AACW2 wishlist

[Colonel Dreux]

Far West Civil War: New Mexico

I read a little bit about the Civil War in West Texas and New Mexico recently and this is something that would be nice to see in any future game. The key, apparently was controlling the Rio Grande valley in central New Mexico. The Confederates were able to garrison Fort Bliss in El Paso and then were able to force a Union retreat from a fort up the Rio Grande which gave the Confederates a clear shot at California since Tucson, AZ was controlled by pro-Confederates. What I didn't realize was that Colorado was opened up to attack by the Confederates via New Mexico if the Confederates wouldn't have been defeated at Glorieta Pass. If they had taken Ft. Union on the eastern side of the Rockies, east of Santa Fe, they could have moved up the front range and gotten at the new settlements and forts in Colorado. Totally interesting stuff. Basically the strategy was all about fort hopping the key forts.

The Union also had a good number of troops spread out across the West, some 15,000+.

Being able to open up a southern route to California (Comanches would still be in the way between New Mexico and Arizona), or attack Colorado via New Mexico would be a cool feature if possible.

[caranorn]

Wouldn't call Port Royale (I and II) an RPG. It's rather a mix of pirate and trading game...

[Colonel Dreux]

I think that the historical issue with Mexico not trading with the CSA is obvious if you know the relationship Mexico had with the USA before the Civil War broke out, especially with the southern states.

Maybe you could have an option in which the CSA return Texas, California and rest of the land in between, which the USA robbed ... eh, bought from Mexico after the Mexican-American conquest ... er, War, in return for trade with Mexico. Of course the CSA would be obliged to assist Mexico in re-obtaining such territory the government of the USA refused to return voluntarily. And maybe pigs can fly.

Actually, now I've discovered there was trading going on between Mexico and the CSA after all. Cotton was transported across the Rio Grande for European guns at the port of Bagdad, Mexico. Reading through the old Time Life Civil War books, I found at least 2 references to the trade going on at Bagdad, Mexico. There is also a wikipage on Bagdad, and the arms trade between Mexico and the CSA is mentioned on at least one of other wiki page with regards to the Trans-Mississippi conflict, which references a book on the conflict. So I don't have a primary source or solid secondary source to prove it, but it appears there was trade going on between Mexico and the CSA after all... the Mexican War be damned. I also read that the U.S. started shipping guns to Mexican nationalists fighting the French as soon as the Civil War ended. So there were trade links established despite the Mexican War and despite the difficulties in the trading route itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagdad,_Tamaulipas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mississippi_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War

The Union mounted several attempts to capture the trans-Mississippi regions of Texas and Louisiana from 1862 until the war's end. With ports to the east under blockade or captured, Texas in particular became a blockade-running haven. Referred to as the "back door" of the Confederacy, Texas and western Louisiana continued to provide cotton crops that were transferred overland to the Mexican border town of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and shipped to Europe in exchange for supplies.

Determined to close this trade, the Union mounted several invasion attempts of Texas, each of them unsuccessful. Confederate victories at Galveston, Texas, and the Battle of Sabine Pass repulsed invasion forces. The Union's disastrous Red River Campaign in western Louisiana, including a defeat at the Battle of Mansfield, effectively ended the Union's final invasion attempt of the region until the fall of the Confederacy. Jeffery Prushankin argues that Kirby Smith's "pride, poor judgment, and lack of military skill" prevented General Richard Taylor from potentially winning a victory that could have greatly affected the military and political situation east of the Mississippi River.[2]

Isolated from events in the east, the Civil War continued at a low level in the Trans-Mississippi theater for several months after Lee's surrender in April 1865. The last battle of the war occurred at Palmito Ranch in southern Texas – a Confederate victory.

This actually goes back to my original point [color="Red"]<deleted personal remark>[/color], which was that Vicksburg was the key choke point between the Trans-Mississippi and the Eastern half of the Confederacy. It's part of what made it an important objective to Union forces, which is what I had read originally... that Lincoln and his cabinet wanted to cut off whatever trade was coming West of the Mississippi from Mexico.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Colonel Dreux]

deleted

[arsan]

edited

Surely this is not personal either...
Why don't you both resolve your problems in private instead of making the rest of the forum your involuntary spectators??
Talk about childish...
These forums are for talking about AGEOD games. This post is about discussing improvements for a future AACW2.
Stop provoking and behave yourself!

[Colonel Dreux]

Secondary Reference:

Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War

http://books.google.com/books?id=_kq7diciSsQC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=mexico+confederate+trade&source=bl&ots=m5lJCsAcpn&sig=-iipfi40-QF7IZ-gAei87bjOB3M&hl=en&ei=GdPESsC2IpWN8AbI9YA0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=mexico%20confederate%20trade&f=false

Search Mexico and it will allow you to go to the pertinent pages. The trade wasn't significant in the grand scheme of things, but trade did occur and supplies did come into the Trans-Mississippi military district from Mexico. There was even a supply line running out of Monterey (although not very much stuff). Like you said though, must supplies came in at ports east of the Mississippi along the Gulf or on the Atlantic coast.

So really is not that important to game play, but it did happen.

[Colonel Dreux]

Surely this is not personal either...
Why don't you both resolve your problems in private instead of making the rest of the forum your involuntary spectators??
Talk about childish...
These forums are for talking about AGEOD games. This post is about discussing improvements for a future AACW2.
Stop provoking and behave yourself!

No, I'm going to address him deleting my comments. And I'm going to state my opinions. He's got to learn to live with people disagreeing with him or having colorful prose.

[arsan]

No, I'm going to address him deleting my comments. And I'm going to state my opinions. He's got to learn to live with people disagreeing with him or having colorful prose.

Cool, thanks!
Disagreeing and using colorful prose is perfectly OK.
But let's all behave like grown men and stop fighting, please!
I'll edit my quoting of your commenst as well.
Cheers!

[PhilThib]

Gents,
I have been asked to follow those discussions closely. I am a bit tired of reading an history of exchanges with personal things that have nothing to do in a public forum (and are detrimental to the time I should instead spend on developping games).

On the next "flaming" attempt, the thread will be closed and the parties involved (ALL of them ) will be banned for a week. No leniency or favor.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to contact me by PM. Thanks.

[enf91]

C'mon guys. I started this thread. It's been around for several months and has been specifically for listing ideas for AACW2. Why does it have to be part of flame wars? In fact, why have flame wars at all? Please, think before you post and, if you feel you have to make a comment to a specific person, PM. Don't post. PM. That way you don't pollute the forums with these petty disagreements. Please.

[Aurelin]

There already are the islands near Cape Hatteras and the Florida Keys. Union players can use Fort Pickens, though it might alert the CSA to a southern invasion. What islands did you have in mind?

The islands by LA for instance (ship island). I have "War between the States" from Matrix Games which has some of those off shore islands. IIRC, part of the reason for taking those islands was for bases for the blockaders.

I like their use of a theatre commander as well

[enf91]

I was thinking about theater commanders too, but I'm not sure how much effect they had. Even Grant couldn't get Butler to be competent, and Banks was still an idiot despite Sherman. I was also considering unit ethnicities, given the case of XI Corps at Chancellorsville, whose largely German units had lower morale because of Sigel's transfer. Then again, how many other times did that happen?

[Captain_Orso]

Actually, now I've discovered there was trading going on between Mexico and the CSA after all. Cotton was transported across the Rio Grande for European guns at the port of Bagdad, Mexico. Reading through the old Time Life Civil War books, I found at least 2 references to the trade going on at Bagdad, Mexico. There is also a wikipage on Bagdad, and the arms trade between Mexico and the CSA is mentioned on at least one of other wiki page with regards to the Trans-Mississippi conflict, which references a book on the conflict. So I don't have a primary source or solid secondary source to prove it, but it appears there was trade going on between Mexico and the CSA after all... the Mexican War be damned. I also read that the U.S. started shipping guns to Mexican nationalists fighting the French as soon as the Civil War ended. So there were trade links established despite the Mexican War and despite the difficulties in the trading route itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagdad,_Tamaulipas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mississippi_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War



This actually goes back to my original point [color="Red"]<deleted personal remark>[/color], which was that Vicksburg was the key choke point between the Trans-Mississippi and the Eastern half of the Confederacy. It's part of what made it an important objective to Union forces, which is what I had read originally... that Lincoln and his cabinet wanted to cut off whatever trade was coming West of the Mississippi from Mexico.

Thanks Colonel,

wow, that was one of the most interesting read I've had in a while, that about Bagdad. The reference to invading Colorado though 'As one Texan put it, "If it had not been for those devils from Pike's Peak, this country would have been ours."' I believe can't be taken as an indication of intentions, as Sibley's aim was not at Colorado, but California.

I also note that Sibley's campaign, though pointed toward Colorado, was to clear the Union troops out of the forts in New Mexico to open the door to California. He also thought that Confederate sympathizers would flock to join him, which they did not.

From my readings there were a lot more sympathizers in Arizona. When the Union moved the postal route to the north at the outset of hostilities they also removed all the troops from the forts along the route thus leaving Arizona unprotected from the Apache. Many of the settlers fled the region because of this and many of those who stayed were not on friendly terms with the Union because of being abandoned by the Union. The Apache saw the removal of the troops as their victory and went on to attack the now unprotected settlers killing many.

Though the Confederacy did eventually have a troop, about 100 men I read, in Tucson and called out the Confederate State of Arizona, comprised of the southern halves of present New Mexico and Arizona, this was of little importance, as they were only a hand-full. It was probably more important to the settlers.

I believe in game-terms, the South-West Territory with Tucson should actually have Santa Fe or Albuquerque as the fort/city as this was the only place where fighting of any consequence occurred, plus measuring the time that it takes to get from Tucson to Denver or the western map edge compared with from Denver to the western map edge, seams to coincide more with Santa Fe or Albuquerque than Tucson. But that's really just flavor.

But back to trade with Mexico. I wonder how much that was in comparison to other ports where blockade runners were operating. From the Wikipedia article on Bagdad, Tamaulipas, it sounds extensive. But then again the article also says that the Union ignored the Consulate's plea for intervention in the trade, deeming the general blockade effort, and I guess other specific ports, more important. All-in-all food for thought.

The description of Bagdag, Tamaulipas sound interesting too. Would be a great setting for a film, '“an excrescence of the war. Here congregated . . . blockade runners, desperadoes, the vile of both sexes; adventurers . . . numberless groggeries and houses of worse fame. [Where the] decencies of civilized life were forgotten, and vice in its worst form held high carnival . . . while in the low, dirty looking buildings . . . were amassed millions [in] gold and silver.” A blockade runner once described Bagdad as a place where everyone was trying to grab what he could by using whatever scheme possible to make money out of crisis.' Sounds like a cross between Siverado, Open Range, Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Girls Gone Wild.

[Beren]

River transport not allowed or at least that it would cost much more in enemy controlled rivers and territory...

It is very frustrating when you have isolated in your territory an army of 40000 men they can withdraw so easily.

[Captain_Orso]

Secondary Reference:

Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War

http://books.google.com/books?id=_kq7diciSsQC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=mexico+confederate+trade&source=bl&ots=m5lJCsAcpn&sig=-iipfi40-QF7IZ-gAei87bjOB3M&hl=en&ei=GdPESsC2IpWN8AbI9YA0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=mexico%20confederate%20trade&f=false

Search Mexico and it will allow you to go to the pertinent pages. The trade wasn't significant in the grand scheme of things, but trade did occur and supplies did come into the Trans-Mississippi military district from Mexico. There was even a supply line running out of Monterey (although not very much stuff). Like you said though, must supplies came in at ports east of the Mississippi along the Gulf or on the Atlantic coast.

So really is not that important to game play, but it did happen.

Hi Colonel,

Thanks again. I just start browsing through this book. It's very interesting. It does look like the situation between the difficulty in getting goods in and out of Matamoras and the tariffs raised by Vidaurri kind of killed a greater use of Matamoras as an important trade route.

[Captain_Orso]

River transport not allowed or at least that it would cost much more in enemy controlled rivers and territory...

It is very frustrating when you have isolated in your territory an army of 40000 men they can withdraw so easily.

I agree that it seams rather gamey. I had a CSA force jump on the boats between Louisville and Cincinnati and ride home through Patterson, I believe.

On the one hand, I don't think anybody with a riverboat is going to argue with a few thousand butternut troops wanting to 'barrow' their transport. Then again, how do you get a hold of enough transports to move all of your troops. Once word gets out that the enemy is absconding with riverboats I think the rest will rather stay away from the region until the enemy has left.

Maybe limiting the number of friendly troops that can be transported from an enemy held region.

One thing you can do now is position guns at strategic locations along the rivers. It's expensive and it takes quite a while to get them at an entrenchment level where they can bombard passing ships, but it's murderous on those defenseless generic transports.

I've learned the hard-way that holding Paducah and getting a battery or two of artillery there is important. It keeps the south from running boats up the Tennessee and Columbia into the Ohio. If the CSA gets Paducah they will do the same thing. That hurts.

[Colonel Dreux]

Thanks Colonel,

wow, that was one of the most interesting read I've had in a while, that about Bagdad. The reference to invading Colorado though 'As one Texan put it, "If it had not been for those devils from Pike's Peak, this country would have been ours."' I believe can't be taken as an indication of intentions, as Sibley's aim was not at Colorado, but California.

I also note that Sibley's campaign, though pointed toward Colorado, was to clear the Union troops out of the forts in New Mexico to open the door to California. He also thought that Confederate sympathizers would flock to join him, which they did not.

From my readings there were a lot more sympathizers in Arizona. When the Union moved the postal route to the north at the outset of hostilities they also removed all the troops from the forts along the route thus leaving Arizona unprotected from the Apache. Many of the settlers fled the region because of this and many of those who stayed were not on friendly terms with the Union because of being abandoned by the Union. The Apache saw the removal of the troops as their victory and went on to attack the now unprotected settlers killing many.

Though the Confederacy did eventually have a troop, about 100 men I read, in Tucson and called out the Confederate State of Arizona, comprised of the southern halves of present New Mexico and Arizona, this was of little importance, as they were only a hand-full. It was probably more important to the settlers.

I believe in game-terms, the South-West Territory with Tucson should actually have Santa Fe or Albuquerque as the fort/city as this was the only place where fighting of any consequence occurred, plus measuring the time that it takes to get from Tucson to Denver or the western map edge compared with from Denver to the western map edge, seams to coincide more with Santa Fe or Albuquerque than Tucson. But that's really just flavor.

But back to trade with Mexico. I wonder how much that was in comparison to other ports where blockade runners were operating. From the Wikipedia article on Bagdad, Tamaulipas, it sounds extensive. But then again the article also says that the Union ignored the Consulate's plea for intervention in the trade, deeming the general blockade effort, and I guess other specific ports, more important. All-in-all food for thought.

The description of Bagdag, Tamaulipas sound interesting too. Would be a great setting for a film, '“an excrescence of the war. Here congregated . . . blockade runners, desperadoes, the vile of both sexes; adventurers . . . numberless groggeries and houses of worse fame. [Where the] decencies of civilized life were forgotten, and vice in its worst form held high carnival . . . while in the low, dirty looking buildings . . . were amassed millions [in] gold and silver.” A blockade runner once described Bagdad as a place where everyone was trying to grab what he could by using whatever scheme possible to make money out of crisis.' Sounds like a cross between Siverado, Open Range, Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Girls Gone Wild.

I don't disagree about the general aim of linking up the CSA to Southern California. That was the objective. They accomplished opening up a route to California by taking over the outpost at Mesilla, NM. However, when Sibley's "army" was heading through Glorieta Pass they were going for Ft. Union, which would have opened up Colorado to them if they had been successful. So generally speaking they were headed towards Colorado, not that they would have moved north eventually, but they wanted to consolidate their control of New Mexico by pushing out the last remaining outpost of troops northward into Colorado to make an invasion or link up with California safer. So yeah, California was the major long-term objective.

[Captain_Orso]

Being that the current map basically splits the the US part of North American continent about right down the middle, there is a huge part of the present USA which is represented by the 5 western off-board boxes. Although it is highly unlikely that anybody would really ever use them, it would be interesting if the South-West Box were made into Eastern-SouthWest-Territory representing present day New Mexico and an additional Western-SouthWest-Territory Box were incorporated to the west of that representing Arizona. This would make the Sibley Plan more possible to attempt in-game.

It kind of makes me wonder, what if Sibley had turned left at Mesilla ignoring the Federals, headed straight to Tucson and found supporters and volunteers there. What if the CSA did march to California with a 'sizeable' force, say 5000 men. He left Texas with about 3500 as it was. Would the US have been able to afford to send troops from the North-East all the way to West-Coast or march them across the Rockies in '61-'62? How much would the CSA earn from owning California?

Scenarios that I'm glad didn't occur in real life; but I wonder what-if.

[Aurelin]

I was thinking about theater commanders too, but I'm not sure how much effect they had. Even Grant couldn't get Butler to be competent, and Banks was still an idiot despite Sherman. I was also considering unit ethnicities, given the case of XI Corps at Chancellorsville, whose largely German units had lower morale because of Sigel's transfer. Then again, how many other times did that happen?

I was thinking along the lines of a leader bonus like the current Army leader bonus, but this one passes to the armies instead of the corps.

Ethnicities is an intriguing idea.

[enf91]

Strangely enough, I had exactly the same thought as you did. But as I said, I'm not sure how realistic it was.

[Aurelin]

I guess it would depend on how it's done. In the other game, the TC, if he gets inititive, helps the AC get it. But there is no guarantee.

[Colonel Dreux]

Being that the current map basically splits the the US part of North American continent about right down the middle, there is a huge part of the present USA which is represented by the 5 western off-board boxes. Although it is highly unlikely that anybody would really ever use them, it would be interesting if the South-West Box were made into Eastern-SouthWest-Territory representing present day New Mexico and an additional Western-SouthWest-Territory Box were incorporated to the west of that representing Arizona. This would make the Sibley Plan more possible to attempt in-game.

It kind of makes me wonder, what if Sibley had turned left at Mesilla ignoring the Federals, headed straight to Tucson and found supporters and volunteers there. What if the CSA did march to California with a 'sizeable' force, say 5000 men. He left Texas with about 3500 as it was. Would the US have been able to afford to send troops from the North-East all the way to West-Coast or march them across the Rockies in '61-'62? How much would the CSA earn from owning California?

Scenarios that I'm glad didn't occur in real life; but I wonder what-if.

That would be cool. I think people are pushing for an expanded map if any future game comes to fruition. My belief is the the C.S.A., at best could have held on to New Mexico for a year or so, if they had been successful against the Ft. Union guys and the troops from Colorado that came to help them out. The U.S. just had too many troops around the West for the CSA to hold on for too long, I think. Not knowing what was even going on in New Mexico, a Union force had been sent from California to Tucson, I think and ended the Arizona government. Maybe if they had had help that wouldn't have happened, but there were probably too many holes to plug for the CSA to control wide swaths of the Southwest. The U.S. could have concentrated a lot of troops from other western outposts on New Mexico if Ft. Union had been lost. It would have taken some time, but it would have happened probably, I think.

[Comtedemeighan]

I would love to see an expanded map and maybe a what-if scenario loosely based on the Turtledove's "How Few Remain"

[andatiep]

Contextual desactivation :

Added to a regionalized desactivation, i think it need understandable and logical reasons for desactivation. Players need more explanations in the game to accept this hard but necessary rule.

The pre-dispatched strategic personnal value for each general should get a malus or a bonus (the same way that the generals leading corps) according to the 3 main logical situations on the field which make that a general is psychologically pushed to immobilization or to initiative :

1. the number of neighbouring region which are in bad and very bad weather should help him to decide to stay home and be desactivated.

2. the number of neighbouring regions (2 regions range !) which are bad detected (1 or 0 for example) should also help him to decide to wait for better overview of the operationnal theatre. it's then more important to sent cavalery units to scout around for preparing an offensive ...by helping the local generals to be activated. Thus it's also usefull to get more loyalty/military control in the area to avoid spending to much cavalery only for provisionnal detection.

3. the logical concequences from their own special abilities :
- for example, a "Training Officer" or "Training Master" will get more chance of desactivation if commanding a force with conscript units inside to train (he loves training troops, he have conscripts to train in its force. Then he care more of that hobby than lunching an offensive).
- other example, a "cavalryman" will get more chance of activation if commanding a full mounted force.
- many interesting examples can be found to link in purpose abilities with (des)activation. BTW i join also the players already requesting that most of the standard 3-1-1 generals should have at least a "good" and a "bad" abilities.


More regionnalized abilities :

Having again in mind to simplify some boring aspect and tasks of the game which always give a better advantage to the players that have more time to spend on micro-management, i suggest that some abilities should apply to the whole region (including its town/fort/port) where the generals are.

If not players spend many time first to understand where each abilities apply and then more time again to move the generals or support units with abilities like simple tools from force to force, sometime from unit to unit, just to optimize the abilities' like cohesion improvements for all the forces ...that are anyway in the same region...

"Training Officer", "Training Master", "Dispirited Leader", "Good Army Administrator", "charismatic" should apply to the whole region if the general have the better rank/seniority or should not apply at all in the region if he has not the better rank/seniority to avoid "tricky micro-management".

By the way, McClellan have the interesting sectorized ability "Poor Spy Network" only few turns in the early game and then it desappear once he became 3 stars. Let's keep it to him for all the game, otherwise it's sensless...


About the map :

Like for the demands for a "not only eyes-candy map" in this thread, i suggest that we should be able to directly and graphically see the differences of all sort of weather in a region without having to let each time the mouse's cursor on it to know if it's shiny or muddy, or if it's "snow" and not "blizzard".

The weather names for rivers should also change , for example we can have "flood, muddy flood, icy flood, frozen, etc," to avoid paradoxal situation like having "shining sun" all around a river were it's displayed "snow".


To stop the army trafics :

Not more than one army per map's theatre, just one HQ available per year and/or scripted events which place the army HQ in specific fronts/big sectors they can't leave.
If not players buy all HQ available, give them to the stupid 3 stars best ranked generals and succeed soon to give a last HQ to a young Grant. Players send this ghost "armies" in Alaska or so and can use Grant as chief in command in the east in 1862 !
I'm currently playing a PBEM where i could even replace McClellan by the general in chief of the mexican army which is better ranked and skilled...


Languages penality in command :

Just to think to apply in AACW2 the same rules like in NCP which give a penality in command when generals lead troops with foreign languages they don't know : mexican, french, indians...

<EDIT> maybe + some union units which were maded up with fresh german immigrants who still didn't understand well english, as enf91 spoked about in this thread

I would love to see an expanded map and maybe a what-if scenario loosely based on the Turtledove's "How Few Remain"

I think Turtledove's scenarios would better fit on the VGN game level. As far as i know for it, because it's still not published in French. So here is my last requête : I wish AGEOD publish it and distribute it in France and in all the countries where it's sill not translated with the next AACW2 box !!

[caranorn]

To stop the army trafics :

Not more than one army per map's theatre, just one HQ available per year and/or scripted events which place the army HQ in specific fronts/big sectors they can't leave.
If not players buy all HQ available, give them to the stupid 3 stars best ranked generals and succeed soon to give a last HQ to a young Grant. Players send this ghost "armies" in Alaska or so and can use Grant as chief in command in the east in 1862 !
I'm currently playing a PBEM where i could even replace McClellan by the general in chief of the mexican army which is better ranked and skilled...

That's the only one of your points I disagree with. All those better ranked "stupid 3-stars" held Army level or higher commands, often with the "brilliant 3-stars" serving under them (Grant und Halleck iirc). If a player wants to spend a large ammount of resources on HQ's just so they can dispatch Halleck to Alaska, Fremont to New Hampshire and Banks to the Moon and have grant command in their place on the Seaboard they should be able to do so. Just like they can currently give Grant Army command before those other "stupid 3-stars" and take a hit in VP (is it VP, sorry haven't played for over a month, could be NM)...

Also note that multiple armies in a single theater existed on both sides of the ACW. For instance Army of the Tennessee (Grant) and the Army of the Ohio (Buell) in the West, or the Army of the Potomac (Meade) and the Army of the James (not sure who was in command). Also I wouldn't limit an army to it's theater of original activation, It's not unlogical to see an Army move from the trans-Mississippi into the West, or from the West into the Seaboard...

But that brings us back to Theater Commanders. There should be some actual benefit in giving the likes of Halleck and Fremont a HQ before people like Grant or Lyon (note, I usually got Lyon to 3-star faster than Grant). Maybe better movement of supplies as long as you have an area commander? At least some kind of benefit...

Otherwise great ideas that I'd support 100%...

[andatiep]

All those better ranked "stupid 3-stars" held Army level or higher commands, often with the "brilliant 3-stars" serving under them (Grant und Halleck iirc).

In fact not really, since the corps organization now arrive only in 1862 and since even after the generals get heavy strategic malus (sometimes - 2 maybe -3) if they became a corps leader under the command of a Halleck or a McClellan as Army leader, most of the players just don't use the Army/Corps system and never give Grant and Lyon the command of a corps before they became 3 stars themselves and got directly an army to command. There is not so much big forces at this stage and a 2 stars Grant or Lyon just do the job without the need of being Corps leaders.

If a player wants to spend a large ammount of resources on HQ's just so they can dispatch Halleck to Alaska, Fremont to New Hampshire and Banks to the Moon and have grant command in their place on the Seaboard they should be able to do so. Just like they can currently give Grant Army command before those other "stupid 3-stars" and take a hit in VP (is it VP, sorry haven't played for over a month, could be NM)...

That's sounds like a trick which is not historically accurate. It's better to force players to spend NM and VP while switching the promotion hierarchy than to allow the buisness of "ghost" armies everywhere. And however you do it, replacing MacClellan by Grant on the eastern front in early 62 should have a strong political cost, not just the cost of few HQ to buy more.

Also note that multiple armies in a single theater existed on both sides of the ACW. For instance Army of the Tennessee (Grant) and the Army of the Ohio (Buell) in the West, or the Army of the Potomac (Meade) and the Army of the James (not sure who was in command).

Well, what is called in the game brigades, divisions, corps and armies is not completelly the same than in the reality.
To really translate those little armies you listed into the game, you can just take a force of two divisions in Dallas with 3 one-star generals and just rename it "Army of Texas".
In the reality and also in the Game this litttle armies didn't use the Corps organization. What is called army in the game is made especially for funtionning with corps. An army without corps in AACW is almost useless, it's used only to bring more command points to an only defensive force on secondary lines.

Also I wouldn't limit an army to it's theater of original activation, It's not unlogical to see an Army move from the trans-Mississippi into the West, or from the West into the Seaboard...

Yes, you're right. Fixing armies inside a theatre is not a good way to solve the problem.

But that brings us back to Theater Commanders. There should be some actual benefit in giving the likes of Halleck and Fremont a HQ before people like Grant or Lyon (note, I usually got Lyon to 3-star faster than Grant). Maybe better movement of supplies as long as you have an area commander? At least some kind of benefit...

That's probably a good way to search for a solution : added to the proposal to let only 3 stars generals that can care Corps and Army (and only 2 stars or more can care division) players will have anyway to use the early "stupid-3-stars-generals". If we give more special abilities (good and bad) with a long range effect to the 3 stars generals and also your proposal to give a global advantage (better supply, or also better reinforcement arrivals ?...) to all the forces which are in a area command (whatever it is a good or bad Army commander) it could works.

Otherwise great ideas that I'd support 100%...

Thanks !
...and it's especially cool for the last one because i really didn't expect to find any support about the foreign languages publishing and distribution of Turtledove's books inside the next AACW2 box !

[caranorn]

Thanks !
...and it's especially cool for the last one because i really didn't expect to find any support about the foreign languages publishing and distribution of Turtledove's books inside the next AACW2 box !

Heh, now I'll have to check whether I have that Turtledove book in english, if not I certainly wouldn't mind finding it in french in the AACW-2 box ;-) ...

[W.Barksdale]

Not more than one army per map's theatre, just one HQ available per year and/or scripted events which place the army HQ in specific fronts/big sectors they can't leave.
If not players buy all HQ available, give them to the stupid 3 stars best ranked generals and succeed soon to give a last HQ to a young Grant. Players send this ghost "armies" in Alaska or so and can use Grant as chief in command in the east in 1862 !
I'm currently playing a PBEM where i could even replace McClellan by the general in chief of the mexican army which is better ranked and skilled...

IMHO I think this is not a good idea. The number of Union HQs has already been reduced and the Federals need all the armies they can get even if commanded by 'bad' generals. By 1863\64 the Federals should have good army commanders in place.

1\ theatre would be a really benefit the rebels besides not being historical at all.
A Union player taking heavy NM and VP loss for breaking seniority is a godsend for a quality rebel player.

[andatiep]

Army's Command area improving unit's Detection

With the proposal of Caranorn to give a global advantage to all the units/stacks which are in an Army's command area (whatever there is a good or bad Army commander), it comes to my mind a more logical advantage than the first proposals we did (improving supply or reinforcement arrivals) : they should get a bonus of detection.
Or much better : all the units outside an area command should get a detection malus and the one inside not.

This is logical because it show that the reports of the scouting units on the field have to go somewhere on the map (Army HQ) so that the Great Command (the player) can know about it and act.
Like the supply network system, the way the scouts' information is spread and reach "the top" of the hierarchy to be properly used should also be simulated.
Thus there could be sectors in the map badly detected because it's out of any HQ command area and the reports from the advanced and already isolated units (usually the cavalry) could not all come in time to the Great Command (the player).

Surely that way nobody will send a bad 3 stars general with its HQ in Alaska anymore but will let it on some front, even if he brings together bad effects with its special abilities (like a long ranged modified "Strong Occupant" ability, for example).

But it still need a way (maybe thanks to a special scripted rule) to make sure that the best ranked and senior (and politically supported) 3 stars general and its army HQ is affected in the eastern front close to the capital (Washington or wherever it move) instead of being send by the players to any secondary front because of its bad skills.