or rather, slighly before it is actually possible...). I wonder if the event is not random enough, as it seems to be a dead sure thing AI goes for Kentucky immediatly?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[LSSpam]

LSSpam: This is the type of feedback that I'm interested in.

There are also other ways to introduce more conscripts (examples: specific timed events) during critical periods other than allowing for an "earlier" partial mobilization, but your information concerning game play force balance during critical periods is most useful. This is the type of feedback information that we need to know concerning future adjustments.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to simulate the "Call for Volunteers" via event. Reduce the amount of manpower given via the action "Call for Volunteers" to make it simply represent the ability to add a bounty and therefore gain additional ones. And allow the Draft at historical times.

This would allow you to weight more heavily USA volunteers, especially in 1862, to maintain proper manpower balance with the CSA. By 1862 the CSA Volunteer events are petering out forcing them to rely on the draft or heavily subsidized "bounties" to maintain manpower balance and the same could occur for the USA in 1863.


This is probably a more historically accurate representation anyways as the ability to gain volunteers past 1862 for the CSA and 63 for the USA was marginal. They received mostly volunteers past those dates, but mainly due to likely-to-be-drafted men choosing the benefits of volunteering as opposed to being drafted (a common occurrence for drafts in volunteer based nations throughout history). I don't see how that effect can accurately be portrayed under current game mechanics (at least not in a simple fashion), but this would be a reasonable approximation of that.


Again, I definantly see the value in slowing down the accumulation of manpower. The USA needs a simple "raw amount" at various points to properly maintain ever-extending supply lines. In other words, they need a greater and greater strategic manpower advantage in order to maintain localized manpower advantages.

However allowing the CSA access to Full Mobilization a full year before the USA without any other sort of compensation alters the balance too greatly.
Forcing the USA to skimp on say garrisons in Bowling Green, Lexington, Louisville, and Columbus in order to push Nashville and Memphis invites disaster. Not to mention drastically reducing the flexibility to launch proper amphib invasions, which allows the CSA to skimp on coastal garrisons (further altering localized balance).

[LSSpam]

A small thought on cavalry raids too.

Is it possible to tie the ability to occupy a structure into Military control?

If so then that simplifies things. Not allowing individual cavalry units or partisans to control structures and therefore destroy them, but allowing properly sized raiding units to do so. It would virtually stop it in 1861 when the USA is less capable of defending it, and increase the associated risk attached to such raids later on since you have to "risk" a somewhat sizeable and expensive cavalry force (as well as lose their services as scout/screening forces).

It would then be a simple matter of balancing how much MC cavalry generates to allow for a, say, sizeable brigade or division sized cavalry force (4 or 5 elements at least) to effectively disrupt supply while still precluding individual units to do-so unless they're allowed to sit around unmolested.

[LSSpam]

It's worth noting that the raids of Forrest, Wheeler, and Morgan out west, while important, also carried associated risks that need to be properly represented. Everyone likes to focus in on the romance of Forrest whipping Sturgis near Corinth, but you have to keep in mind

1) Forrest generally conducted his raids with 2,000 or more men. Brices Crossroads had him with 3,500 effectives.

2) The reason Bragg was loath to let Forrest have a free reign (personal disputes aside, Bragg didn't like Forrest but his personal letters and official responses show he valued him as a commander, though less then Wheeler) and why Forrest was eventually given an independent command was because Bragg (and indeed all generals, especially in the West) needed significant cavlary forces for recon and screening (which is why Bragg liked Wheeler more, Wheeler was more willing to "serve" the army he was attached too).



The idea that masses of unlead cavalry swarming across Kentucky and the Ohio River represents "history" is laughable. The only remote instance of that was Morgan and he had
- 2,000 regular troops
- his raid was ultimately a total failure

The majority of raids centered on Corinth and the supply line from Nashville to Chattanooga and then Atlanta.

The Union should be forced to occupy key depots (like Corinth) with division or demi-division sized forces (to beat off a sizeable cavalry division) and it should be a good idea to meet large mobile independent CSA cavalry forces with equal or greater USA cavalry forces to at least keep tabs on and hopefully "occupy" their CSA equivlants, but having dozens of detached cavalry regiments chasing down dozens of CSA cavalry regiments across Kentucky is neither accurate nor, in my opinion, enjoyable game play.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[AndrewKurtz]

It's both of our first PBEM games but I have an opinion on the draft changes

1) Drawing out the deployment of manpower for both sides is good, it extends the game.

2) However the Union is extremely hard pressed to maintan even localized manpower superiority in mid-late 1862, which is a critical period of the war.

The compromise solution, to me, would be to simply give both the Union and the Confederacy access to Mobilization in Late March 1862. This seems the best compromise between balance and "history", as even a temporary Confederate strategic manpower parity is not historical.


I don't know if it's possible, but even better would be if both CSA and USA got access to Partial Mobilization in March 1862, but not Full, and only got access to Full Mobilization (again, both simultanously) in March 1863.

Or provide some increases in the conscripts you can raise through a bounty.

[Eugene Carr]

See attached re the Union "State Draft" in 1862 perhaps a partial draft for the Union in August/September 1862 would allow the CSA an initial advantage without getting too far ahead.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/draft.htm

If I remember my McPherson correctly the Union Army only recieved about 46,000 conscripts the rest of the drafts were made up of volunteers, substitutes and bounty men.
If it was possible to make the US drafts cost money they would better reflect the way they operated.

In any case I believe delayed drafts are an improvement.

S! EC

[AndrewKurtz]

In any case I believe delayed drafts are an improvement.

I agree. Once play tested and tweaked, I believe they will result in a more enjoyable and better balanced game. Definitely a step in the right direction.

Thanks Gray!

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Eugene Carr]

It's not possible to do this just from database manipulations... Parameters for the political options such as costs etc. are defined internal to the game engine itself, so you can't just modify something in the database files regarding the draft options to implement a $ cost parameter that does not exist in the first place. For the volunteer "options" it is possible to manipulate the existing $ cost parameter to increase/decrease cost since the parameter already exist (in the volunteer political options) to modify.

Due to the difficulties of working with political options, it's one of the reason's you see an "invasion" chit to purchase for choosing to invade KY rather than a new political option.

I thought this may be the case.
Is it possible to have an event that picks up whether the draft option has been used?

S! EC

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

I think there is such a syntax but since it's not used anywhere in the AACW database at this time I could not readily give an example of it. I believe Pocus gave an example of something like that recently in one of his posts. Try doing a member search under Pocus and then click on the <Find> button and search back thru his posts. It wasn't that long ago.

WIA uses a different option system, to a point, but has many 'option check events':

Conditions
CheckOption = $gmaOptionMil;USA_MilitaryOption1;=;1

I'm not familiar enough with AACW option structure, but I believe you can dig in and find something that uses this syntax.

[Eugene Carr]

WIA uses a different option system, to a point, but has many 'option check events':



I'm not familiar enough with AACW option structure, but I believe you can dig in and find something that uses this syntax.

Interesting, so it may be possible to assign a cost to using the draft option.
Thanks.

S! EC

[ShovelHead]

I believe Pocus gave an example of something like that recently in one of his posts.

CheckOption = GameActorUID ; OptionUID ; Operator (=, >=, <=) ; Value
Indicates if an option has been requested by the player (All games but AACW)

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15104&highlight=CheckOption

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[CarnageINC]

Previous additional QuickFix rework is NOT going to be able to be included in the next update patch due to a lack of time to make the necessary database changes necessary to support their inclusion in the "official" database files. Basically, after more than 2 years running, the game is soon to be declared a "legacy" game and all future enhancement work will most likely only be provided via MODs with the exception of bug elimination. AGEod will always support their games to remove crash bugs.

So Gray, does this mean any feedback from the April 61' w/KY campaign will be useless? AndrewKrutz and I just started talking about this scenario and wanted to provide info to you if any unbalancing issues arise. We started to head to head games with general mobility fixed and penalized.

[richfed]

4.) The CmdCost of all affected units have been reworked back to their previous v1.13b values.


This QuickFix contains ALL the data to be forwarded to Pocus to actually be incorporated into the next "official" update patch.

Previous additional QuickFix rework is NOT going to be able to be included in the next update patch

Can you explain this a bit more, Gray? What exactly is being rolled back in this QF? When the next official patch is released, what exactly will NOT be in it that is in 1.14 w/QF5?

Thanks - not clear on this.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted