Experimental Mod Game in progress

[Altaris]

After some discussion, me and one of the fellow members here (Durk) have decided to try out a game with some mod settings we feel will increase historical accuracy. For the most part, we feel the game is pretty solid as is, but these were relatively simple changes we wanted to give a whirl. So, we'll be playing a modded 1.16 RC10 game of the Full Campaign w/ KY, with the following changes:

------------------------------------------

1) 1 week turns - Turns are set up as weekly (48 turns a year), this is intended to allow for quicker reaction along one's rail/river lines and make counter-attacking more viable (due to less time for post-battle cohesion recovery). To compensate, Foreign Entry/War Supply/Conscript/Money output has been halved, and events have been modded where necessary. Supply and Ammo production stays the same, so units are more tied to their supply lines now (we felt this would help keep deep raiding in check and make offensives more reasonably tied to secure rear lines).
2) Major Reduction of Entrenchments - In vanilla, defensive lines become very difficult to attack very quickly, mostly due to the speed with which lvl 4 entrenchments can be reached early on. Lee's invasions of the North are practically impossible in most games. To keep the war more reasonably fluid, we've adopted a system where entrenchments are maxxed at 1 in 1861, 2 in 1862, 3 on 1/1863, 4 on 7/1863, 5 on 1/1864, 6 on 5/1864, 7 on 9/1864, and finally 8 on 1/1865. Any existing trenches are left as they are, so some starting ones have nice lvl 4 values, and should be guarded if possible.
3) Mobilization Mod - It is now modded in that neither side can use Partial or Full Mobilization initially. On 3/1862, the South gets both options, and the North gets only Partial Mobilization as an option. On 3/1863, the North gets both options available.
4) Redeployment House Rule - As a simple house rule, we've decided to keep redeployment at 1 use per turn, but only allow for generals to be redeployed from the capital to a target region. This should help with the teleporting general syndrome.

------------------------------------------

I'm going to try and keep a small AAR going of this, will depend on how much time I have available. We're playing a pretty slow pace, as we both have other games going, but we think it should make for some interesting settings.

[Altaris]

Had a PM asking for the mod, attached files can be used. I *strongly* recommend making a copy of your installation directory before installing, as this mod *will* cause the regular game events not to work properly. Just unzip the contents to the same folder where your AACW.exe file resides, and choose to overwrite any files. When you go to New Game, you should see a scenario listed as 1861 Campaign (Weekly Turns), select this one to play with the mod settings in place.

I do not know how this mod will affect the AI, as I was only interested in making it for PBEM purposes.

This mod was made using version 1.16 RC10a (latest beta version), not sure whether it will work with other versions or not.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Sounds great. The 1 week turns are something I wanted to try back in the day. And the entrenchment thing should help get the game going alot. Good ideas. I'll probably give it a whirl even though my AI days are long gone.

[Longshanks]

Very interesting approach. I REALLY like the PM limitation.

Boy, you sure gutted shore fire against ships!!! The rivers are now like superhighways! Get ready for some fast moving, loaded up ships.

[Citizen X]

Although 2) seems a bit off history I am looking forward to your impressions.

[Altaris]

Longshanks, good point about rivers, I wondered about that effect too.

There's a settings in GameLogic for bmbMinEntrenchLevel = 3, looks like this could set lower to allow for interdiction. What's you veterans opinions on this? I'm leaning towards changing it down to 1 with this mod, as otherwise the Union could pretty easily land behind CSA lines and just keep big forces infinitely supplied.

I went ahead and made the change to the download file above to allow river supply interdiction and bombardment at entrech level 1, I think that's going to be a necessary change to avoid exploit.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Longshanks, good point about rivers, I wondered about that effect too.

There's a settings in GameLogic for bmbMinEntrenchLevel = 3, looks like this could set lower to allow for interdiction. What's you veterans opinions on this? I'm leaning towards changing it down to 1 with this mod, as otherwise the Union could pretty easily land behind CSA lines and just keep big forces infinitely supplied.

Sounds like a good idea. I don't know what other parameters you can play with to fix that problem, but I like the change overall. Trench warfare shouldn't be the norm in 1861.

[Longshanks]

Longshanks, good point about rivers, I wondered about that effect too.

There's a settings in GameLogic for bmbMinEntrenchLevel = 3, looks like this could set lower to allow for interdiction. What's you veterans opinions on this? I'm leaning towards changing it down to 1 with this mod, as otherwise the Union could pretty easily land behind CSA lines and just keep big forces infinitely supplied.

I went ahead and made the change to the download file above to allow river supply interdiction and bombardment at entrech level 1, I think that's going to be a necessary change to avoid exploit.

I probably would have picked "2" but I think you made a smart move with the change.

BTW I'll see if I can "mod" your "mod" (back to bimonthly turns) just to get that PM fix, which I think is a very good idea. I toyed with the idea modding this once, but was told it was "built into" the game by he-who-was-once-here-but-now-must-no-longer-be-named and couldn't be changed. Glad you did!

[Eugene Carr]

I changed the turn length a couple of years ago.

I think the game plays better with the 48 turns a year, but after halving the production totals I never seemed to have enough, it may not be as simple an equation as reduce by 50%.

Delayed movement was a problem particularly with ships - sometimes I could't get them back into port, in the end I had to sign over some control of naval forces.

Your entrenchment changes look good, they should get more and faster as the war progresses.

Nice to see some resurgence in modding.

S!EC

PS:If people use this method they should be able to use your mod and retain vanilla http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9586

[gchristie]

Could you explain to us lay folk how to mod the mobilization timing? I've used these dates for pbem, would like to try it against Athena.

Thanks.

[Durk]

Although 2) seems a bit off history I am looking forward to your impressions.

Part of our assumption is that until 1863, entrenching was not a routine behavior of armies on the march. Stationary armies would build field fortifications, but not at the elaborate level seen later in the war.
This aspect, entrenching, is hard to determine exactly as historical or not. At many of the earlier battles, a terrain feature, such as a sunken road, might function as an entrenchment. However, until Sherman's campaign against Joe Johnston, entrenchments were not strategic in function.
Certainly, until the end of 1862 it is hard to point to a battle where the intentional use of prior entrenchment influenced a battle.
Our take.

[W.Barksdale]

I think that number 4 is going to be a serious detriment to the federal player. Unless the rebel player makes serious mistakes there will be almost equal forces going into 1862. The corresponding reducting in max entrenchments will do little to alleviate this problem. Given that you two are quite new it shouldn't be too much of a problem for now.

[charlesonmission]

This sounds really interesting. I'll be eagerly following this.

Charles

[lodilefty]

If you haven't already, watch out for some odd effects in events and options that invole "turns":

1. Any event using TurnIndex needs adjusting, as you now range 0-47, vs 0-23
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/TurnIndex

2. Stacks that are fixed for a number of turns need that fixing value doubled, or you can use a date in the fixing field for "unfix date"


3. Options will regenerate twice as often, as the parameter is in turns.
http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/ChangeActorPool

4. Supply pushes remain same per turn, so the "effective distance" of supply is more or less doubled. Units will carry inherent supplies based on turns, not days, so either you accept that a force will be self-supplied shorter calendar time in the field, or you must edit all the models... [hence ships have trouble getting back to port]

[INDENT]You can try adding the following to your GameLogic.opt and adjusting, but I don't know if it available to AACW, nor exacly what the effect will be. {caveat emptor}
[/INDENT]

// ***** SUPPLY *****
supNbIter = 3 // Automated Supply system: #of iterations (2 or 3)
supMaxDistanceInDays = 35 // Automated Supply system: max distance in days per segment, recommended: 2.5x of days/turn for Industrial Period

Fascinating mod! I look forward to hearing more!

For more ideas, see:
http://www.ageod.net/aacwwiki/AACW2_Wishlist_Mini-MODs

[Altaris]

Thx, Lodilefty, I was aware of all these and did change accordingly. I spent a lot of time last year modding PON (converted that one a 1-month system), so I was pretty familiar with how the AGEOD files work. I just doubled any numbers in the TurnIndex values, and doubled any Fixed values that were using numbers instead of dates. Also doubled the ResetFreq settings of the GameOptions. I tested it all out and it all worked fine.

For now, we're leaving supply alone. I think there will be an advantage to reducing how far units can move from their supply lines, this should definitely keep deep raiding down tremendously. And particularly with units that only carry two turns of supply, it will be very difficult to go far ahead of friendly lines, as it should be.

[veji1]

VEry interesting, also for AI players only, if such a mod worked for the AI, it could help alleviate the "deep" manouvering the AI goes on when it tries to reach its objectives around ennemy stacks, risking being cut off.

Once question though, doesn#t it lead to massive losses ? ie double the battles, etc, which leads to depleted armies?

[Altaris]

It leads to the potential of more battles/losses. But cohesion regain is on a daily basis, so cohesion losses will stay take as much "real time" as before to recover, so I think players would have to be a bit more careful about putting units in action turn in and turn out.

Personally, I think the entrenchment changes will be more decisive in this regard. But it'll be nice to see some areas contested for a change. I think the CSA will have to really pay closer attention to keeping VA secure. I'm most excited about seeing counter-attacks as a viable option, which they tend not to be in vanilla.

Harper's Ferry changed hands something like 8 times in the real war, but that never happens in game as it's too easy to hold a position indefinitely once you get entrechments up to 4 (just too expensive to try and retake such heavily fortified positions). There should definitely be a much more fluid war in the first 2 years.

[veji1]

interesting, I suppose there is only one thing do say :

Do an AAR of your mod with Durk !

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I think that number 4 is going to be a serious detriment to the federal player. Unless the rebel player makes serious mistakes there will be almost equal forces going into 1862. The corresponding reducting in max entrenchments will do little to alleviate this problem. Given that you two are quite new it shouldn't be too much of a problem for now.

This has been my arguement for awile. Putting these mobilization dates at historical levels without changing conscript numbers results in smaller armies than historically. You're just trading one negative for another. You could mod the overall numbers some to eliminate the new problem though.

[Altaris]

Well, neither side can use mobilization at all until 3/62, so it's a two-way street. In 3/62, they both get Partial Mob, and CSA gets Full Mob. There's not THAT huge a difference between Part Mob and Full Mob for the Union, and they can make up most of the difference if they opt to use the Pay for Extra Volunteers (which, granted, is expensive, but it's also probably closer to history). I think armies in this game are far larger than historically, especially early on, so I think this limitation will actually be more accurate.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I think armies in this game are far larger than historically, especially early on, so I think this limitation will actually be more accurate.

I think people have this impression but it's simply not true. In my tourny game I have a grand total of about 130000 non locked combat troops in late Jan 1862. Even with the locked troops, my strength is well under 200000. The actual Confederate army had a strength 326000 men at the end of 1861.

The numbers without the mobilization rule are closer and still a little low of what they should be.

Now armies do end up getting too big in 1863 and 1864 especially. At least the CSA does. I would argue some kind of rule that slows growth at the end, not the beginning. Something like an increasing penalty each time you take volunteers or mobilize.

[Durk]

I think people have this impression but it's simply not true. In my tourny game I have a grand total of about 130000 non locked combat troops in late Jan 1862. Even with the locked troops, my strength is well under 200000. The actual Confederate army had a strength 326000 men at the end of 1861.

The numbers without the mobilization rule are closer and still a little low of what they should be.

Now armies do end up getting too big in 1863 and 1864 especially. At least the CSA does. I would argue some kind of rule that slows growth at the end, not the beginning. Something like an increasing penalty each time you take volunteers or mobilize.

I am not certain I actually agree with your numbers. I do know any numbers in the Civil War have some room for more precision. Present and Ready in Confederate Armies differed so much from listed strength.
Still, your suggested remedy makes more sense than bacon and eggs. I like this 'fix.'

[Longshanks]

I would argue some kind of rule that slows growth at the end, not the beginning. Something like an increasing penalty each time you take volunteers or mobilize.

There, Pat! You've hit it on the head! There is no fear of the draft (aka mobilization) in either the North or the South. In the North there's a scripted event of little consequence, but both sides are free to draft as fast as they're allowed with the same (minor) penalty each time. Increasing penalties (mostly bigger and bigger loss of NM) should occur with each subsequent Mobilization (which probably should be called "The Draft" for flavor). I'm not so sure about volunteers having a penalty, however. Have to think about that one.

[Altaris]

With our game in progress, we're going with the mobilization settings that we had set up (which will mean fewer troops before 3/62 for both sides, and a slight penalty for the USA until 3/63).

I'm no expert on Civil War numbers, from the research I've done, though, I think part of the problem is how many draftees are gained from the in-game options. As best I can tell, the draft, once implemented, was responsible for about 25% of the army, on both sides (actual draftees were only about 5% of the Union army, but there were many more that "volunteered" to get a bounty and avoid getting drafted without the bonus pay after the draft was implemented). On both sides, true volunteers made up the vast, vast majority of the army. The way this game models it, though, the drafts are responsible for 60% or so of the number of conscripts each side gets.

I think ideally that volunteers would be gotten each turn via the regular economy system, and modified like other economic values by NM. Drafts would be options used to pull up more troops, but at a cost of VP and NM... however, they would be much less (probably along the lines of what the Volunteer options give now). But all of that would require a lot of adjustments, and I for one am not going down that road... too much testing involved for my limited available time!

[W.Barksdale]

Well, neither side can use mobilization at all until 3/62, so it's a two-way street. In 3/62, they both get Partial Mob, and CSA gets Full Mob. There's not THAT huge a difference between Part Mob and Full Mob for the Union, and they can make up most of the difference if they opt to use the Pay for Extra Volunteers (which, granted, is expensive, but it's also probably closer to history).

Definately not a two way street. You are underestimating how much equal forces for two years impacts the Federal player against an experienced or talented rebel player. Attacking is much more difficult. Again, since both of you are quite new it (probably) will not be a problem.

I think armies in this game are far larger than historically, especially early on, so I think this limitation will actually be more accurate.

Another common misconception. Players tend to cluster all of their recruits into the main armies which results in the observation of these so called large armies. Historically, the forces were much more spread out. If anything I'd say that the troop count is smaller than the historical count at least for the federals. Another thing most of you are missing is that the numbers are for flavour purposes only.

Besides, game balance is much more important than historical draft dates or which factors provide the player with the historical distribution of conscription points. Right from the first turn people are not being historical anyway. The current setup models the buildup of the war economy decently makes for a (relatively) well balanced simulation of the ACW. This is not to say that improvement is not possible for aacw2 if we are blessed with such a game.

Anyway, good luck to the two of you in your game. I'm sure it will be fun no matter what options you have or do not have!