AACW2 wishlist

[Beren]

That is a typical problem in some boardgames with some gamey tactics to give the most senior general but very poor in military skills and giving him only 1 SP, like in Civil War (victory games).

Other boardgames solve that giving the generals another characteristic, the number of troops they can command... example:

1 seniority can command up to 6 corps
2-4 seniority= 5 corps
5-8 = 4 corps
.
.
.
and so on... only talking from a boardgame perspective...

[andatiep]

...yes, it's me again
Here is an another idea.


3 to 4 multiplayer option :

Some players through the forum did organized "home ruled" games with 2 players as CSA and 2 as USA, sharing the tasks between them. This have many advantages and our local group of PBEM players plane to try it also.

AACW is big enough to be played by 2 teams of 2 players. Sharing the tasks would make less management for beginners or players with less time to spend, allowing them to focus on one sector and on limited economical and political management, like in the little scenarios.

After all, it would greatly improve the roleplay between the players. We are often frustrated because we can not speak to much in details about our situation and strategies in the game with our direct opponent around a bier or so. If we are in a team, it's much more fun to prepare big plans or argue about our defeats !

It could be shared like this :
- One player get the western front to care of, with a "Great Book", ressources, transport capacities, etc. limited to its sector and without the global politics options of the country.
- The other player get the eastern front with the "Great Book" limited to its sector, plus the global politics.

For the transfer of units from on side to the other, maybe it can be a rule like :
"you can order a unit to go in the other side of the map managed by your colleague but next turn it will be only him who will be able to move it".

I really don't know how hard it could be to implement it. I guess a 3 or more multiplayer option for the next AGE game VGN is planned. Maybe a part of the job will be already done for an AACW-2 improvement like this ?

[Generalisimo]

Well, to do something like that, you will need to split USA in 2 and CSA in 2... not that it is imposible really...
But the "cooperation" between the two CSA/USA factions is what will be more difficult to define really...
Also, some "little" things will need to be revised to be able to do such scenario... for example, the Capital. Imagine the CSA-West with one capital and CSA-East with another capital.

[andatiep]

Well, to do something like that, you will need to split USA in 2 and CSA in 2... not that it is imposible really...
But the "cooperation" between the two CSA/USA factions is what will be more difficult to define really...
Also, some "little" things will need to be revised to be able to do such scenario... for example, the Capital. Imagine the CSA-West with one capital and CSA-East with another capital.

You mean it would have to be created 2 full different playable "nations" even if we just want to split the management of one side in two players ?

[Generalisimo]

You mean it would have to be created 2 full different playable "nations" even if we just want to split the management of one side in two players ?

In the current AGE engine, yep, you will need to create two factions for one nation to be able to split the control... each faction under a different player.

[enf91]

Yeah... shame it's not like a board game where you can easily split roles between fronts (as in Guns of August). Oh, well, nothing's perfect. And AGEod is staffed by geniuses, not gods.

[andatiep]

In the current AGE engine, yep, you will need to create two factions for one nation to be able to split the control... each faction under a different player.

OK, so it's better to give up with this proposal.
There are other which are much more important and we can always organize it with home rules and gentlemen's agrements

Yeah... shame it's not like a board game where you can easily split roles between fronts (as in Guns of August). Oh, well, nothing's perfect. And AGEod is staffed by geniuses, not gods.

Thanks god(s) we have geniuses... if we had gods, they will never accept human wishes and critics for a better world with better games...

[slimey.rock]

In the current AGE engine, yep, you will need to create two factions for one nation to be able to split the control... each faction under a different player.

Would it would be possible to achieve this by updating the database and creating a new scenario? If so, I think it would be an excellent mod once the legacy patch is finalized. If someone was so inclined to create it of course

[enf91]

Maybe if AZ/NM/etc. get put on the map we could have a Mexican-American War scenario/campaign? Like BOA2 has 3 wars in 1? Maybe also a more flexible artillery engine to reflect the changing ammo at range, like solid (long-range, less effective) or canister (short range, deadly)? Similarly with small arms, which were more accurate at closer range merely due to muskets being nearly worthless at range. Terrain might have an effect on weapon efficiency (overall, not just limiting frontage) because trees would block shells and bullets, and hills would give artillery longer range if firing downhill.

[andatiep]

Detection's displayed informations :

What could the scouts mainly report at this time ?
Mostly 4 informations which are a more or less accurate number of :
- mens
- guns (light or heavy)
- mounted horses (By the way, because i feel it's the case, please stop mixing in the battle reports or elsewhere the number of horses from the chariots (useless to know) and the number of the cavalry's horses, because it's confusing players on the real quantity of cavalry inside the enemy force)
- supply chariots (whithout knowing if they are full or empty)

They could much more rarely report if the enemy soldiers can't fight correctly because :
- they are not feeded or too tired (simulated by the cohesion)
- they are bad commanded (simulated by the % of command's penality)
But generals could try to guess it according to the situation and that's why i suppose it's already included in the calcul of the global unit/force strenght value currently displayed by the Detection.

I think for now Detection lacks the first 4 informations the HQs could know for sure while it display the last informations they more rarely did know.

Many times, it's much more important to know about the type of the enemy units than to know about their real strenght value.
I'm defenitly not acting the same way if a big displayed value in front of me is only made up with artillery or with cavalry. In the first case i will just run to size poorly defended guns and in the second i would just ignore it if i have only infantery to try to run after it.

So i suggest that with the global strenght value, the Detection display also men, guns, mounted horses, and chariots and a number of each if enough Detection points.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Generating Campaign reports :

I found this proposal (in an old forums' downloaded AACW wishlist, it's not quoted, sorry) :

Detailed battle history that can be viewed at any time showing all the battles during the war. This would provide a good feel to the atmosphere. Show things like: name of battle, units involved, etc.

It would be a true inovation to have tools that help the players to "publish" their campaign report for the community ; the game could produce (on demand, it's useless that it be generated each turn) a chronic of the conflict with :
- the objectives taken by each side
- the main battles
- the main policies
- and if possible (i know it's a dream) an animation (.svg or flash) which show the main movements and battles of the year, just like on the website http://civilwaranimated.com

That will really brings benefits :
- to the athmosphere of the game
- to the discussion on the strategies the players developped,
- to the training of beginners,
- to the fame of the players,


----------------------------------
State's central gathering points :

I also found in this old wishlist two proposals i feel it needed to be said again because it's exactly how and why our local network of (war)gamers lost AACW beginners in the last months :

I would like there to be an option to have the computer handle all creating of reinforcements and replacements for me. Also, have the computer automatically move these reinforcements to a few central mustering points. As the previous poster said, in the full campaign, these tasks add *hugely* to the micromanagement involved. It is pushing the game to the limits of my management abilities.

i would kill for the ability to create mustering points where all newly created units are automatically ordered to move to pending organization into divisions and corps. doing this and what i mentioned above right now occupies at least 75% of the playing time in every round. streamlining these two items would allow the player to focus more on strategy and greatly reduce tedious micromanagement.

[andatiep]

Yet another previous proposal from the forum to replace in this thread.

Changing the railroad destruction/repair ratios :

Let's put it both at 10 or 15 days, as it is proposed here :
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14803

[W.Barksdale]

I like managing where my newly trained reinforcements mass at, and more than that, I like placing orders for my own reinforcements!

[andatiep]

I like managing where my newly trained reinforcements mass at, and more than that, I like placing orders for my own reinforcements!

So do i !
But i had to transmit here that most of the beginners we "evangelized" to AACW really asked for a simplified option. And that was the first argument of those who give up.
I personnally prefer also to manage all myself ...till i get enough time to do it...
Note that there is already simplified management options for the Naval Boxes. Why not for the poping units gathering automatically to the States' capitals (with the possibility to switch to normal management of courses).
All means that could avoid to afraid beginners are good, isn't it ? ... apy:

[enf91]

Partial corps MTSG:
Maybe instead of the current all-or-nothing corps MTSG we could have something where only a division or two MTSG. So if an entire corps can't MTSG, part of it can; on the other hand, if an entire corps does MTSG, maybe just one or 2 divisions gets there in time before the battle ends.

Current ZOC rule question:
Does ZOC affect only the ability to pin an enemy in place or avoid being pinned or does it also affect the chance of joining battle? If the latter isn't true, it should definitely be put in place for AACW2.

[bigus]

For Acw2 I'd like to see......The ability to assign waypoints to individual forces. (division or higher?)
Ie: move by rail ....wait 2 days ........ change stance......attack next region.

IMHO you would be able to set complex strategic and/or operational moves.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[marecone]

Great to see that forum is still alive . I still play the game and this now is a very long time since I was in beta team .
Bellow I have reposted my older post that was in other thread concerning wishes. I still hope that some of those ideas will make through and enter the game.

Ofcourse, more I play, more wishes I have . Older players probably remeber that games 10 or 20 years ago almost always had a spectacular movie finish. Like you play and play and when you reach the end of the game movie pops up and rounds everything up.
Newer games lack that and I simply hate to come to the end of the game and see a simple victory screen with points.
Anyway, this is what I suggest.

While you would play the game some sort of recorder would remember what you did. I beleive that we have those log files for that. So battles, generals, drafts and such.

So... After you win or lose a book shows up. Book about American civil war. But book about "your acw". It would show gratest battles, important events such as drafts or forgein intervention, greatest generals, best regiments and such.
At first few simple pages but if this would be possible to make then it could be expanded to show more info, more battles and more events with timline. At final stage we would get a book with let say 10 to 20 pages that could decribe what happened in your game and how you won or lost.

This idea is conected with my older ideas wich idealy should be implemented first as info would probably be taken from those battles and generals histories.

Hope you like them and hope it would be possible to include some of them .

In every single book about ACW you have OOB (order of battle). That would be a great feature IMHO. Month or two ago, somebody posted a pic of OOB and everybody loved it.

Also, I would love to see battles history with forces and generals engaged, with casulties and who won. Perhaps add one more ledger saying history of ACW and then fill that part with fought battles and captured cities. It would also serve as a nice timline so you could check where did you start winning or loseing.

From that ledger we could draw data for generals which is my third suggestion. It sucks a bit as you can't really say how succefull your generals are. Well, you can, but only through seniority points. It would be great if we could click on a general and you would get info on battles he fought and where he lost or won.

Fourth idea would be to add something that Frank Hunter's ACW already has; Alternate history start.
Like following options:

1. Kentucky and or Missouri joined CSA before the war
2. Europe did recoginize CSA from the start
and so on....

For example, with first option we would get stronger CSA and new places for battles such as Indiana, Ohio...

[biggp07]

I too would enjoy having this in an AACW2. A way to generate OOB's and detailed battle reports to go back too seems a really cool feature. And the alternate options as if they did actually happen is always an interesting twist. Thanks marecone for reposting your comments!

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

If Trent affair fires, give USA player option of apologizing or not, with appropriate benefits and detriments to all courses of action.

[andatiep]

Last reports and wishes from the fronts (3 current PBEM games).

-------------------------------------------------
Foreign Intervention Options :

Instead of just an "Easy FI" option, it could be 2 new options in the Options Screen of the game :
- option "forced Foreign Recognition", if checked by the host player anytime after april 1862, France & Great Britain recognize CSA. It means that FI points are now 75 (FI still need to reach 100) and that USA can't use the Total embargo policy anymore (because this policy would lead immediatly to a Foreign Intervention).
- option "forced Foreign Intervention" , if checked by the host player anytime after april 1862, France & Great Britain declare war on USA.

It could be also decided that "Foreign Recognition" as described above is not only an option but an obliged first step before any "Foreign Intervention". That way, "Foreign Recognition" would happen as soon as FI reach 65 or 75 pts in the game.


---------------------------------------------------
Political option screens :

All the descriptions of the policies which will be available in the game should be always displayed in the great book. Only the signature should be hidden until players can choose them (and it should be said when it could be).


---------------------------------------------
The "Emancipation Declaration"

i believe a better simulation of the event :

- if activated, it should bring a malus between -15% and -25% of loyalty in the unionist states with slavery BUT ALSO a bonus between +15% and +25% of loyalty in the deep south states which had most of the slaves !
It should also brings NM bonus and FI reduction, as well as replacement bonus and new units if major ports of the South are occupied.

- This political option should not be available before july 1862 AND NOT before the USA won a major victory on the field, id est a battle which give them at least 1 National Moral point. "No Antietam, No Declaration full of political advantages !".

- That way, if not activated before july 1863, the Declaration became anyway available but this policy will appear in the opinion like a desperate policy : it would brings the same bonus and malus in loyalty than described above but it will brings much less FI reduction and it will COST NM to the USA instead of winning some.

- This political option should also be available to the CSA sometime in late 1864 (!) but only as a desperate policy, with few FI and conscripts bonus, with no malus of loyalty in the unionist states with slavery and of course with a much stronger malus of NM and VP.


--------------------------------------------
War in the Far South-West :

Currently, why it's not possible to go from North mexico region to California region ?
Why it is possible to go from North mexico to South West but NOT from South West to North Mexico ? ...you have to go through West Texas for now...
Why the Golf of Campeche (in front of Vera Cruz) is low water ? Why should it be impossible for any oceanic fleet to reach Vera Cruz ?

All that map's configurations make it far too much difficult for the Union to help the mexican army in case of Foreign intervention activated.

It's not also helping the South & its French allies if they want to reach California from North Mexico

If there is no reorganization of the sector in AACW2, like some players proposed it in this thread, i suggest at least this modifications :

- A way go and back South West <=> North Mexico and North mexico <=> California
- coastal water for the Golf of Campeche

Other point in the sector, about the current possible (and interesting) invasion of California from the see :
was it really possible like currently in the game to transport by ships 2 or 3 divisions all along the atlantic and pacific ocean around south-american continent ? Should the troops still benefit to less cohesion & men losses in naval transport (comparing to the long march through the Far West they usually do) when they are supposed to spend months in ships and cross the dangerous Cap Horn !?

I would suggest to create a pacific coast with ports for the current regions of Mexico (capital) and North Mexico and to create a Cap Horn oceanic region with almost always bad weather were any fleet moving from atlantic to pacific oceans have to cross by. Then the control of Mexican ports on the pacific coast should became almost necessary to give an invading fleet some rest in a friendly port before attacking California.

I think that the Far South-West and Mexico areas need more regions in the map and that the French-Mexican war should be more detailed in the game because any scenarios with a Foreign Intervention in the ACW need it. The French interests in the ACW was mostly linked to Napoleon's objectives in Mexico. Only the conquest of Mexico would have lead to an easy conquest of California and to its durable protection from a US counter-attack. The loss of Californian cash incomes, added to the end its atlantic commercial incomes thanks to the british fleet, would be dramatic for the USA.

An other point is the use of the French Expeditionary Forces. I'm not sure that Napoleon-Badinguet III would have send and let to the CSA the command of any divisions deep in the northern central and east fronts of the ACW, unless he finished the Mexican war. But players use it mostly that way because there is nothing to do in Mexico. That's why all Mexican region should became strategic region once the FI is activated so that the players have to keep the French in Mexico until they finished the mexican war.

About Mexican army, i add here a link to a proposal about the missing of Saragoza 3 star mexican general and about the lack of some one stars generals : http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15137


--------------------------------------
State of California :

- there is still a problem with its produced milicia which sometime pop up in ...Fort Laramie (Great Plains).

- The Californian State should be able to produce at least few supply chariots and some light cavalry, elementary stuff that currently have to be brought ...from Missouri or Iowa.


-------------------------------
War in Canada :

- Please unlock immediately after FI is activated the British army, divisions & brigades spread in Canada. If not they have no chance to escape in the south or to organize a clever defense. For now they can't survive to just a basic US invasion which can destroy them before any reinforcement could come from Europe.

- A coastal way to Quebec : If Upper New York region don't have an Atlantic coastal water, it means that the New England region should have a link to Quebec (Lower Canada) ...

Are you sure that the St Laurent should be oceanic water ? Why can't the US send there ironclads when the CSA can send some till Vera Cruz ? Maybe like in WIA, it need a region with a fort in Louisbourg and coastal water around that control the entrance of St Laurent (which should be also in coastal water and frozen all the winter as it is (or as it was... if this modifications are done after the climate there changed ).

- The regions with Toronto and Montreal/Quebec should became very important strategic regions, as soon as the FI is activated. The lost of Canada would have been a catastrophic political problem for a pro-intervention government in Great Britain if not balanced very soon by a total victory on the USA. As a diplomatic option, it would almost for sure bring the Brit's back to neutrality if the USA chose to give Canada back (if demilitarized while they finish with the confederacy).

Currently, players mostly use all the British Expeditionary Forces with the CSA troops in the south and don't care of Canada, also because it's currently too much difficult to defend as said above.


-------------------------------------
Engineers units :

Engineers have currently a quite limited impact in the game.

- it would be more interesting if they became totally required to reach the retrenchment level from 5 up to 8...
(as already proposed in this thread, it would also give more importance to Engineers if retrenchment apply to the whole region, after all to avoid micro-management).

- it would be also more interesting if they became almost required to build a modern fort, i. e. it would take something like 8 turns to build a fortress without them and 2 turns like now only if there is a engineer in the town.


-----------------------------------------------
Marines and Sailors units :

As said before, this units don't deserve the "Pontoneer" ability which need to be given to a new "support unit" with a new icon, like in NCP (or to give it to the Engineer unit).
But to keep this beautiful units, we could give them this roles in the game :

- Marines could be infantry units which appear only in some big ports of some states. Then the player is sure that it will not pop up in remote parts of the states. Of courses if its possible to give them a new ability which give them a bonus when attacking from a fleet in coastal waters, it would be better, but i'm not sure if this kind of ability is historically accurate at this times.

- Sailors could be a kind of special milicia for the big ports (with the same movement penalty than the coastal guns). It can nicely represents all the remaining sailors in permission or waiting for their ships to be repaired who could contribute to the defense of the main ports if besieged by the enemy. For now it's simply incredible : i 'm currently using sailors' unit in the desert around Tucson just to have a pontoneer ability when invading the north of Texas...


----------------------------------
Army & Corps :

- A general leading a corps should loose immediately it's bonus (not its malus...) provided by its Army's commander each time he start a turn OUT OF its HQ Army's area.
- If he start a turn in an other army command range ruled by an other Army General with a better rank/seniority than its own Army's commander, a Corps should automatically not depend anymore on its original Army but on this new one.

If not implemented, players can still avoid to give to bad Army's commanders any corps to command.


--------------------------------------------------------
Gameplay of the general's abilities :

* Some abilities should have only 50% of chance to happen each turn (if their conditions are gathered) to avoid that players don't use "bad" generals at all in the game or to avoid any micro-management to nano-optimize the "good" ones (giving an advantage to the players who have more time to spend) :
- Slow Mover,
- Hated Occupier,
- Occupier,
- Dispirited Leader , Charismatic : it should also apply to the whole region if the general has the best rank/seniority in the region and it should not apply at all if he is not. For now players can just split the Dispirited general from its stack, wait that it is full of cohesion and then merge the general with the stack again.

Each time this "random" abilities did occurred, we could get a line in the events' report screen : Something like "General Butler did a strong occupier's policy in Louisville : -5% loyalty in the region" or something like "General Holmes gave orders which reduce the moral of its troops : -5 pts of cohesion for all the forces in the region of Union (MO)."

* Quickly Angered , Over Cautious : this very bad abilities should really be balanced by other usefull abilities. The purpose of generals is to bring command points. If they only cost command points they are not used at all in the game.

* Hothead & Reckless abilities of an Army's General should apply to its subordinates Corps' generals that are in the same region or same area because it could not be used most of the time as army commander :
E. g. How could happen a bloody Pickett's Charge ordered by the "Reckless" Lee in the game if he command only an army HQ & guns units and if none of its fighting Corps's generals have this ability ?

This abilities should also be applied to the whole stack where its general is, because players manage almost every time to not let them in command of any stack to avoid this penalty.

* instead of advertising and dispatching all the abilities to all the generals from the start, let's allowed the high command (the player) to discover during the war who are its best elements, like in the reality. Most of the Generals should be able to gain some abilities during the game thanks to their repeated (un)successful actions : for example, Speed Mover could be randomly (10% chance) given to generals each time they succeed a "Forced march" (and Slow Mover each time they failed). Many abilities of basic generals can appear this way (Hothead & Reckless abilities each time generals had enormous losses during an attack, etc). Each Basic 3-1-1 Generals could not have anyway more than 1 "good" and 1 "bad" ability.


---------------------------------
Fleet retreating "bug" :

Currently, if a fleet (let's say with invading troops) arrive in front of a region and is attacked and repulsed from its coastal region by an enemy fleet of ironclad (and let's say before its troops landed), the defeated fleet is obviously (it happen each of the two landing situation in my last PBEM games) obliged to retreat in a neighboring coastal region, instead of retreating in the oceanic region it comes from.
Of courses, the neighboring coastal waters are often under forts & coastal guns protections. The next turn, the enemy fleet could just attack again and make it retreat again in coastal water under an other fort instead of going in a neighboring oceanic region and step by step your fleet (let's say with all the BEF as invading troops) simply sink.

Can't we fix that all naval retreat in a coastal water go first to an oceanic region ?


------------------------------------------------------------------
About the order "Go inside the town/fort" :

I propose that if this button is pressed and if the stack with this order don't move from its region, the stack do not enter in the town/fort unless it is attacked and defeated by an invading force.
That way, players can organize a defensive force outside towns/forts and choose if they want that force to retreat inside the town or to retreat in a neighboring region, if attacked by a superior enemy.


-------------------------------------
Cavalry's charges :

I don't know if it was already discussed, but just in case it wasn't :

The concept of Cavalry's charges in NCP could be also introduced in AACW2. Except, of course, if it is an historical fact that during the american secession war, cavalry was never used in massive charges (and infantry wasn't trained to resist to it in squared formation) like during the napoleonic wars in Europe.

[andatiep]

When i was proposing the concepts of Regionalized and Contextual (Des)Activation in this thread, i feld i still didn't express myself good enough about how the game is "corrupted" by the micro-management linked to the current activation rule.

Hopefully, Captain_Orso explain it well in english here :
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=162312&postcount=8

This is exactly how players micro-manage the problem.
But i'm tired that me or my opponent spend time on it and at the end i wonder if it's not better to play with the option "No desactivation rule" at all.

Maybe the "hardened activation option" should be the default one to help solving the problem ?

Or maybe that other solution :

This exploit simply wouldn't work if we wouldn't know a fortnight in advance who is going to be active and who isn't. If activation would be decided only when the turn is being resolved, i.e. everyone can be given orders, but some won't execute them, it would be more realistic IMO. But I seem to recall this has been suggested before and rejected. I think it could at least be made optional. I would sure love it.

[marecone]

When i was proposing the concepts of Regionalized and Contextual (Des)Activation in this thread, i feld i still didn't express myself good enough about how the game is "corrupted" by the micro-management linked to the current activation rule.

Hopefully, Captain_Orso explain it well in english here :
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=162312&postcount=8

This is exactly how players micro-manage the problem.
But i'm tired that me or my opponent spend time on it and at the end i wonder if it's not better to play with the option "No desactivation rule" at all.

Maybe the "hardened activation option" should be the default one to help solving the problem ?

Or maybe that other solution :

I second thus. Would add to gameplay and add more realism.

[marecone]

Originally Posted by Heldenkaiser
This exploit simply wouldn't work if we wouldn't know a fortnight in advance who is going to be active and who isn't. If activation would be decided only when the turn is being resolved, i.e. everyone can be given orders, but some won't execute them, it would be more realistic IMO. But I seem to recall this has been suggested before and rejected. I think it could at least be made optional. I would sure love it.

I strongly second this. It would add to both gameplay and realism.

[Beren]

I also second that...

[gchristie]

One thing I would like to see is if you are playing someone via PBEM, and that person withdraws or disappears, you could enable the AI to pick up where the opponent left off in order to continue the game.

Don't know if this is possible, but if so it would be very cool.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[lodilefty]

I think (not 100% sure) that you can enable the AI in the options and do just that. You'd have to ask a "seasoned" PBEM player or maybe Pocus for a definitive answer however.

Thinking more about this... I suspect that the above is only possible if you were the host player... in other words you had possession of the .hst files.

Yes, the game 'asks' if you really mean to process the turn without the opponent's file. [at least it does in WIA ]

Not sure, but I think you do need the .hst file though.....

[Pocus]

yes you need the HST and you are good to go!

[andatiep]

States' financial options

As far as i know about the CSA financial options (Ref : J. M. MacPherson), only the printing money was "effective", because :
- The confederal administration had fewer power than the federal administration and was not able to collect incomes' taxes in most parts of the country.
- The war government bonds was not very popular, as soon as the inflation grow up and became much more important than the benefits.

The CSA Government financed the war with this average proportions : 1/4 from bonds, 3/4 from printing money. Only few % comes from the Taxes...
While the USA got 2/3 of their incomes from the bonds, 1/3 from taxes and few % from printing money.

So i suggest that :
- The CSA should have only a single very basic option about incomes' taxes, far less interesting than the ones they have now in the game.
- For both sides, the war bonds should became less lucrative each time the inflation increase



About ships forcing the Blocus

- The inflation should not apply to the cash incomes brought by the ships in the blockade box, because it is Foreign currency or luxurious goods which have always better value than the CSA printed money. And also because it is less and less interesting to build ships to force the blockade if it cost always more money than you can get because of the inflation.
So i suggest that if ships brought 8 M$ in a turn and there is 50% inflation, the ships should bring in fact 8M$+50%=12M$ !

- It should be displayed in the Great book, when you buy a naval unit, what is the average incomes you can get from it each turn it stay in the blockade box.



Conscription, Habeas corpus suspension and Martial laws

Obviously, during the ACW, the Habeas corpus suspension and martial law were needed so that the conscription could be really implemented.
In both sides, the first laws of conscription was made in the same time that the possibility for the central governement to suspend habeas corpus and implement the martial law.

Lincoln had hard political problems during all the war with the soft Democrats always ready to accept any peace.
But Davis had also to deal with the southern politics against centralized government and especially against conscription laws and martial law.
The CSA states' governor were also egoistic and if not invaded they did not fully apply the conscription (i. g. Georgia, North Carolina).

As it was already proposed by players in this forum, the possibility to do a partial or total conscription should not be able before the congress of each side vote a law of conscription.
The way this laws arrive in the game should be simulated according to historical context.

Having all that in mind, i suggest that :

- If they choose a Conscription policy, the players should always get more conscripts from a state if they also decide to suspend the Habeas Corpus in it, and more if they choose the martial law. This should be displayed in the Loyalty screen in the Geat Book.

- Once a southern state is invaded, he should get a better conscripts production from a Conscription policy than at the start of the war.

- The game should start only with "Call for volunteers" policies. The Conscription policies should become available when the Laws of conscription are displayed in the event reports. This Laws are randomly voted by the congress with a % of chance added by each of this criterious : how many states are invaded/occupated by the enemy, NM situation, how many losses, Foreign Intervention with the enemy, strong defeat on the field (at least 1 NM lost in a battle)...

[gchristie]

yes you need the HST and you are good to go!

Should have known this . Another reason to admire the programmers. Thanks guys.