DanSez wrote:I think this has been mentioned in other threads/places but would like to add here a few rules to limit leaderless stacks
1. without leaders, no units will be able to All Out Assault or Defend At All Cost (Red Buttons)
2. without leaders, no units may enter territory 51% or more enemy controlled.
3. if leader dies/wounded and stack now leaderless - unit takes most passive posture and routes to closest legal territory or friendly stack
Yes I understand, easy to write - hard to code. But this, or something similar, should be attempted for the new game.
DanSez wrote:2. without leaders, no units may enter territory 51% or more enemy controlled.
GlobalExplorer wrote:Well, this is how I would rate the two systems side by side:
AACW
pros
+ very good overview over available units / options
+ since the orders are for the end of the turn, player can review and change orders any time during the turn, which allows to stay within budget limits without pocket calculator (!)
+ looks (way) better
cons
-- no control over exact placement on the map
RuS
pros:
++ exact control over placement on the map
cons:
- cannot undo reqruitment once it's made (players may therefore save / reload before they order anything)
- scrolling
- not easy to review units
If I add the plusses / minuses the system in AACW is somewhat better for me, and the new one could use some things from AACW.
caranorn wrote:Just one thing, in the RUS system you can undo unit orders (though the force pool won't be recalculated before next turn, so if you only had that one unit you cancelled available to build you won't be able to order it for say another location before next turn)...
GlobalExplorer wrote:Well, it was demanded by nearly everyone because it's really hard to find your units three turns later .. I think it's a valid point with AACW that AGEOD really needed to fix.
Also, since the states are so big, there was the possibility that a brigade, even an Army HQ, ended up in a front town, and be wiped out before it was ready. This was very annying where it happened. At least this could be fixed if a unit in training would be relocated automatically by the game when it happens, perhaps with the loss of one or two turns for the transfer. But that would still not solve any of the problems of finding new units when they are all over the map.
But this is mostly a UI issue. It's hard to come up with a better idea how the AACW UI could allow to specify where the unit is put, without completely redesigning it. Which is what I hope AGEOD will do for AACW2.
caranorn wrote:But losing forming units to the enemy would also be historic (certainly hapenned to the CS in West Virginia) ;-)
GlobalExplorer wrote:Well, it was demanded by nearly everyone because it's really hard to find your units three turns later .. I think it's a valid point with AACW that AGEOD really needed to fix.
Also, since the states are so big, there was the possibility that a brigade, even an Army HQ, ended up in a front town, and be wiped out before it was ready. This was very annying where it happened. At least this could be fixed if a unit in training would be relocated automatically by the game when it happens, perhaps with the loss of one or two turns for the transfer. But that would still not solve any of the problems of finding new units when they are all over the map.
But this is mostly a UI issue. It's hard to come up with a better idea how the AACW UI could allow to specify where the unit is put, without completely redesigning it. Which is what I hope AGEOD will do for AACW2.
GlobalExplorer wrote:Wouldn't this also mean that cavalry raids are no longer possible? And remove a useful feature that people got used to, to correct something else?
GlobalExplorer wrote:Concerning recruitment, this is how I would rate the two systems side by side:
AACW
pros
+ very good overview over available units / options
+ since the orders are for the end of the turn, player can review and change orders any time during the turn, which allows to stay within budget limits without pocket calculator (!)
+ looks (way) better
cons
-- no control over exact placement on the map
RuS
pros:
++ exact control over placement on the map
cons:
- cannot undo reqruitment once it's made (players may therefore save / reload before they order anything)
- scrolling
- not easy to review units
If I add the plusses / minuses the system in AACW is somewhat better for me, and the new one could perhaps benefit from some things from AACW.
An finally, the "new" recruitment system works against the core philosophy of the game, that everything can be undone until the turn ends. But recruitment orders can not be undone. This has been a small problem for me in RuS, because I usually order units in large batches, not piecemeal.
Ace wrote:Maybe, compromise can be achieved, so all the recruitment happens in state biggest city, with the most VP.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:They were recruited in cities but trained in camps set up for that. How about if the player can set up camps to train them in, instead of cities? Rather like a depot…
Pocus wrote:This can be done, if you use 'enter city' special order, a retreat will favor moving into the structure of the region.
As for retreat, there is indeed a complex set of parameters governing it now and so far, it seems fine, unless proved otherwise!
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests