AACW2 wishlist

[lodilefty]

Why not have the number of Divisions as a funtion of the Corps Commanders Ratings [example: (Strategic + Offense + Defense)/3 with minimum 3]?

Thus:
Army leader can't have any [he's not a Corps Commander]
Higher rated Generals get bigger corps
Non Corps limited to 1 [not a Corps Commander]

[caranorn]

Why not have the number of Divisions as a funtion of the Corps Commanders Ratings [example: (Strategic + Offense + Defense)/3 with minimum 3]?

Thus:
Army leader can't have any [he's not a Corps Commander]
Higher rated Generals get bigger corps
Non Corps limited to 1 [not a Corps Commander]

That sounds good to me, at least to a certain degree. I've been thinking all along that commander ratings should affect the number of units commanded, that could indeed be expanded to divisions. Maybe also add a special ability to raise or lower that number...

Why did I just say "to a certain degree"? I see a problem with forces in remote areas...

For instance units in the Trans Mississippi. Lets take another battle as an example. The battle of Pea Ridge (Leetown, Elkhorn Tavern). The Confederate force (newly formed Army, forgot its designation) under Earl van Dorn consisted of two divisions and one (or two) Indian brigades. In reality I'd call this force an ad-hoc corps (it functionned as such later when it was transferred over the Mississippi after Shiloh). In game terms this would probably be neither an army (no Army HQ) nor a corps (not within A.S. Johnston's (the superior or rather senior officer) command radius). So with a 1 division per non corps force that would mean that army would end up as 3-4 forces (Earl van Dorn with some units, McCulloch with a division (maybe Pike's brigade too), Price with a division and maybe Pike with one or two brigades (the second didn't reach the battle in time)...

On the Union side of that battle you'd have a similar problem. While that army had a beginning of corps structure you'd still probably have no Army HQ in AACW. I'll just briefly list that organisation, Army under Curtis, Corps of two divisions under Sigel, two more divisions directly under Curtis (or as separate forces). Again I don't see how that could work under this proposed system...

It should also be noted that not all Armies of the ACW had a corps structure. The US Army of Northern Virginia (predecessor of the Army of the Potomac) didn't. Neither did the US Army of the Tennessee for some time (no Corps at Donnelson or Shiloh). The Confederate Armies of the Potomac and Shenandoah didn't (no divisions either). A.S. Johnston's Army at Shiloh was mixed, two corps, one corps of a single division and a separate division iirc. I'm sure I could come up with a number of other examples. If only corps or separate forces could command divisions, there'd be absolutely no advantage for having armies at certain times. After all, what would those armies be, just a scattering of support units and maybe separate brigades? They couldn't support the separate division forces as they have no tie to the army. Etc.

I'd much rather see a way to portray actual chains of commands. Unfortunatelly I can't seem to think entirely straight right now as I caught a cold over the weekend. So no point in my trying to explain this...

[andatiep]

Why not have the number of Divisions as a funtion of the Corps Commanders Ratings [example: (Strategic + Offense + Defense)/3 with minimum 3]?

Thus:
Army leader can't have any [he's not a Corps Commander]
Higher rated Generals get bigger corps
Non Corps limited to 1 [not a Corps Commander]

That would be perfect.
Except that till it is not automatically calculated by the game, i think i will choose a more simple way for a PBEM House Rule :
- The Union get a max of 3 Divisions per Corps.
- The Confederation get a max of 4 Divisions per Corps.

I see a problem with forces in remote areas...

Players can buy an Army and create a single Corps with 2 Divisions.
If not they have to fight with two different forces with more risk of separated fights (acoustic shadow effect, bad communication, different day of arrival in a region,etc.). It's normal.

It should also be noted that not all Armies of the ACW had a corps structure. The US Army of Northern Virginia (predecessor of the Army of the Potomac) didn't. Neither did the US Army of the Tennessee for some time (no Corps at Donnelson or Shiloh).

If you want to recreate the historical OOB, you can always rename this forces left or right wing of the "Army of Arkansas". It doesn't mean it have to be really an Army as in the game.

If only corps or separate forces could command divisions, there'd be absolutely no advantage for having armies at certain times.

Remember there is many interesting proposals in this thread to give to the Army unit with its General new abilities which would apply in its command range area. So this little Army forces representing mostly the HQ logitics and reserve could be usefull, even before the arrival of the Corps.

[Degataga]

I would really like to see the retreat chance after a failed assault lowered significantly. Based on what I've seen in AACW besieging armies tend to retreat out of the province far more often than not after a failed assault which doesn't seem very realistic. I mean Grant launched three assaults on Vicksburg and certainly didn't abandon the siege of the city after they failed.

[andatiep]

I would really like to see the retreat chance after a failed assault lowered significantly. Based on what I've seen in AACW besieging armies tend to retreat out of the province far more often than not after a failed assault which doesn't seem very realistic. I mean Grant launched three assaults on Vicksburg and certainly didn't abandon the siege of the city after they failed.

It would be a very good change for AACW2 !

Because the situation is worse than that :
i also noticed this automatical retreat out of the region after a failed assault on a structure. So while besieging Island 10, i divided my troops in two, one for the attack and one with the order to defend the region (in order to keep the siege and the entrechment level in the region if the first force failed and retreat outside the region ...and what happen ? BOTH forces were expelled from the region

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[andatiep]

Not necessarily.

It might be pointed out that other than actual besiegements, i.e. Vicksburg, Ft. Donelson, (i.e. Forces trapped inside a structure), the complete capture and/or destruction of forces in the Civil War was a very rare happening. The opposing side almost always managed to slip away.

In fact, even at Ft Donelson, Nathan Forrest easily slipped away with a cavalry contingent and most of the rest of the fort's forces might have slipped away if it hadn't been for the bungling of the CSA commander(s).

Though I might agree a small amount in principle about inhibiting structural retreats from the region, I would strongly disagree with inhibiting normal retreats (forces outside of structures) from regions. I would hope the two types of situations could be differentiated between.

All what you say is OK, gray.

But you misunderstood i think what we wanted to say : the question is about the forces that just want to attack and take the structure.
- If defeated, why shouldn't they stay in the region ? They just fight on the city, not in the region around.
- Next to this, if there is a second force in the region which choose not to attack the structure. Just staying in Defense order in the region. Why should this force be expelled from the region without fighting at all when a another force in the region miss an assault on the structure ?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[caranorn]

Just on the Donelson bit. That'd rather be a bungled Confederate break out attempt (which as such is still impossible in AACW). That is a force set to attack the besieger, causing a local (within the region) Union retreat, but then failing to withdraw and instead moving back into by now untenable fortified positions (that last portion can't be done in AACW). With the end result that that day's victors had to surrender the following day (minus some, mostly with Forest, who managed to escape overnight)...

[andatiep]

I don't think the current game engine can distinguish between different stacks in the same region. i.e. One stack assaulting, the other defending, so when a force is defeated (as in a failed assault), the entire force must retreat.

Hmmmm. This could give some explaination for some non-understandable situations & battle results that happened in my games...
Nice to know.

Much of the reason the Civil War lasted as long as it did was the inability for the most part to actually pin the enemy in place for his total destruction and/or capture. Game design wise, this benefits the Southern player much more than the Northern player and allowing part of the attacking forces to attack while the remaining forces sit back and defend could quite easily imbalance the game in favor of the Northern forces since the onus is on the Northern player to destroy the enemy forces.

Again, about this, i agree with you and with the way it is currently well simulated in the game.

My suspicions (game wise) are that this would just lead to more non-historic early defeats of the CSA.

I hope the Engine could be change without the bad collateral dammages you're afraid of. If not, of courses it's better to let it like this.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Degataga]

All what you say is OK, gray.

But you misunderstood i think what we wanted to say : the question is about the forces that just want to attack and take the structure.
- If defeated, why shouldn't they stay in the region ? They just fight on the city, not in the region around.
- Next to this, if there is a second force in the region which choose not to attack the structure. Just staying in Defense order in the region. Why should this force be expelled from the region without fighting at all when a another force in the region miss an assault on the structure ?

Yes that is exactly what I meant. Much obliged.

Another thing I would really like to see is more pure infantry brigades in the game, particularly for the South. It always seems the only place I can raise pure infantry units are Alabama and Florida and they're fairly limited in number. Everywhere else I get brigades with attached cavalry, sharpshooters and artillery.

It doesn't seem very historical past 61 or so and it basically means I have to use militia instead of infantry to fill up the infantry elements in my divisions unless I want multiple sharpshooter or cavalry elements clogging up my divisions and reducing their combat effectiveness.

[TheDoctorKing]

You should be able to recruit units in enemy territory that you capture. The Union recruited over 100 regiments in states that joined the CSA, mostly blacks but also some white Unionists in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana. If the CSA had held southern Illinois and Indiana, they might well have been able to find regiments worth of troops. This would be very useful for both sides, permitting militia to be raised to defend strongpoints and keeping down on transportation delays. There should be a dozen or so militia regiments and maybe some regular regiments of infantry available for recruitment in almost every southern state for the USA and maybe the same for Indiana and Illinois and Maryland and maybe Ohio and Iowa for the CSA.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[richfed]

At this stage of the game, I'd be happy with this:

• Fix of all database discrepencies
• Portraits for all leaders
• Continued improvement of the AI
• Full and detailed battle report
• Some sort of insignia to identify a unit on the map as a Division

Then, I could rest in peace!!

[TheDoctorKing]

Incidentally, this type of capability is already available to Modders for the current AACW game version.

I guess one could create the units and add them to the list of units that can be raised. If a player controls a city in the state, then they could raise the units. If the player doesn't control any cities in a state and happens to build a unit there, what happens? Like currently if the CSA doesn't control any cities in Kentucky but still attempts to build a Kentucky brigade, what happens to that unit? Does the unit they paid for disappear or would it just sit around until they did control a city for it to appear in?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

The biggest thing for me is just working on the multi-player game. Making it as cheat proof as possible. This is a superb game in multi-player with that one little blemish. In the back of your mind you're always uneasy about the host cheating.

[TheDoctorKing]

Just as a matter of idle curiousity (hi Andatiep!) how would one cheat in pbem? Not that I've ever considered it of course...hem, hem...

Seriously, I'd like to have a more transparent process for pbem and also the possibility to play either via local area network or over the internet live. I know that there is a utility, "ares", that is supposed to enable this but I have never figured out how to make it work. This would eliminate one of the major obstacles to my playing this game a lot more, which is the amount of time you have to invest in a complete game.

[Jim-NC]

The biggest thing for me is just working on the multi-player game. Making it as cheat proof as possible. This is a superb game in multi-player with that one little blemish. In the back of your mind you're always uneasy about the host cheating.

That can be worked around with 3rd party hosting (which can consume a lot of time for the hoster - I saw that with the Tournament). But your right, there is that chance.

[soundoff]

<snip>

how would one cheat in pbem? Not that I've ever considered it of course...hem, hem...

If you are that way inclined its the easiest thing in the world for a host to do....though I've never seen the sense in it.

It goes like this.


As host you receive your opponents file and load it into the game. You then process the turn........... and would you just know it, your opponent has made a brilliant move and shattered one of your key defensive positions or thwarted that important attack you planned.

Never mind. Just hit the 'restore previous turn' button and hey presto you can rework your orders. Absolutely simple and your opponent will never be the wiser. Would make for a mind numbing game and pointless. If thats the way to win I'd rather not play.

As the AGEod games PBEM mode is currently devised the possibility of cheating by the host is unavoidable. Even using the encrypted password does not overcome the problem. As soon as the host has processed a turn he/she has the ability to redo his/her moves and make as many amendments to their own orders as they like...

As Jim-NC has said you can get over it by enlisting a third party host but it is the only way of being sure and usually thats not an option. As Daxil has indicated it is an area that is ripe for tweaking.

[Daxil]

That can be worked around with 3rd party hosting (which can consume a lot of time for the hoster - I saw that with the Tournament). But your right, there is that chance.

Yeah, exactly. I'm hoping they remove the necessity for a third party.. somehow.

[Daxil]

Just as a matter of idle curiousity (hi Andatiep!) how would one cheat in pbem? Not that I've ever considered it of course...hem, hem...

Seriously, I'd like to have a more transparent process for pbem and also the possibility to play either via local area network or over the internet live. I know that there is a utility, "ares", that is supposed to enable this but I have never figured out how to make it work. This would eliminate one of the major obstacles to my playing this game a lot more, which is the amount of time you have to invest in a complete game.

Well I haven't played for awhile, but I believe the host can see the disposition of the non-host if he/she opens their file after they've received it. They can see orders for the coming turn and where the enemy buildup are. They can also just keep re-running turns until they get favorable results. I guess with the pw you can stop the opposing side from seeing your units, I forget to be honest, but still, what's to stop a host from re-running turns till they get what they want. Also, when the host sends the turn back - even if it was pw protected - I think he might be able to view enemy disposition. The pw seemed to only work in hiding your moves for the upcoming turn. You know any good, competitive general will be very, very tempted to cheat.

[Daxil]

One more thing on pbem. Manstein, who's a pretty good multiplayer, brought up the point that the most recent patches sort of regressed multi-player. Because of the lack of a corps system early on the player on the defensive is at a distinct disadvantage as he cannot gather all of his forces to the point of battle like the attacker can. Those changes really made a difficult job nearly impossible for the csa - usually the defender.

I would suggest that either a.) there be two versions of the game for single player and one for mp. or...

b.) divisions be given the ability to march to the sound of guns even if they are independent- perhaps at a significant penalty.

I'd also suggest contacting Manstein and Runyan - two of the best multi-players imo - whom had some really good ideas and thoughts on mp and whom may be able to explain more in depth their thoughts personally.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[TheDoctorKing]

One thing Andatiep and I are doing in our current game will at least balance out the possibilities for cheating. We alternate hosting turns. That is, player A receives the full set of save game files from B, does his orders, executes the turn, then does another set of orders and sends the file back to B. So turn executions are done by both players. Each side has the opportunity to cheat.

I consider the use of the "restore previous turn" button even against the AI as being dishonorable. As you say, what's the point?

In a larger sense, though, almost no complex game can be made absolutely free of cheating. There's always going to be some way that an inventive player can get into save game files or sneak an extra counter onto the game map or keep two sets of records of the placement of hidden units. If you don't trust the people you are playing against, don't play against them.

[Pocus]

Third party hosting could be done and set, like the Llama server for Dominions or the Stars Autohost.

[Daxil]

In a larger sense, though, almost no complex game can be made absolutely free of cheating. There's always going to be some way that an inventive player can get into save game files or sneak an extra counter onto the game map or keep two sets of records of the placement of hidden units. If you don't trust the people you are playing against, don't play against them.

Yeah, but my point is don't make it easy. It's too easy right now to just click a button when you're feeling overwhelmed in a game.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

As it is in all games, you have to trust your opponent in PBEM and if you suspect he's cheating, "Don't Play PBEM with him again'". I'd rather AGEOD spend time perfecting their game engine and historical data then wasting a lot of time with this issue. If it wasn't for the "click a button, back the turn up" feature, the games would still be in the 2007 development stage since it would have made it far more difficult to find and root out bugs. It would be ridiculous for AGEOD to not have that feature just because of a few cheaters since they would just find another way to cheat anyhow.

I'm just making a "suggestion," which I think is a good one. It's up to them to prioritize it. A.) You cannot know who's trustworthy, ever, unless it's your uncle or something. B.) It can be implemented across all their games, like the engine. C.) You'd likely have more mp users because of the increased attentiveness, maybe even more buyers.

You know, people cheat all the time when they feel they need to in single player. You just look for exploits that the computer can't counter. It wouldn't be any different in mp except they wouldn't brag about it.

Also, on your notion that independent units responding to the sounds of the guns prior to formation of corps is ahistorical. How do you explain Johnston's arrival at first Bull Run?