Ageod American Civil War 2!

[Pocus]

A major change is that we are reworking a lot of windows and panels so they are faster to display and that they look more understandable. I know that for some of you, it is not really a feature, but still, this is quite important to refresh ACW on that!
If you want a gameplay feature, then we will propose much more historical options than in ACW1

[FortyEighter]

If you want a gameplay feature, then we will propose much more historical options than in ACW1

Yeah! You guys rock!

[elxaime]

Will there also be a rework of the "On to Richmond" rules affecting the Union in 1861-1862? I don't have a problem with the theory. However, in practice it forces the Union into predictable patterns that are well-known to his opponent. It also leads to strange outcomes, such as the Union fighting a series of major battles to attempt to achieve the requirements, but still getting the morale hit for not being aggressive. It seems to me that the Northern population would appreciate major fighting as satisfying their lust for an offensive. Another strange side effect is that, according to history, the Union defeat at First Bull Run paradoxically spurred the Federal war effort by increasing recruitment and willingness to commit to total war. In the game its all downhill for the Union if they don't do X or Y. I don't know if there is an easy solution. But the current set-up seems too tight a straight jacket.

[anjou]

I agree with you that some changes should be made.

[DrPostman]

I've never liked those Richmond rules. The Northern papers called for a lot of things that didn't happen.
I think a lot of people in the North would have been happy to see Manassas occupied along with the
entire Shenandoah Valley, which is what I would prefer to do before trying to get close to Richmond.

[Ace]

Shall army and corps mechanics stay the same. Shall it be still beneficial to keep army stack depleted and all troops set in corps. The way it is now, I feel tempted to leave Lee as the head of massive corp rather than to put him in command of AoNV, since corps are doing actual fighting, actual moving. If he is commanding only depleted army stack, his additional attributes are useless (fast mover-no one to move, charismatic-no units to buff up cohesion). The only thing preventing me is the historical feel of the game.

Maybe, if some attributes could be transferred to subordinate corps, the situation would change. After all, he was a fast mover, speeding the movement of units in subordinate corps, giving them morale boost coming from his charisma.

Also, when I put new units to his stack, their cohesion drops in percentage since he gives them a cohesion boost.

For example, if I have a unit with 90/90 cohesion, when I put it to stack commanded by Lee they have 90/100 cohesion resulting in a slower movement until they are rested for another turn. Is this WAD? Shouldn't they be 100/100 while in the stack, and 90/90 while outside of his stack.

[DrPostman]

Lately I've been attaching a division to an Army just to see if that helps any. I can't quite tell yet if it does but I'm pretty sure
they are added to battles subordinate corps get into.

[caranorn]

Of course units directly attached to the Army HQ end up in combat. The armies represent reserves, they get drawn into battles via march to the sound of the guns easier than corps, then they help draw in more corps etc. The only reason you should't fill an army up with combat troops before you fill up your corps is that armies will not innitiate combat (they will join in if corps or separate forces do so) if in the same region as another unit. Armies are also the logical force to attach spare artillery etc.

I'm not sure a fast mover army commander should give his bonus to subordinate commanders. Just think of Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg (yes it's a tactical situation, but still a good example), nothing Lee did could prod Longstreet to move faster and get his flank march under way. If you want fast corps you will need fast corps commanders...

[DrPostman]

I created a fast army once. It wasn't easy, but it basically had Jackson as the Army commander
and two corps lead by fast moving leaders. That was helpful in invading Pennsylvania and
easily taking York.

[richfed]

Here's something I asked for a long time ago ... it was considered, but not ever implemented. Can we have an on map visual identification that a division [alone on the map] is a DIVISION and not just a stack? It would also be maybe a good idea to make divisions in a Corp who are detached have some sort of ride to the sound of the guns feature if the Corp gets engaged in an adjacent region. Just thinking.

[Ace]

I'm not sure a fast mover army commander should give his bonus to subordinate commanders. Just think of Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg (yes it's a tactical situation, but still a good example), nothing Lee did could prod Longstreet to move faster and get his flank march under way. If you want fast corps you will need fast corps commanders...

Look at Longstreet without Lee, he was even slower.

[DrPostman]

Here's something I asked for a long time ago ... it was considered, but not ever implemented. Can we have an on map visual identification that a division [alone on the map] is a DIVISION and not just a stack? It would also be maybe a good idea to make divisions in a Corp who are detached have some sort of ride to the sound of the guns feature if the Corp gets engaged in an adjacent region. Just thinking.

Somewhere in the corner of the Leader's counter a standard NATO military symbol (XX for a
division, XXX for a corps XXXX for an army) might work, or place it on the tab like how the
army icon currently works. I'm usually well aware of my troop dispositions but I can see how
that might help others, especially if you don't play the game as often as I do.

[Jerzul]

I am currently in a PBEM where FI just occurred. That being said, FI needs to be fixed. All of the Mexican forces come with exactly two generals. Both 3* who are seniority 1 & 2. Mexico also comes with one HQ, so the first guy gets an army, and then the second guy just drags down my NM and VP's every time I need to give a new army command to a general. This should not happen. I feel this should be an easy fix for ACW2 by either using a separate command structure for foreign troops or by making one 3* Seniority 1 (after all, he has an HQ and you're going to form it right away) and the other seniority 40 or something low so that he can't effect your nation by being passed over.

Also, Mexico needs some 1*'s so that I can form divisions out of the mass of troops they have. Right now the second 3* is a division commander and I still have a ton of units with huge command penalties.

Also, triggering FI should shut down all "Northern Paper" missions. It seems absurd that with the drastically changed situation that I still need to get the Union army near Richmond. Also, for my opponents sake, FI should close out the shipping and blockade boxes for the Union.

Going back to the Fort argument from the previous page. I must say, that I believe forts (or fortifications) should have the following rules in ACW2:

1. Buildable wherever you want OR within a few regions of a depot/city.
2. The cost should be four supply units, one battery and then a set cost from off the map (like forming a division has an "off the map" cost). The battery should then be changed to "fort batteries" and locked in the fort. OPTIONAL: Require one infantry/militia regiment as well which would then convert into "Fortress Troops" This would make fort building a much better strategy for static defense. The "off the map" cost should still by high though.

This is just my suggestion to make the game more fun and allow for different strategies.

Maybe because historically 'forts' built during the war were actually fortifications built around towns which were of strategic importance, with a couple of exceptions. Building a Civil War Maginot Line would be rather unhistorical.

Without the intention of starting a flame war, I must say that the "it's unhistorical" mentality needs to die. ACW is an amazing game, and I love the way that it can simulate the way the war was prosecuted by both sides. However, the game should use history only as a guideline, not a limitation. Because just by playing the game you are being unhistorical. In my current PBEM, FI has occurred (unhistorical) Lee is in command of "WESTCOM" and just led a successful campaign to retake central Tennessee from the Army of Tennessee (no space for "the") led by Ben Butler (unhistorical). The battle of Little Rock was a Union disaster thanks to A.S. Johnston (unhistorical).

The game is already unhistorical. If my opponent decided to build permanent entrenchments from the Blue Ridge Mountains to Fredericksburg why would that be worse than the terrible level of unhistorical activity that has already occurred?

Which leads me to another suggestion for ACW2: Please stop promoting generals just because they were promoted in real life. For instance Sumner gets automatically promoted to 2* in early 1862. Why? Because he led a corps in real life? Well in most of my games he ends up in the western theater and often has not done much by the time he has been promoted. In fact, I have had several of these "auto" promotions occur to generals who are still sitting in my officer's pool in DC. I understand that once Corps start to come around we need some more 2*'s. But how about for ACW2 we are allowed several "free" promotions. Ideally these should still follow seniority rules and penalize people for jumping others, but it would also allow for some more accuracy with how things are appearing in our games.

Lastly, we need some sort of system that rewards/blames army commanders for the failure of their campaigns. In my above example in Tennessee, Butler has received no in-game blame for losing all of central Tennessee and retreating back into Kentucky because as the army commander, he has not been leading troops in battle. I don't quite know how this would be implemented/coded but it would be nice, because, at least for the North, it would allow for the possibility of command shuffling that occurred in real life.

That is all.

[DrPostman]

The only problem with that I can see is political appointments. There were many who
got promoted because of their political affiliations and that was reflected in the war. I
hope there is a way to preserve that because it would be terribly unrealistic to simply
promote or not for every general. I would also love to see an option to randomize traits,
like fast mover or dispirited leader, just to really mix things up.

[Jerzul]

The only problem with that I can see is political appointments. There were many who
got promoted because of their political affiliations and that was reflected in the war. I
hope there is a way to preserve that because it would be terribly unrealistic to simply
promote or not for every general. I would also love to see an option to randomize traits,
like fast mover or dispirited leader, just to really mix things up.

I completely agree about the political appointments. Maybe there should be a trait or some other noticeable marker to show who the "political" generals are so that we know those ones will get promoted first.

Although, I sort of believe that the "Politicals" are already taken care of as several political generals are listed as having high seniority in the game to begin with.

There is no perfect system, but it's just feels forced as is.

[DrPostman]

One of the things I was thinking was that at first R. E. Lee got blamed for failures with his
first command. Somehow he overcame that, but what if he kept having blunders like the
Battle of Cheat Mountain? That's why I'd love to see even the traits of the commanders
randomized. It would even be interesting if there was an option to have Lee accept a
"major command" in the Union Army as he was offered.

[Wraith]

I'll second what Jerzul says... I'm his opponent currently, and, courtesy of some very nice Embargo/Blockade rolls, have FI triggered in late-mid 1862. I'm definitely seconding the leaders question, with a divisions' commander needing to be allowed to be from either nation; if Stand Watie can be added as a leader for the CSA, then certainly the CSA could put some officers in charge of a few British units.

I'll also repeat a plea for more CSN leaders. Jeez, I had pulled Semmes out of the blockade box to lead my massive Mississippi river force, only to have him auto-redeploy back into the shipping box right before a massive battle with the USN's fleet outside of New Orleans. While I won that battle, barely, I probably could have done better if I had a friggin' leader there.

Lastly, a more detailed/scrollable battle report window. Maybe with tabs for "Leaders", "Forces", Combat rounds/casualties, modifiers, etc. And newer rules for what constitutes "Victories" or "Defeats". I've been whupped in several (most, honestly) battles, but always wound up with my forces in control of the area in question. This has strongly irritated my opponent because he thinks he's going to be set, but then finds out that he has once again been shoved out of Alexandria, or my forces are still besieging him in New Orleans.

[DrPostman]

I would love to see more CSN leaders. The portrait in my avatar is of Lt. Charles W. Read,
known as the "Sea Hawk of the Confederacy". Someone should make a movie about his life
because he was everywhere during the war. On commerce raiders and on the CSS Arkansas
when it ran the Union Fleet at Vicksburg along with a host of other assignments and commands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Read_(naval_officer)
At the very least he ought to be represented as a leader for the CSN

[Jerzul]

lastly, a more detailed/scrollable battle report window. Maybe with tabs for "leaders", "forces", combat rounds/casualties, modifiers, etc. And newer rules for what constitutes "victories" or "defeats". I've been whupped in several (most, honestly) battles, but always wound up with my forces in control of the area in question. This has strongly irritated my opponent because he thinks he's going to be set, but then finds out that he has once again been shoved out of alexandria, or my forces are still besieging him in new orleans.

this please

[Jim-NC]

Regarding auto promotions of generals: It was stated by others earlier that most of the auto promotions are to help the AI (Athena). Athena apparently had some trouble with Corps command, and was given several 2* generals to assist her.

What should be done is to limit the auto promotion to Athena's side (if she's playing).

[Captain_Orso]

From my understanding on the AI side a lot of good leaders (Grant, Sherman, Meade, Jackson, Longstreet, etc) will be promoted by events that only trigger successfully for the AI side.

I think what DrPostman and Jerzul are talking about are the auto-promotions on the side of the human player of, off the top of my head, Sumner, Franklin, Wallace, French and maybe a few others. They are far from outstanding leaders and their promotions stand in the way of promoting better leaders when those have earned the opportunity through battle.

[DrPostman]

From my understanding on the AI side a lot of good leaders (Grant, Sherman, Meade, Jackson, Longstreet, etc) will be promoted by events that only trigger successfully for the AI side.

I think what DrPostman and Jerzul are talking about are the auto-promotions on the side of the human player of, off the top of my head, Sumner, Franklin, Wallace, French and maybe a few others. They are far from outstanding leaders and their promotions stand in the way of promoting better leaders when those have earned the opportunity through battle.

I really hate that Early and Hood get promoted without me wanting them to be. I'd gladly take the hit to keep
them as divisional commanders and not lose all their advantages.

[Ace]

From my understanding on the AI side a lot of good leaders (Grant, Sherman, Meade, Jackson, Longstreet, etc) will be promoted by events that only trigger successfully for the AI side.

Longstreet and Jackson (as well as G.W. Smith and Holmes) are auto-promoted for human player as well, and I am glad for it. CSA are short of 2* generals and if Union takes an unhistorical defensive approach (often in PBEM) there are not enough battles to promote them all to form a proper Army command structure.

[Pocus]

And now an image for you. Free cookie, yeah!



[ATTACH]22643[/ATTACH]

[Ol' Choctaw]

Ah, cool. Mortar raft. Porter’s boys that got Farragut past Ft Jackson & Ft St. Philippe.

[DrPostman]

And now an image for you. Free cookie, yeah!



[ATTACH]22643[/ATTACH]

VERY tasty!

[Narwhal]

I completely agree about the political appointments. Maybe there should be a trait or some other noticeable marker to show who the "political" generals are so that we know those ones will get promoted first.

Although, I sort of believe that the "Politicals" are already taken care of as several political generals are listed as having high seniority in the game to begin with.

There is no perfect system, but it's just feels forced as is.

I don't know for ACW, but in ROP each leader had a "Political" rating. The higher the political rating, the worst the cost to pass in promotion. Or to lose in battle

Pass some Politics 1 (which is low) for promotion ? Lose 20 VP. Pass the Prince of Brunscwicg (Politics 10) for promotion ? Take 5 NM and 150 VP in the face.

BTW - I recognize almost none of the posters names here, but some of you have a lot of comments. Funny how they are mostly 2 sorts of AGEOD players :

- Those who play AACW and almost only AACW
- Those who play everything else (except maybe PoN) but not AACW

[Narwhal]

A major change is that we are reworking a lot of windows and panels so they are faster to display and that they look more understandable. I know that for some of you, it is not really a feature, but still, this is quite important to refresh ACW on that!
If you want a gameplay feature, then we will propose much more historical options than in ACW1

I would also advise you to work an awful lot on the tutorial. As I am now in the "Business" (though much more casual than AGEOD ), that's really a huge factor of the success / failure of a game. It might be less so for a niche game, but not understanding PoN made me stop trying to play it at some point.

[Leibst]

I agree with Narwhal 100%.
Nice picture Pocus!

[Pocus]

Yes, tutorials ... it is always difficult to make them good but they are very important, granted!