AACW2 wishlist

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

Yeah, but they still "arrived," in response to the fight, which is my point. I think it's ahistorical not to allow them to arrive. In game it could be represented as a significant penalty equal to what the attacker experiences when he moves giant stacks of divisions without a corps command. Further, the chance they respond could be ramped down and also the chance that some big stack divisions on the attack simply don't participate could be increased. In fact, it's really the giant attacking stacks brushing aside everything at the point of attack that's ahistorical imo. Anyways, just another suggestion.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

<snip>

Your comments however do suggest a need for AACW2 to have a button to "set" a force to "support/MTSG" another force even if not a Corps of the same Army. Shiloh, for example, also comes to mind with Buell's Army of the Ohio supporting/MTSG Grant's Army of the Tennessee.

I think this is the crux of the issue. Without the ability of being able to MTSG in 1861 the game, not just in PBEM but also in Solo modes has become unbalanced.

In PBEM it is too easy for the Union to steamroller the CSA. As Daxil quite rightly says there is absolutely no strategy you can employ to counter the hammer blow effect of amassing a huge number of troops at a single given point. It almost begs the question as to whether there should be a cap on the number of total units that a region can contain on any one turn.


In solo mode (once you get over the learning hump) it has also become too darned easy to win as the Union. I'd concede its now more challenging playing the CSA but then again there are a lot of players who like playing the Blue and after a little while walkovers become no fun at all. We all like a gaming challenge- dont we?

So yes if there ever is a AACW2 then the rules of MTSG should be amended to allow commanded Brigades and above to MTSG.....all in MHO naturally

[Peissner]

It almost begs the question as to whether there should be a cap on the number of total units that a region can contain on any one turn.

To keep it historical, I think the cap should be on the leadership points, not the number of units. The cap would be lower in the earlier months and years, and would rise as time passes. In reality, the Union failed to make progress early in the war due to leadership deficiencies, not because their armies weren't big enough (at least that's the conventional view).

There are probably a lot of other approaches to this issue, such as:
-lowering Union generals' strategic ratings across the board
-increasing defensive stats of units
-eliminating the signal corps unit (signal corps probably helps Union more than CSA)
-limiting drafts and loans early in the war
-and a lot of other stuff that has already been debated extensively

It's great that AGEOD issues so many patches, but it does necessitate constant re-evaluation of play balance, which combinations of options benefit the AI, etc., and sometimes it makes the previous discussion of these issues on the forum obsolete.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

Is this ACW2 a realistic expectation? When? Before or after Armegeddon? t

[soundoff]

<snip>

In the case of historical based games, play balance is nice as long as it doesn't "fictionalize" the conflict it's attempting to emulate.

And therein lies the true dilemma for historical strategy game developers. For there has hardly been a conflict in history where the outcome either was or should have been other than 'predictable'. Yet find me a wargamer who wants to play a game that has a predictable outcome.

Thats the problem. We create strategies with the value of hindsight and so avoid the major errors of the original protagonists. Its inevitable that we do so. For we are playing a game (far removed from engaging in the real thing).

Consequently historical wargames have to include a certain amount of balance, even at the expense of historical accuracy. I reckon few would want to play, for example, an ACW game where its a forgone conclusion that you could not take the part of the CSA and perform as well as, if not better, than actually occured. Yet the sad truth is that the conflict should not have lasted as long as it did.....had the Union applied itself. Make a game too historical and that shorter timeframe will be the norm unless of course you develop a simulation not a game.

In much the same way how the heck, if you are being historically accurate can you give the Japanese a prayer of winning a WWII Pacific War. You won't generate many sales though if you don't.

As to the answer for this connundrum - historical accuracy versus gameplay - who knows? All I can say is that I want both historical accuracy but also a good game. If the latter can only be achieved by sometimes suspending accuracy a tad then personally I'm all for it.

[Sarkus]

I reckon few would want to play, for example, an ACW game where its a forgone conclusion that you could not take the part of the CSA and perform as well as, if not better, than actually occured. Yet the sad truth is that the conflict should not have lasted as long as it did.....had the Union applied itself. Make a game too historical and that shorter timeframe will be the norm unless of course you develop a simulation not a game.

I've been playing some games as the CSA lately and it has occurred to me, seeing what the AI is doing, that a way to simulate the realities of the early war would be to limit how much money and troops each side could raise in the first year. It seems rather absurd to me that the Union AI is implementing long-term war measures when historically neither side considered a long war likely until after First Bull Run. By simply removing those options, and forcing the player (and AI) to use the historical forces for the first several months would at least mitigate some of those issues.

Throw in a better random leader system option, and the game would be notably improved from where it already is.

[Sarkus]

Is this ACW2 a realistic expectation? When? Before or after Armegeddon? t

I don't know about "expectation" but given the devs continued presence in this forum and the fact that AACW is one of the better selling Ageod titles, it's at least a possibility that we could see a sequel. However, that isn't going to be happening until at least after Vainglory ships, and that won't be until late this year at the earliest from what's being said. So a new AACW is probably a few years away at the least.

[caranorn]

One note: We actually raise fewer forces in the game than both sides raised in reality. Well, not quite, but there is a dual problem, 1) the ability to mobilise early on, 2) no need for rear area garrisons. So I don't think limiting the early war recruitment (I agree that full mobilization in 1861 is nonsensical) is the only problem...

One solution concerning the rear area forces might be to require a certain garrison (not the automatic no command cost) in victory as well as production cities (1 command point per city size maybe? or 1 element per city size). If you don't meet the garrison criteria you will only get a percentage of VP/Production (example: size 9 city, you have two 3 command brigades in garrison, so you only get 6/9th VP and production). That would force players (how well will the ai cope?) to keep units in rear areas...

After you've solved that problem you could try and model actual production on real wartime production (not in the sense of so many pieces of artillery and so many small arms, but in the sense of so many units of type I+C+A (the World in Flames approach))...

Once we are set on actual wartime mobilisation capabilities we will have a much easier time settling things like play balance and realism...

P.S.: I'm more affected by my lunch's apperitive, wine and digestive than I would have expected, hope my post is inteligible...

[soundoff]

<snip>


2) no need for rear area garrisons.

Yes thats a real biggie. There is no incentive or disincentive to garrison rear areas. I wonder what populations of cities/towns would really have felt if they had been denuded of any type of defence.

[tagwyn]

Sarkus: Thanks. I tend to agree at this point. t

[Mickey3D]

Today, an army commander can attach corps and provide its bonus to corps commanders in a radius related to its strategic rating.

but this can happen through fully controlled ennemy regions. I think this should be handled like supply : you must have a minimum of control on a region for your army commander's orders to go to your corps leaders (This to avoid having Grant in Jackson giving bonus to landed force in Mobile while confederate force is in the middle).

[Daxil]

And therein lies the true dilemma for historical strategy game developers. For there has hardly been a conflict in history where the outcome either was or should have been other than 'predictable'. Yet find me a wargamer who wants to play a game that has a predictable outcome.

Thats the problem. We create strategies with the value of hindsight and so avoid the major errors of the original protagonists. Its inevitable that we do so. For we are playing a game (far removed from engaging in the real thing).

Consequently historical wargames have to include a certain amount of balance, even at the expense of historical accuracy. I reckon few would want to play, for example, an ACW game where its a forgone conclusion that you could not take the part of the CSA and perform as well as, if not better, than actually occured. Yet the sad truth is that the conflict should not have lasted as long as it did.....had the Union applied itself. Make a game too historical and that shorter timeframe will be the norm unless of course you develop a simulation not a game.

In much the same way how the heck, if you are being historically accurate can you give the Japanese a prayer of winning a WWII Pacific War. You won't generate many sales though if you don't.

As to the answer for this connundrum - historical accuracy versus gameplay - who knows? All I can say is that I want both historical accuracy but also a good game. If the latter can only be achieved by sometimes suspending accuracy a tad then personally I'm all for it.

I agree. Sometimes less historical accuracy makes for a far more entertaining game. I would also like the random stat generator for generals to be modified to include "fictional generals who didn't make it" and also their modifiers only revealed after they have fought a corresponding battle. For example, they attack, you see their attack modifier only. The defense modifier would still be a ?. Also, those stats shouldn't be 100% accurate. In fact, the hidden "hard" stat could fluctuate based on their successes and defeats. I don't know how many folks play Out of the Park Baseball, but the general stats could be handled somewhat in the manner that game handles stats.

[Sarkus]

I agree. Sometimes less historical accuracy makes for a far more entertaining game. I would also like the random stat generator for generals to be modified to include "fictional generals who didn't make it" and also their modifiers only revealed after they have fought a corresponding battle. For example, they attack, you see their attack modifier only. The defense modifier would still be a ?. Also, those stats shouldn't be 100% accurate. In fact, the hidden "hard" stat could fluctuate based on their successes and defeats. I don't know how many folks play Out of the Park Baseball, but the general stats could be handled somewhat in the manner that game handles stats.

Yeah, that would be great. I wouldn't mind if they were fixed stats, but just make it hard for me to know as soon as they appear how good they are - it gives the player a ridiculous advantage over their historical counterparts. If I'm playing Union I'm going to stick with Grant forever, even if he's being chased back to Chicago and losing every battle because I know he's the best guy I have. I'm not saying take the historical rated guys out, because we all enjoy seeing what we could do, but I'm saying we also need the option to make things more realistic. I wouldn't even mind a fully random named group of generals for even more fun.

My biggest complaint about AACW is forced historical stuff. McClellan didn't materialize out of thin air - he did things that got him noticed and promoted. But I don't control that in the game. Just like I don't control initial forces even when they don't show up until several turns into the game (though I understand that scenario came later). And so on. I guess I want the sandbox with historical flavor, and only direct restrictions that are appropriate for balance or to simulate historical restrictions that the leaders on both sides faced.

[Daxil]

For purposes of balance, I would also look at making the Union generals more inept to start, while later generals are more skilled. That's really important, otherwise 9 times out of 10 the game would be completely lopsided in the USA's favor. Also, random traits. They could show up after battles also and sometimes be based on their actions.

[caranorn]

Yep, hiding leader stats would be a good additonal option. Having those stats then revealed by increments would be nice, though even revealing them all after a first battle would be okay. Note that this was one of the good features of ACW-from Sumter to Appomatox (forgot which game company published the game, or who designed it)...

Other things. Have leaders gain seniority faster. Also increased leader mortality at all ranks, particularly early in the game, probably lowering the risk sometime in late 1862. Maybe always having a slightly higher risk for confederate leader mortality over union...

[Spharv2]

Hehe, y'all are all bringing up pretty much the same points I was trying to get in the first one during beta regarding the randomized and hidden ratings and traits. Definitely not something that could have been added to the game by then, but I would think it might be possible for #2 sometime in the future. As it was, they did the most they could with the way the game was designed in regards to randomization. Technically, you could do somewhat randomized traits and abilities for generals in AACW, though it wouldn't be truly random, unless you created literally every single general with every single trait and ratings combo possible. Needless to say, that's more work than anyone is willing to do.

One addition in my list I've made that I haven't seen anyone bring up yet is limited renewed randomization on promotion. Take a general's starting randomized stats. Say, Butterfield with 3-4-2. If you promote him to Major General, rather than he now being a 2 star with 3-4-2 ratings, you would get Butterfield with 3 (+/- 2), 4 (+/-2), 2 (+/-2). So he could be a 4-6-1 corps commander, or he could become a 1-2-0 corps commander. This could simulate the blossoming of some commanders as they moved up (Like Grant) or the fact that some got in completely over their head (Burnside). But you wouldn't know until you did it. Course, you wouldn't be able to tell immediately, because I would want the game to display the previous ranks ratings until you had enough action to revise them, similar to the hidden ratings above. You could also perhaps add or subtract traits on promotion also.

One advantage of this would be to avoid the "I'll just keep Hood as a 2 star because he's good there and I know he sucks as a 3 star" because you wouldn't know till you tried him out at that level. You may end up regretting the promotion, but it wouldn't be the first time in a war that a promotion was regretted.

[caranorn]

I agree with Spharv2's suggestion, though +-2 to all stats at promotion could be a bit much...

One added suggestion though if the above were possible. Store stats of the previous rank in the save game and allow demoting leaders. In that case they woudl regain their old rank, seniority and stats at a serious cost in VP/NM. A demoted general could no longer be promoted (or demoted another level) though he could still gain seniority and experience. That could simulate various historical events, "parliament" refusing to ratify a promotion (I believe that actually happened for Hood) or a general being removed from a command and receiving a new command at a lower level (essentially what happened to McDowell)...

Oh yes I forgot, include the departmental commands. Most departments would require 3* generals (like armies), having a commander in a department would lower garrison requirements slightly, or maybe raise recruitment and production a bit (all assuming the department commander is at least of average quality, if worse then no gain but see next). A leader given command of a department would no longer be in the way of less senior leaders getting command of an army...

Example: you are sick of Ben Butler with his randomised stats of 2/1/0, yet he is senior to your bright new 3* general with ratings 5/7/6, Butler is also quite popular with the New England press. That leaves you with the choices a) brave the press and put your young Napoleon in command of Butler's army, b) retain Butler in command and the young Napoleon will command a corps and hope to gain some more seniority, c) raise a new HQ and give the young Napoleon that new command, d) give Butler command of the Department of Utah, the young Napoleon will then take over his old army, (e) forgot e), demote Butler, but that would be as expensive as removing him from command, then again demoting would be final and the cost would be paid just once, while giving someone else command before him could happen multiple times)...

And yes, I'm fully aware that by all intents and purpouses most of those departments on both sides were actual armies (the Department of the Potomac and the Army of the Potomac were one and the same command). yet most departments never were field commands of any note and would not warrant mobile HQ's with the ability to form corps...

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Daxil]

All these suggestions are good for balancing the game via additional options but the vanilla game should always strive to be as historically accurate as possible to attract the historical grognards also.

The first AACW game suffered from a minimal choice of player selected gameplay options that perpetuated this argument of what to emphasize. I firmly believe it is quite possible to satisfy both viewpoints IF the game's startup interface allows these types of balance issues as gameplay choices prior to starting any scenario.

Yes, I agree. There should be both options. It seems like an improvement to the randomized generals feature is what really could make this aacw "2" rather than just a patched "1", though. I think a lot of us want to go through what Lincoln did in trying to figure out which of the generals in his haystack was his needle.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

<snip>

All these suggestions are good for balancing the game via additional options but the vanilla game should always strive to be as historically accurate as possible to attract the historical grognards also.

Then there is an awful lot to be overhauled if AACW2 is to see the light of day.

Lets take just one issue. Everyone admits that the conscription part of the game needs radical attention if you are going to get close to being historically accurate. But its much more than the when and the how many conscipts appear. Fundamentally its also the WHERE. As the game is now, whenever conscripts flow in by whatever method we are able to utilise them as we like.

Pour every available conscript point into purchasing units in Philadelphia or Alabama without the blinking of an eye. Most unrealistic. If you are really after historical accuracy then at the very least conscript numbers should be broken down by state and only used to raise troops in that state. Also none of this flooding the turn with a single type of purchase....eg every cavalry or 12lb artillery battery that you can lay your hands on. As if that number of horses could be summoned up in a single turn.

Indeed the more I think just about this one issue a good case can be made for proscribing when and where new units appear together with the composition. Taking it completely away from the player......in the vanilla game of course.

All IMHO naturally.

[caranorn]

Indeed the more I think just about this one issue a good case can be made for proscribing when and where new units appear together with the composition. Taking it completely away from the player......in the vanilla game of course.

Agreed, but If we say that too loudly we might get lynched here ;-) . No seriously, to be realistic a way should be found to make a call for volunteers, possibly offering a bounty, possibly enforcing a level of conscription and than each state would raise the units it could afford to with those resources, the bill (money and war supplies) being mostly paid by the federal instances. In addition to that form of recruitment you'd get offered a number of additional units by events (regiments raised without the support of their home state, a quite common event). Any and all regular (there were essentially three forms of units in the ACW, regulars, volunteers and militia) units should be raised entirely by event (we now have multiple choice events, so players would still have an input)...

Oh and I almost forgot. If possible restrict militia entirely to their homestate as well as any neighbouring states (Maryland militia to Maryland, Virginia, DC, pennsylvania and delaware for instance). All cost of militia paid by the home state. Militia regiments could be of any arms (infantry, cavalry and artillery). militia could be transferred to federal (note I use federal for both the Union and the Confederacy here) control (for the appropriate term of service at that date but not longer than their original militia term of service) at times of crisis (event driven?) in which case the federal authority has to reimburse (money and WS) the home state. Of course prior to transfer to federal service these regiments would have lowered cohesion while serving outside their state, after being transferred to federal service they would function like any otehr volunteer unit...

Oh and in case we've forgottten this sugestion until now. Find a way to handle the varying terms of engagement. At least include the 3-month volunteers (most units raised in 1861), the 2-year (NYS seems to have favoured 2-year terms for a while at least) and 3-year volunteers (most other states starting in the late summer of 1861) and finally any units raised for the duration-of-the-war. If we find no way to do this we will always have a number of problems for any 1861 scenario, why attack with Patterson into the Shenandoah if your army, composed almost exclusively of 3-month volunteers, won't vanish next turn etc.

I'm still not certain how to treat navy recruitment. In my research I was shocked to find that actual marine units were very rare, sailors probably as much. Maybe remove these units all together. The single Union Marine battalion becoming just another (raw) regular unit with the possibility to raise additional marine units via multiple choice events [for instance: the choice to a) restrict the Marine Corps to garrison duties, the historical battalion does not appear slight loss of NM or VP but slight gain of money, b) the Marine Corps raises a battalion of raw recruits(historical choice) neutral for NM and VP, slight cost in money and WS, c) the Marine Corps raises a substantial force for service on the Seabord, the recruit battalion does not appear but instead a Marine brigade appears in 1862, in 1863 another such brigade appears, this costs a substantial ammount in NM and/or VP money and WS] {regular recruitment along a very similar line of these Marine Corps units, both drawing replacements from a single regular pool (as regulars and marines on both sides had a tough time finding recruits, a larger regular army could also have led to a slow down in the appearance of certain officers (retained at their regular posts) a smaller regular army to the exact contrary (additional officers available for volunteer service)...

I was planning a more elaborate analysis of historical recruitment and how that could/should be represented in AACW-2 but I just haven't gotten the time to write it all up yet. So just the raw ideas now for brain storming...

P.S.: Note I'm still in favour of battalions as the basic regular army elements as most pre war US regular entered the war far dispersed and the newly raised regular (infantry) regiments were formed on a 3 battalion basis...

[soundoff]

<snip>


Oh and in case we've forgottten this sugestion until now. Find a way to handle the varying terms of engagement. At least include the 3-month volunteers (most units raised in 1861), the 2-year (NYS seems to have favoured 2-year terms for a while at least) and 3-year volunteers (most other states starting in the late summer of 1861) and finally any units raised for the duration-of-the-war. If we find no way to do this we will always have a number of problems for any 1861 scenario, why attack with Patterson into the Shenandoah if your army, composed almost exclusively of 3-month volunteers, won't vanish next turn etc.

Had considered this but felt I might have caused enough potential grief.


Totally with you on this one caranorn. It can be done aka WitP which has withdrawal dates for units. You get a countdown clock informing you how long they have to remain. Mind you such ideas, if implemented, would be mammoth changes. It would require more than the odd tweak or two to the existing game structure.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[TheDoctorKing]

I'd like to see a version of the ARES simultaneous play utility (which I have never been able to get working properly) implemented in AACW and the other AGEOD engine games so that two (or more) players can be doing their orders at the same time, with execution visible on all machines starting when everybody has hit the turn end button. I would think this would be fairly easy to do and it would sure speed up play.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted