User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Another Newbie Trying to Learn the Game

Tue May 17, 2011 2:33 am

In reading the posts by people trying to learn this game, it has definitely been a case of “been there, done that, have the t-shirt”. IMHO, AGEOD's American Civil War does indeed have the steepest learning curve I've ever seen in a game. And this is coming from someone whose played and won a substantial victory in Gary Grigsby's 'Uncommon Valor'; another very complex game. I also thought it worth mentioning that I was nearly scared away from the game by Raddmann's mostly negative review on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Ageods-American-Civil-War-1861-1865-PC/dp/B000WF7HHC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1305595512&sr=8-1

Although I'm not giving up on the game yet, Raddmann does make some valid points about the game's sometimes over-the-top complexity and uber-steep learning curve.

On a plus note, I've done what many newbies here seem to have done. That is, I keep starting and restarting the game, and each time I restart I seem to get a little further. In my last attempt (as the CSA of course ;) I made it all the way to Jan 1862 before throwing in the towel.

Some general comments:

Union Aggressiveness - In my last game, by the end of 1861 the Union was making what appeared to be a seaborne assault on Richmond, and had also sent a flotilla down the Mississippi and captured Port Hudson. Heck, historically as everyone knows the Union didn't really get their war machine going until well into 1862, so this level of early aggressiveness seems wildly unrealistic. I think when I start again I'm going to lower the AI aggressiveness down a notch. Hopefully this won't make things too, too easy for the CSA though.

Army Organization – I need no convincing that this is the most important aspect of the game. What's confusing though is when and how the player should best go about doing it, especially when you are trying to fight at the same time. At what point does the CSA Army of the Potomac become the Army of Northern Virginia? When do additional army headquarters appear out West? I think the furthest I've gotten was being able to form divisions by late 1861. Does the creation of the bigger army formations hinge on the promotion of generals? Thus far the only people I've been able to promote are the two naval commanders (Buchannan and Semms).

Unexpected Union Attacks – This I found extremely frustrating. I mean, I've noticed several times where Union forces appeared to hit me from out of nowhere without warning. Freemont made his way down the Mississippi despite the fact that I had a pretty good flotilla around Island Ten, and McDowell I'm assuming came up the James to land at Richmond despite Buchannan's reinforced flotilla at Norfolk. Also, one time the Union ignored my forces in Kentucky and grabbed Nashville. Was this due to inadequate cavalry screening on my part?

Naval Blockade and Shipping boxes – I'm still confused by this. I mean, which CSA ships are best suited for which boxes? Ditto as far as the best aggressiveness settings for the ships (defense or offense?).

Anyway, I agree with the one poster who said that learning this game was on-par with reading Shelby Foote's seminal Civil War trilogy, which I'm currently re-reading now. Still in all, I tend to agree with those who say that this game on the face of things appears to be the best grand strategic Civil War game by far, but it does take a big commitment to learn and is certainly not for the faint of heart.

One more thing a bit off-topic. I recently played John Tiller's Campaign Atlanta, and although I loved the scope and breadth of the scenarios and the great Civil War music soundtrack, the AI is rather stupid and easy to beat most of the time, and the graphics are VERY dated. I guess the dumb AI is why the HPS pundits seem to promote mostly the PBEM multiplayer aspect of their games. ;)

User avatar
JKM
Private
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:22 am

Tue May 17, 2011 3:24 am

Hi Newbie.

Good to see people are still joining up..I've only been playing since about february..and, like you said, I stopped and started a few times while I gained a tenuous grasp of the basics.
Then I decided, play on til the end...so I've had a couple of completed GC's.which illuminated things even more.
Somehow I won ( playing as CSa..but not until late september '64)

what level of union ag. were you on? if you reduce the AI's fog of war then it seems to be less likely to commit suicide by raid. I found doing that AND lowering the ag made the AI practically inert.

as to Army HQ's..as the CSA the HQ's appear in the unit pool as options at certain times, and you can place them where you want. from memory you start with one , then gain, by about 1864 , 5 more. In early '62 you gain the capacity to form corps, where you can group your divs...you have to have 2stars to form corps...you have a few of those anyway..and you gain more with promotions. then you need 3 stars for the armies.
Your generals earn promotions for good battle performance..they also can improve their attack and defence stats thru being in a battle where they destroy enemy elements...you try where you can to have your best generals in as many battles that they can win, so they earn promotion..
if your ..er..cr*p gen's get all the glory you may just end up having to promote them instead...( depending on the way your war goes sometimes all the cards fall your way, all the good generals get promoted , you're spoilt for choice etc etc..then..other times..Polk ends up leading an army....in my defence that was very early on in the learning process )

unexpected attacks..still get me too..I think it can be a combo of poor forces for detecting, enemy with high screen..and also them sneaking into some out of the way regions and converting them to enemy control. that way you loose the capacity to 'see' any hostile movement thru them.
they can then move forces into position without you having a clue.
I had that in my last game..a big force ended up opposite Memphis..and when I looked with the control filter on, sure enough..there was a swathe of blue that connected st Louis with memphis.

Like I'm an expert ...hope i had most of those things right !!!...it is a great game to grapple with tho..and interesting reading the AAR's too..so many different ways to play it. The experten with hundreds of posts talk about beating the AI by christmas, or earlier, in 61..I'm happy just to be alive at that point.

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Tue May 17, 2011 3:53 am

Welcome to the forums, MarsRobert! If you like engrossing grand strategy games, I think you'll be glad you took the plunge into AACW, and you've come to the right place to learn more. Be sure to complete the tutorials if you haven't already, check out the AACW Wiki, and I suggest trying some of the battle scenarios before trying the campaigns, but if you want to dive right in, that's okay too.

I can understand that reviewer's frustration, but I think many of his points aren't really justified once you learn the ropes. For example, fixed units are indicated by a padlock icon, you can cycle through units without orders by pressing E and R, cycle through all unfixed units by pressing Ctrl-E and Ctrl-R, and he complains that supply issues distract from strategy when in reality, logistics is a hugely important part of strategy. I was discouraged from buying the game by its complexity at first, but when I finally gave it a try, after doing the tutorials and a couple battle scenarios, I won my first campaign in no time (Nov '61). The learning curve is more of a learning cliff, but once you dive in you'll find it looks a lot more intimidating than it actually is. You really don't need to worry about all those unit stats, they're just necessary for the engine so units behave realistically in battles. The main things you need to worry about are cohesion, strength, and supply, and once you learn the interface these will be readily apparent.

On Union aggressiveness: the AI has a tendency to launch foolhardy attacks and raids far beyond its ability to supply them, so setting aggressiveness to "Low" will probably improve AI performance in this respect. For best results I also suggest giving the AI a "Medium" bonus to Fog of War and checking the option to give the AI more time to compute plans.

On Army Organization: at the start of the 1861 campaign you will be unable to form divisions and corps. You get one Army HQ by default, the rest you have to build yourself in the Reinforcements ledger. If you want an Army of Northern Virginia you'll have to make one yourself or move the Army of the Potomac further north, disband it and recreate it in the same turn, and it will be renamed automatically. Corps formation does indeed depend to some extent on promoting generals, but you will get some two star generals by default, and you should put them in command of corps rather than divisions as soon as possible. Generals will gain experience and seniority by winning victories - you will get a message in the log telling you when a general may be promoted. Just because you can promote someone, doesn't mean you should, however - generals with more seniority will get pissy if they're passed over for promotion, and you will lose NM and VPs.

On Unexpected Attacks: Yes, you probably failed to screen your forces adequately. Cavalry are indispensible for gathering intelligence on enemy formations, but in a pinch, militia or irregular units may also be used.

On Blockade and Shipping boxes: Send brigs to the Blockade boxes to bring back war supplies, and remember to set them to passive posture and "Evade Fight" orders. Send frigates or steam frigates to the Shipping box as commerce raiders - you will get a few of these by event. Set them to "Evade Fight" as well.

AACW's AI is pretty decent considering the complexity of the game engine, but in some ways it's also pretty stupid. I highly encourage you to play human opponents once you've cut your teeth against the AI.

Good luck!
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thanks Guys :o)

Tue May 17, 2011 4:40 am

Your early feedback was most appreciated. You sort of helped me to better understand what I'm currently doing that's right and what needs improvement.

Yes, I did do the tutorials and a couple of the smaller scenarios. I actually did win the 1861 scenario by number of points, and also won 'Seeing the Elephant' by capturing Washington. However, when I tried the big 1862 in the West campaign I was thoroughly trashed. It seems the Yankees were sending a hundreds of flying columns to every place where I was not. :(

Also, yes, as you mentioned, one of the things I recently learned was the value of recruiting a lot of cheap militia to man the rear areas.

Something I had meant to mention in the original post that I'd forgotten was supply. My gut feeling is that it's not as big a deal for the CSA like it is for the USA, since most of the fighting is occurring on CSA territory. Am I correct in assuming then that the building of additional depots by the CSA is not really necessary most of the time, and that they can usually get by with just making sure they have a few supply wagons with their main armies?

Thanks for the suggestion about the fog of war settings. I didn't think of that. I'm still wondering though if I can lower the AI aggressiveness without making the game under-challenging? And yes, I do have the system set to slow processing to give the AI a slight advantage.

As an aside, just read Shelby Foote's account of the Battle of Chickamauga, and it was fantastic! It seems that the great Longstreet won that battle while that darned fool Bragg was back sulking in his tent like Achilles at Troy. lol

One more thing. Now that we are in to the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, I would expect to see more people playing this game and on this board. It truly is an amazing game. The more I play it the more I appreciate the amazing depth. Also, it goes without saying that although the gameplay is the most important thing, I do love the beautiful map and especially the very colorful unit and leader counters.

PS.....Concerning multiplayer, I've still not recovered from the humiliations I suffered playing Starcraft Two online last year. :evilgrin:

"Gen'l, no 15,000 men arrayed for battle is ever going to take that ridge!" ;)

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Tue May 17, 2011 5:02 am

Yes, as the CSA you can get by without building any additional depots, since you'll usually be defending on your home turf. Your armies should do just fine with a supply wagon or two, and even this is not always necessary if they're near a depot. You may also want to leave a supply wagon in certain critical cities and forts in case they are besieged. If the enemy brings enough artillery to bear on forces inside a structure, the defenders may automatically surrender if there is no supply wagon present.

I haven't tested this thoroughly, but lowering the AI aggressiveness hasn't adversely affected the difficulty in my experience. If you want more of a challenge you can always give the AI other bonuses to activation, combat, movement speed and whatnot. Also, if you play with historical attrition, it should apply to the player only, as I doubt the Union AI is well equipped to deal with this.

EDIT: if you can spare the resources and want to build additional depots, you may consider building them in Marion and Lynchburg, VA to relieve bottlenecks to the east. If you need to build depots to support an offensive, try to use river transports to build them along rivers if you can - transports are a lot less expensive than supply wagons.
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage

ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Tue May 17, 2011 7:02 am

On supply for the CSA;

You do need to build some depots and supply wagons for any offensives you have planed.

A depot in Galveston is also a good idea, to help your fleets in the Gulf of Mexico.

More importantly, building locomotives and river transport capacity should be a priority.

Supply and logistics is more the reason the CSA lost the war than its generalship and fighting abilities.

The game reflects this to a degree and it is up to you to overcome this historical mistake.

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thanks JS and Choctaw

Tue May 17, 2011 9:04 am

I will remember to add supply depots at Galveston and Lynchburg. I had sort of assumed that ships would get provisioned as long as they were in most any port, and didn't realize that they need a port that is also a depot.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Tue May 17, 2011 10:18 am

Actually Mobile is a better port with a shipyard and depot but you need an alternative.

Ships returning to port often need repair as well as supply but this is slow with no shipyard. The larger the city the better but Galveston is decent but not priority to start with.

The Union will often send ships to the areas you must pass through to get home. Galveston is only 7 days from the box, most of the time. Mobile is also close but may be interdicted.

New Orleans is about 10 days and is often best for your one free moving Naval Engineer. The other 3 are locked in place. Even one of those is conditional on your capture of Norfolk. They may be unlocked if the cities are besieged and not captured.

In the west is where you will find you may need some depots, however.

I usually spend my money on upgrading locomotives and river transport in the very early turns before you can build units.

Building replacements early is usually a waste of resources. I have often found that Arkansas and Texas are your best locations for early industrialization, giving you the best returns.

It is easy to lose the game early if you fail to stop the Union in Missouri. The east usually has enough strength to hold its own when money and war materials are hard to come by. The Texas Rangers can be built easy because they don’t need WS but need time to build and get to the front.

As building in Missouri is chancy you might try building the troops in Arkansas that you need to stabilize there until you have safe cities in Missouri to strengthen your forces.

In the east I find that I need to make the capture of Fort Monroe a priority. Otherwise you will find you have to fight on that eastern flank as well as in the north. It won’t eliminate the problem but it will slow them down a lot.

I know you have game experience and that some of this you may already know.

Forgive me if I am being too basic.

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thanks Choctaw

Wed May 18, 2011 2:26 am

Come to think of it, it seems to me that New Orleans would be the best place to base the southern raider fleet. Also, I hear you about Missouri. It is a "running with the devil, touch and go" situation. The main initial problem seems to be how to link up Price with the troops that usually get mobilized further north around Jeff City and Rolla without getting their butts kicked by Lyon. Also, I did try Ft. Monroe once. I even brought up siege guns, but to no avail. :(

Anyway, I will probably start a new game tonight, but will be sure to jot down some notes that you and others have suggested before playing. Thanks again.

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Wed May 18, 2011 6:34 am

I usually operate my commerce raiders out of ports in the Carolinas. There is no shipping box to raid in the Gulf of Mexico, so your raiders won't do you any good down there.
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage

ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Wed May 18, 2011 7:25 am

OK, I've made it to Jan 1862 reasonably intact.

Sibley has captured Tuscon, Bishop Polk has liberated Paducah, and best of all, AS Johnston has taken Louisville and received a congratulatory note. :)

The situation in the East has been slightly less than satisfactory, but I've been more or less holding my own. Joe Johnston has successfully defended the Shenandoah against multiple attacks, and although Bory has been holding the Rappahannock line, he's suffered a couple of defeats and has been unable to score any significant victories against McDowell. I'm also a bit concerned about Commissary Banks mucking about close to Petersburg, but feel I should be able to cut his supply line and hopefully annihilate him once Spring arrives and Mars Robert gets activated.

Also, although I gained Kentucky, I've all but lost Missouri. Van Dorn, Price, McCulloch, and Stand Wattie have suffered defeat after defeat. I dunno, I think Missouri is a case of 'A Bridge too Far'. It's well outside the CSA central sphere of influence, and in any case I'll take Kentucky over Missouri any day. To my way of thinking the game is won if I can hold Kentucky into late 1863/early 64.

My brigs have been doing a good job hauling in extra supplies, but my commerce raiders were blown out of the water. I had them set to attack mode; probably a mistake.

Also, I think I'm starting to successfully make the upgrades/transition to the higher organizational structures, and hopefully this continues without issue in 1862.

I've also gotten wise to the effective use of cavalry as screens and to keep an eye on what the yanks are up to. Gosh, I can't wait to get Nathan Bedford Forrest! ;)

The only other thing I can think to say is that I can't play the game too, too long because I start getting fatigued and get lazy and probably miss important details. Also, one thing I've learned in playing the game is that desperation assaults rarely work.

"If Albert Syndey Johnston is not a general, then I have none." - Jefferson Davis ;)

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

:o(

Wed May 18, 2011 8:17 am

It seems I was celebrating prematurely. As it happened Bory's army was besieged in Fredricksburg, and I didn't even know it! How the heck did that happen???? Anyway, when I advanced the turn to Jan 1862 Bory and 2/3 of his army just disappeared from lack of supply. Still in all I'm a bit confused. It was never my intention for Bory to accept siege. Had I known I would have retreated him. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. Back to the drawing board. I guess this unfortunate event points up the fact that I've still not grasped the supply model in this game. :confused:

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Wed May 18, 2011 7:07 pm

You can't get sieged if you don't put your forces inside the structure. I keep all of my armies outside the structure unless I'm defending a city I know I can relieve within a few turns. Figuring out and monitoring supply was the hardest part for me to pick up when I started.

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Wed May 18, 2011 10:05 pm

I hear you Pat about supply. The next game I start I'm going to try very hard to pay special attention to it.

Anyway, concerning my trapped army in Fredricksburg, again, what's troubling me is that I never ordered that army to enter the town, at least not intentionally. I'm really scratching my head as to how and why this happened. It certainly wasn't an intentional move on my part.

BTW, I think Pat Cleburne was one of the best division commanders in the CSA. Having played through all the major Atlanta Campaign battles (HPS Games), to say nothing of reading Shelby Foote, I feel like I got to know him very well.

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Wed May 18, 2011 10:25 pm

Could be you accidentally dragged and dropped them on the city. It's easy to make this mistake, especially in small regions. You'll know you're about to do this when it says "release mouse button to enter structure" when hovering over it with a stack. Just gotta keep an eye on it, watch for the little yellow flags by the city.
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage

ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thu May 19, 2011 12:18 am

Thanks JS, I will keep this in mind for my next game. It sounds like what you mentioned is probably what happened. BTW, although I did not check the supply interface at the time, I'm assuming that although it was winter that any friendly units not besieged would still be safe because they were within three regions of a supply depot.

BTW, anyone have any thoughts on Missouri? I've had no end of trouble in that sector. It seems that the Yankees are routinely defeating my disparate forces before they can adequately concentrate. I don't necessarily care about holding on to Missouri in the long run (which seems dubious in any case), I just don't want the Yanks already making inroads into Arkansas before 1861 is over.

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Thu May 19, 2011 3:08 am

Against the AI? I build up in Springfield or (Fayetteville if the AI is agressive) and hold through 1861. Burn the depots in Rolla and Springfield if need be. Then probe northward in the following years until you see an opening. It actually may be quicker to just hold Arkansas with 1-2 divisions and make your main focus the Paducah/Cairo/St Louis area. Kind of a reverse Anaconda plan.

Against a human though, you usually don't get to dictate the terms out west.

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thu May 19, 2011 5:04 am

Thanks Pat, I didn't think about burning the depots. That may not be a bad idea. Yeah, I usually try to concentrate the available forces around Springfield/Fayeteville, but again, I still seem to get my butt kicked before I can concentrate my forces. In fact in my last abortive game the Yanks captured Fayeteville in late 1861. :(

You mentioned Paducah/Cairo.....One of the hallmarks of my Western strategy has been to concentrate early on in two places, the vicinity of Island Ten/Paducah and Nashville. That way when AS Johnston and Bishop Polk become available, they have sizable forces waiting for them ready to command - Bishop Polk conducts a strategic defense around Island 10/Paducah, and AS Johnson marches in to Kentucky.

Concerning playing against human opponents, I am not a big fan of this except in maybe team play. I think the only multiplayer game I ever really liked was Battlefield: 1942, because that was a team game. I played Starcraft Two online for a time late last year, and hated it. ;)

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Thu May 19, 2011 6:38 am

AACW is the first and only game I've ever done PBEM on. I played a full year against the AI before I tried though. Battlefield Bad Company 2 is the first shooter I've gotten into in a number of years. Teamwork based shooters are great if you have a few friends to play with.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu May 19, 2011 7:02 am

I seem to have better luck against the AI in Missouri than the rest of you.

It may siege Rolla and Jefferson City for a turn or two and Lyons will make a trip to Springfield but they back off easy enough if threatened.

I seldom lose any of those cities but if you do, or if you give them up they are the devil to take back.

I usually teleport one of the better first crop of generals to Missouri as soon as they show up and then build Militia in Missouri and Arkansas and build the Texas Rangers and Arkansas Sharp Shooters and what ever else I think I can afford. It is also a good idea to build a Texas infantry regiment to stop all the nonsense coming from the New Mexico box.

The big problem is that the early commanders there are such slugs. I think you may be better off without them. But that is beside the point.

Anyway, I reinforce Springfield and sometime chance building one or two regiments in Missouri and move the bulk of my available forces up to Rolla-Jefferson City area. As I drive the Feds north.

The Memphis area troops with Polk and the two Supply West units I send up to Charleston and build a depot. You need it to siege Cairo. Otherwise you can’t keep them supplied.

This will often cause the Union to go into Kentucky early so keep an eye out for it.

Anyway, Price and Polk will sometimes perform OK but I have yet to see anything good come of the forces you have to place under Sibley. Everything he touches seems to change into cow pies.

I don’t know if he has some hidden negatives or not but his forces seem to go from full power to 0 if they have to move to the outhouse. I think I would put him against a wall and shoot him if I could.

I have no love for Van Dorn either but he is better than nothing. Sibley is not and it always seem like it takes for ever for Van Dorn, Hardee, and Hindman to show up.

I usually use Stand Watie to set fire to Kansas so that the Union has to move mostly by river. I have seldom given him regular troops. Should I?

I don’t lump Kentucky into this. I think of it as the middle theater. If the Feds don’t have Cairo they usually can’t keep a large force supplied in Paducah. You can often take it with militia or a regiment that builds in Memphis or Mississippi.

I think in my last campaign it was a Marine and the European Brigade up from New Orleans.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Thu May 19, 2011 12:49 pm

MarsRobert wrote:Concerning playing against human opponents, I am not a big fan of this except in maybe team play.


PBEM will give all its flavor to AACW. There is nothing compared to the unpredictability and devious mind of a human opponent.

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Thu May 19, 2011 1:08 pm

I couldn't agree more with what Mickey3D just said. I'm right in the middle of my first PBEM game, and I can't see myself ever going back to playing the AI. In singleplayer, you're just pushing pixels around, but playing another person really makes you think, look at things in new ways, and magnifies exponentially the elation of victory and the agony of defeat. You're missing out on so much if you only play singleplayer. Once you suss out the AI routines, it's really easy to exploit its weaknesses and form a coherent strategy that will win every time, but a human opponent is able to adapt on the fly, forcing you to constantly reevaluate your plans. It's a whole 'nother ball game, and I haven't had this much fun in years.
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage

ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thu May 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Mickey3D wrote:PBEM will give all its flavor to AACW. There is nothing compared to the unpredictability and devious mind of a human opponent.


I agree that there is no substitute for a human opponent, but that's not the reason I dislike head-to-head play with a single human. I would, however, say that the stupid AI is the main reason I gave up on the John Tiller Civil War series. I also dislike PBEM play. It takes way too long.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Thu May 19, 2011 9:21 pm

MarsRobert wrote: I also dislike PBEM play. It takes way too long.


I hope you will give a try at least once. Some players are ready to play 1 turn per day. For sure it's slow compared to RTS or FPS :wacko: but that's a different kind of pleasure :winner:

User avatar
MarsRobert
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:13 am
Location: Tampa Bay

Thu May 19, 2011 11:44 pm

This discussion of online play would have been better in its own thread. Suffice to say though that I dislike single player vs. single player because (apart from the severe PBEM time lag) it's mostly about egos and bragging rights, whereas I just want to have fun.

Also, I get annoyed when companies like HPS stress multiplayer in order to draw attention away from the weak AI in their games.

I would say though that I love team play. Not only does it foster a sense of camaraderie and teamwork among the players which makes a win especially sweet, but it also takes much of the sting out of a loss. I recall how some coworkers of mine used to play Warcraft Three teams against the AI, but never played against each other. Now I understand why and fully agree.

In the immortal words of Elvis, "If it ceases to be fun we'll cease to be doing it."

Anyway, I didn't play last night, so I need to do so this evening and see if I can finally grasp the supply model and make it past 1861. ;)

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Fri May 20, 2011 1:03 am

I can see your point, MarsRobert. Different strokes for different folks. PBEM is a lot slower, but it also gives you more time to think (and worry! but in a fun way) about your moves and savour the planning aspect. For me, it isn't about ego and bragging rights (though I'm not above a bit of bragging), it's all about having fun and being challenged. In my current game, things have gone pear shaped in Virginia, but I enjoy it all the more for facing adversity. I hope Yellowhammer is enjoying himself - it's important to me that my opponent have fun too. If competitive PBEM isn't your style, all the power to you - I won't try to convince you otherwise.

Anyway, I didn't mean to derail your thread, so I'll try to get back on track. Regarding Missouri, it's generally not a priority for me (Kentucky is much more important), so I usually do exactly as Pat suggested and burn the depot in Rolla and the one in Springfield if I have to, defend Fayetteville and Smith, AR, and leave some raiders in theatre to do some minor damage. If I want to take St. Louis, I'll move up the river from Cairo and try to cut off their supply with my raiders elsewhere. Ol' Choctaw also gives sound advice re: building militia in MO and regulars in AR. Van Dorn has an above average strategic rating, and I often redeploy McCulloch to help him with some early raiding. Sibley is lackluster but I've never really had a problem with him - I just don't entrust him with anything important. I also like to keep one leader with the "Patriot" special ability in each border state to raise partisans, which I use mostly to tear up the rails.
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage

ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sat May 21, 2011 1:36 pm

Gosh!

As the Union player I would like nothing better than to have the Rebs cut and run out of Missouri.

Lyons would be in Ft Smith before Stand Watie shows up, looking toward Little Rock, and the boys form California would be coming to live in Dallas. An Iowa supply can be in Texas in two or three weeks time you know. It usually takes more time to build a cavalry unit in Iowa than to get one of their supply wagons to Dallas in good weather.

If you give me that, then there is no way you are going to get Cairo. It is one quick move by rail to there from anywhere from Iowa to Indiana with lots of fast building troops.

Kentucky in the early openings is a stink hole where your troops melt away for three turns before you can move in safely. That gives you time to build a force to go in and take it.

So until that happens I put everything possible into the far west. I only build enough in Virginia to keep things stable. Usually that is mostly militia.

I have taken St. Louis many times before I could muster enough to take Cairo.

It is also important to closing that end of the Mississippi River. They will still give you fits on the Missouri River until you have some guns there but it is the beginning of the end for them.

I actually won a game once when I took St. Louis and Louisville in the same turn and turned back a siege of Richmond with great loss to the Union. I guess it broke their morale.

User avatar
John Sedgwick
Colonel
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:15 pm
Location: NL, Canada

Sat May 21, 2011 7:03 pm

Yea, I think in my next game I might try more aggressively for St Louis rather than cut and run, as you say. In retrospect, you're right, it is like giving the Union a free ticket to ride. I wouldn't dream of holding Cairo against a human player unless I could be sure of controlling the river approaches (i.e. guns in St Louis) and consistently disrupting rail infrastructure in the region. But in general I don't play very aggressively at all on the periphery. I'm happy to keep a toehold in Springfield and build entrenchments behind the Arkansas River, but if a Union player really wants Missouri or Texas, I'll let them have it, at least until they overextend themselves. I won't give up Arkansas without a fight, and controlling the Mississippi from New Orleans to Bowling Green at the very least is my top priority in the west, or anywhere for that matter. To quote the Great Emancipator, "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky". I think that applies just as much to Jeff Davis as it does to Abe Lincoln.

As for Kentucky being a stink hole for three turns - the cohesion loss doesn't apply if you invade first, right? If KY's still neutral by October, I'd rather make the first move than leave it up to a coin toss.
"I'm ashamed of you, dodging that way. They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."ImageImage

ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sat May 21, 2011 10:32 pm

I don’t know about the cohesion bonus not applying to the side that invades.

I do know that if it is invaded it joins the other side. Playing as the Union, once I received an extra troop detachment when it was invaded by the CSA.

It doesn’t matter much to me who moves in first. It usually plays out just about the same. The longer it can be put off the better. I have never invaded Kentucky. I do know that the Union, when they have invaded, very seldom can take Lexington in those first few turns, despite there only being the one militia unit there and I have not seen them take Bowling Green in that time either.

I noticed that you had said that you put guns in Paducah. Did they ever fire?

With that double adjacencie rule, it would seem a fruitless prospect as the region is only bordered by one river region. I think that Henderson might be a better spot, though it is not as accessible other than by water.

I lost out with guns in that very spot.

User avatar
Gray_Lensman
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
Location: Who is John Galt?

Sat May 21, 2011 10:43 pm

deleted

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests