What an odd game... a comment on the AI(?)

[tripax]

I just finished (and won) the strangest game I've played yet. It is my first with the new beta patch. Basically, Kentucky seceded and early in 1862 the Confederacy invaded Ohio and Indiana (and Illinois and northern Missouri a little bit). I had my eyes on Grant taking Bowling Green and underestimated the strength of the invasion. I got Bowling Green by March, but the Confederate Invasion was clearly stronger than I expected, with 2 1000+ power stacks and a third large stack besides.

In the East I was doing fine, but by July the Confederates successfully marched up the Shenandoah. By October, I had a 3000 army outside of Richmond under McDowell and a 2000 Corps under nearby. I had adequate defense of DC with a Kearney corps of 1750 and I had upgraded the entire Washington defense force to regular infantry with McLellan.

In the west during that summer and fall I lost Cincinatti (Halleck died, too!), Dayton, Detroit, Evanston, Louisville, Vincennes, Des Moines, Racine, and Milwaukee, as well as a few other small towns. I followed the invasion force, first cleaning up the smaller units and then chasing down the larger ones with a large army led by Grant and a corps which later became and army under Thomas, as well as a small stack under Sherman chasing a CSA detachment towards Pennsylvania (which eventually took Allegheny and ended the game besieged in Wheeling and which led to the loss of Morgantown and Clarksberg although I had a strong corps in southern West Virginia putting pressure on Eastern Virginia).

In the late fall I had retaken all Northern Cities except I think Des Moines, Vincennes, Wheeling, and Morgantown. I'd also taken all of Kentucky east of the Tennessee riverand Nashville. I held Western Missouri from early in the game, but never put serious pressure on Arkansas. I never had a realistic chance at Southeastern Missouri and never landed in Western Tennessee or even Paducah or Columbus Kentucky.

Since I didn't see moving a Western General to the East, I put McDowell and then Keyes in Richmond, but they reverted to defensive every turn for three months. Then in early January of 63 they stayed in offensive stance, winning a battle and pushing a force they outnumbered 2:1 out of the area. Two turns later, aggresive stance finished off Richmond and the game was over.

My moral stayed below 120 until October of 62 and CSA moral stayed above 90 until the same month. The collapse was so fast and so complete, I was surprised the game was already over. Only a small number of my good late-game commanders had even arrived, and the only eastern general above 3-2-2 doing anything was Kearney defending DC. Anyway, I was so surprised I decided to give a report.

My feedback on the new AI (where n=1) is that their invasion was interesting and scary. I almost threw in the towel, in fact. I haven't lost to Athena as Union for a while (AI settings all turned up), though, and am still on my winning streak. However, they didn't guard their supply lines adequately enough at all, and over extended. I liked their run up the Shanandoah, even as it left Richmond weakened (but not weak). They didn't want a siege and had most of their troops outside of Richmond, which was an interesting choice, but that is fine. They collapsed so fast it was hard for them to restore any moral, but I didn't expect the game to end when they still held all of the Arkansas, Louisiana, and the Deep South (except Pickens), most of Tennessee, and bits and pieces of every border state including Maryland (and Indiana). I'd vote for a CSA moral boost when moral gets low early in the game, or something...

[ATTACH]27915[/ATTACH]

Thanks AGEOD for a fun game!

[minipol]

It does seem weird they surrened as they had a really massive VP lead, and still produced more VP per turn.
That should be enough to give the people hope and prevent this massive fall in morale.

[tripax]

I didn't look at confederate moral often, so I'm not sure exactly how fast it fell. Mine was going up about 5 per turn the last few turns, and was 140 the turn before, if I recall correctly. The fall could have been related to CSA loosing a lot of units involved in its invasion to attrition, as well.

Also, Combat power is relative to mine, right? So combat power of 92 is pretty good for the CSA, I think. Or is it pretty low?

[Gray Fox]

Good job! I've had CSA Athena combat power over 100, but 92 is good. In that game, Athena had more than twice my VP's. NM is what counts most. Next time, load Athena's side and move the capital for her to keep the game going.

[tripax]

Good job! I've had CSA Athena combat power over 100, but 92 is good. In that game, Athena had more than twice my VP's. NM is what counts most. Next time, load Athena's side and move the capital for her to keep the game going.

Thanks. I guess I could have moved the capital, or even go back a turn, move the capital, and continue from there. Maybe next time.

What does combat power mean in that screen, anyway? On the forces screen I think I can see the combat power of my stacks, so I would guess it is the ratio of the combat power of my stacks to the combat power of my opponents. Is this right?

[Jim-NC]

The capture of Richmond costs the CSA 50 NM. Did they take it back after your first capture? If so, and if you capture the 2nd time, they get hit for another 50 NM. So they lose 50, gain 10, lose 50. This almost always leads to defeat.

[Z74]

The problem can't be solved with just moving their capital.
There's a critical flaw in the game design where resources, manpower and tranportation are managed at side level instead of state level.

Athena or a CSA human player can't counter that.

I can rise taxes, issue bonds and call on a draft at the same time and a month later I have a HUGE army just where I want it... built by magic and transferred by magic.

THAT just needs to change.

[tripax]

I can rise taxes, issue bonds and call on a draft at the same time and a month later I have a HUGE army just where I want it... built by magic and transferred by magic.

THAT just needs to change.

One simple way which it can be partially fixed is to dribble out the number of recruitable brigades in a state more slowly. By 1862 you can recruit all the regiments ever produced by the state of Pennsylvania, even though many weren't around until 1863, 1864, or 1865.

[Z74]

There is only one way to do it properly:

Political decisions/Manpower/Transport/War Supply/Supply & Ammo consumption/Trade and production/ replacements must be processed at STATE level and they must be tied to the loyalty and NM.

We are at a deep level of complexity and historicity... it's a major gamestopper for me bc I feel I am cheating.

[Pocus]

That's a nice account. What was the difficulty level?

It seems the improvements to the AI are paying off!

[Gray Fox]

What does combat power mean in that screen, anyway? On the forces screen I think I can see the combat power of my stacks, so I would guess it is the ratio of the combat power of my stacks to the combat power of my opponents. Is this right?

I believe that is correct.

[Captain_Orso]

This bugs me for a number of reasons. The easiest to describe is that the South took not just one major northern city, but nearly the entire North-West and didn't gain NM in any proportion to this.

And here is where the real conundrum starts. Should the South be gaining NM for capturing major cities in the North? I'm talking about cities in areas that did not have a large portion of its population sympathetic to the "Southern Cause", but cities like Dayton, Detroit, Evanston, Vincennes, Des Moines, Racine, and Milwaukee.

I know Louisville is an objective city, so it will earn the South NM, but Cincinatti is even larger, and I would dare say even more important in the over-all, especially in the sense that the South capturing Cincinnati would have been a real blow to the North's morale.

But would it be realistic for the Confederacy to undertake such a major invasion of the Union? When Lee invaded Maryland in '62 there was not so much controversy in the South about that move, as Maryland was thought to have a large population sympathetic to the South. Her large cities in the East were practically under martial law to keep the order. So it was almost like coming to the aid of a sister-state when Virgina invaded.

The invasion of Pennsylvania in '63 on the other hand was something completely different. Pennsylvania was not threatening to even think about seceding and many in the South thought the Confederacy had no business being there, when they claimed to only be fighting for there independence. On the other hand I don't know that there was that big of a open dispute about it, and I imagine if Lee had managed to achieve his goal of taking Harrisburg he would have not only been celebrated as an even greater hero, but it would have been a tremendous blow to the Union and possibly been an excuse for England and especially France to officially recognize the Confederacy, which would have been the end of the war, at lease as we know it.

So should a Confederate invasion of the North in the North-West be a legitimate strategy?

If so, then taking major cities in the North, especially state capitals (Springfield IL, Indianapolis IN, Columbus OH, Madison WI, Lancing MI), and major industrial centers (Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH, Cleavland OH, Dayton OH, Milwaukee WI, Detroit MI; the list should be even longer) should also be considered strategic (and some objective) cities and gain the South at least NM and VP for taking them.

If not, should it the game be indifferent to the Confederacy invading the Norther, or should there even be a penalty for the South parting with its defensive stance and going over to invading the North?

I find it very unfortunate, regardless of the possible debate of whether the South should be rewarded for invading North, that Athena let her invading force be trapped away from the South and basically run into the ground. That should not be happening. Athena should be "aware" of the dangers of a deep invasion and do more to maintain the condition of her forces.

JMHO

[Z74]

That's a nice account. What was the difficulty level?

It seems the improvements to the AI are paying off!

They are, if it wasn't for this little exploit I mentioned I'd have a lot of troubles in VA and in the West.
In my case, I'm playing Lt. and medium bonus to activation and fog of war. The problem is just that neither AI nor player can counter the "magic".

Now if you guys decide to devolve some time into this, which I understand is a critical flaw in the design but also a MAJOR rework, I think a scripted defense for CSA might start to pay off double... because USA would start to have the logistical problems it now has and several invasion EASY options would be impossible (which would leave the AI in an easier position to counter the remaining ones).

Think about the possibility... you want 30 more draftees in NY, you've got to risk an outburst and use the regional decisions. You can't use the IN manpower to recruit in NY no more. That's what I'm talking about.

In my case Johnston is going from Winchester to PA but I can EASILY stop him even in 1861. Now the situation is completely different if I can't stop him that easy.

[tripax]

The capture of Richmond costs the CSA 50 NM. Did they take it back after your first capture? If so, and if you capture the 2nd time, they get hit for another 50 NM. So they lose 50, gain 10, lose 50. This almost always leads to defeat.

I just took Richmond the once. However, the last couple turns the declining Confederate Moral meant that victories became easier and larger at the very end.

[tripax]

That's a nice account. What was the difficulty level?

It seems the improvements to the AI are paying off!

The difficulty was all the way up, the aggressiveness was normal, the other two settings (where the AI gets to cheat, I forgot what they are called) are all the way up. I think I set difficulty to the max.

[tripax]

This bugs me for a number of reasons. The easiest to describe is that the South took not just one major northern city, but nearly the entire North-West and didn't gain NM in any proportion to this...

Great point!

[Gray Fox]

The CSA can take Philadelphia, NYC and Boston and gain zero points of NM, even if the Union player moved his capital to NYC. In fact, with the Union capital in NYC, the CSA player has no strategy to win a quick war as taking D.C. is no longer a knockout blow. Further, the RDC are going to give the Union player 100 more VP's per year for developing land and building telegraphs so that a long war cannot be won by the CSA either.

The problem with a western strategy for the CSA is that infrastructure other than rail lines cannot be destroyed. Polk can't burn Cincinnnatti to the ground and march to the Great Lakes. (Indeed, Sherman can't even burn Atlanta down.) So the Confederacy can take Union cities that don't contribute to an immediate victory and then give them back undamaged after wasting the effort. Even if each western city was worth one NM, troops fighting to take them would be better employed holding onto Virginia.

The only CSA strategy remaining is to get NM to 180 by merely winning three to four dozen major battles more than the Union. Good luck with that.

[havi]

Yes mr.fox is right we need a system to destroy factorys to ground, it would b great way to harm Yankees...

[Z74]

The only CSA strategy remaining is to get NM to 180 by merely winning three to four dozen major battles more than the Union. Good luck with that.

As I said, other than NM there doesn't seem to be a system of true state by state morale where political as well as military actions (as the burn down you mentioned) affect the local morale in a way that the war effort of the enemy suffers. The massive firepower of the Union and the unlimited restrictions in moving those units destroy the historical accuracy of the game.

Now if the USA needs to use local manpower to build local units and then use local transportation then THESE as well as other choices, can be tied to political and economic choices that can make a difference in local AND national morale.

So you capture Philadelphia and the manpower, wsu, money... everything in PA drops by half... including the loyalty of the state. CSA loyalty rises there and CSA can actually recruit those men while USA is forced to call on a draft... and that's another blow. Furthenmore it doesn't have 10 different recruiting centers in PA.

You're absolutely right, battles are the only way right now and that's sad... there's a HUGE potential here.

[tripax]

So you capture Philadelphia and the manpower, wsu, money... everything in PA drops by half... including the loyalty of the state. CSA loyalty rises there and CSA can actually recruit those men while USA is forced to call on a draft... and that's another blow. Furthenmore it doesn't have 10 different recruiting centers in PA.

Are you thinking that if one side captures a capital or principal city of a state which is a part of the other side, or at least if they do so and achieve a certain level of loyalty, they should be allowed to recruit from that state?

[Captain_Orso]

Don't expect the game engine to be modified for major changes. Unless the idea is brilliant, not too big of a job to do and can be used in a lot of other games, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

With regards to Industry Structures
There are a few things that might be done along the line of scripting and Regional Decisions. I believe it could be possible to create RGD's that that would allow for destroying structures within a location if you have a large enough force.

Without going into great detail, it might also be possible to use RGD's to take "pick-up" a structure (actually the factory equipment), put it on maybe a supply train (maybe a special support unit with no movement points could be created to represent the equipment, give supply units the ability to combine with the "factory unit" so that the supply unit can transport it), move it to somewhere else and build it up (at a cost of of having to buy new buildings etc in which to install the equipment; and it should take some time too.

With regard to Loyalty and Recruiting
Sticking within what the game engine can do and cannot do, there is no concept of State Morale. The closest thing there is, is when a battle is won or lost within a certain area, depending on the size of the battle and the outcome, loyalty-checks are made and loyalty can go up or down in the regions of the area. Maybe this could be tweaked to do the same if a strategic objective or an objective city were captured. Then other cities could be declared strategic or maybe even objective and their capture could have a more profound affect on the game.

I'm not sure if this could be done with the current game engine
What would go along with this would be to be able to create a Recruiting Center structure. Then depending on the loyalty, development, MC and size of cities within a certain area around a recruiting center (recruiting from regions under enemy MC should still be possible, but reduced in outcome), the Recruiting Center might bring the builder of that center (should not work if captured) a calculated number of CC each turn. RC's should be moveable as above so that if for example the RC the South currently has in Memphis (Barracks) is in danger of being captured it could be moved to somewhere else, albeit, how effective it would be would depend on where you put it.

I think even without thinking about putting such an RC up in captured territory this is how it should work in general. Then for example the CC the South could pull would depend on the areas under its control and the loyalty of the citizens within the area around the RC.

[Z74]

Are you thinking that if one side captures a capital or principal city of a state which is a part of the other side, or at least if they do so and achieve a certain level of loyalty, they should be allowed to recruit from that state?

Yes, remember that units in the CW were made by local men on a state by state system of drafts, conscription and bounties. A regiment risen in MA is made by men of MA and, therefore, it must be built with the manpower and resources physically present in MA.

If CSA captures a town in MA which has a recruiting center, for example Boston, it should be able to recruit in MA. Obviously, I stated from the beginning EVERYTHING should be done on a state level, which means if your loyalty in MA is low and the loyalty of the now captured Boston (for example) is low, don't expect to recruit much because it's loyalty (bounties, etc) that build such manpower availability LOCALLY.

Calling a draft, adding a bounty or take other loyalty/economic choices (which come at a cost) should be done at state level and not just at national level.

This is the time to build a game within the game on a state level so that the local choices add up to the national situation. The political abilities of a governor (events) and local elections (a-la Forge of Freedom) could come very handy.

Another example? The economic buildup of resources (of all kinds) are going to a national pool right now.
Don't think you can recruit a Frigate in Boston if you have the money but the WSU required is not physically in Boston (and that's another freaking game choice: deliver XXX WSU to Boston via Blockade Runner: Spend XXX$ and have a success/fail %) or if you can't transport it there (new choices: build smuggling network, build local transport points, etc.).

It's quite a big change from just clicking on the cog button and recruiting units in MO with manpower coming from NY (which is absolutely crazy, trust me).

We've got to move EVERYTHING from national to state level if we want to achieve historicity. Do you realize the actual opportunities that we're missing? That book of choices for the President should be CRAMMED with local choices. Those regional choices we have now could be made to do countless things but it all starts from a specific design choice.

I don't know if the engine can do this... Pocus surely can make it come true if he wants so I wouldn't worry about the engine itself because HE is the engine.

[Captain_Orso]

Lots of interesting stuff 8<

We've got to move EVERYTHING from national to state level if we want to achieve historicity. Do you realize the actual opportunities that we're missing? That book of choices for the President should be CRAMMED with local choices. Those regional choices we have now could be made to do countless things but it all starts from a specific design choice.

I don't know if the engine can do this... Pocus surely can make it come true if he wants so I wouldn't worry about the engine itself because HE is the engine.

Short answer, I agree with what you say. It's completely logical. Won't happen for CW2; maybe CW3, because it would be a completely new game based far more on politics and far less on military activities.

Don't expect the game engine to be modified for major changes. Unless the idea is brilliant, not too big of a job to do and can be used in a lot of other games, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

What you are suggesting is academic in this situation.

[tripax]

I'm not sure I agree that this game is missing by as much as you are saying. In the actual war, 175+ PA regiments and 175+ NY regiments were created by the end of 1862. This is more than you can possibly build in either state by then, or almost by the end of the war due to forcepool restraints on how much you can recruit in the game. Forcepool restraints force similar restrictions in other states for the Union (including Missouri, Union Kentucky is the exception where more units can be recruited than historically were available). I'm not sure of exact numbers and dates for regiments in the Confederacy, but forcepool is a binding constraint there as well, by 1864 in my CSA games I am forced to recruit most available brigades from all Confederate states. So putting aside moving to a state based economic system, the current system produces a military that can look fairly multi-state/historical.

This does not deal with the issue that in the real war, there were many more new regiments created in 1862 than in 1863 or 1864, while in the game, the Union's economy is such that building new regiments accelerates as the game goes on. My new secret wonder is what the game would be like if if the game were about moving generals around to different divisions to maximize the effectiveness of the large armies that existed by mid- to late-1862 rather than building the armies throughout the entire war.

As far as recruiting in captured states, I think that is possible within the current code, possibly would make an interesting mod. I don't think it should go far if it is to be very historical, though. A couple of units per state would make some sense (even beyond those that arrive by event when you capture certain capitals as the Union), especially artillery, which required fewer men and could make more use of local supplies. Right now, colored troops for the north are recruited in the north rather than in the south, so I suppose this could (should?) be changed, but even though 10% plan was enacted in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, the North recruited very few regiments in the first two of those states, and many of the Tennessee regiments were Tennesseans organized in Kentucky, and even fewer from other states, even including colored regiments.

Currently for the north there is an important difference in how decisions and events affect border states vs more northern states. This could be expanded and made more state specific without any problem, and cramming the book with local choices sounds perfectly possible. As does adding strategic cities once a certain city is captured (so if the CSA captures Cincinnati, it could have some interest in consolidating the Ohio River Valley rather than having to go after Dayton or Detroit to get more VPs).

So I think that careful modding can deal with many/most of the smaller issues you presented. The big issue presented is that the economy be state-level rather than national level. Putting aside money, conscripts, and WS for a second, Loyalty can serve a role similar to a hypothetical state level moral. Already, loyalty needs to be at a certain level to recruit from a state, so perhaps abusing a state could reduce loyalty, and the loyalty requirement for recruiting could be lowered. There would need to be more ways of managing loyalty, if this is done, so that it isn't too expensive to bring loyalty back up a bit. I am not sure if recruiting too many regiments from a single state or city could trigger loyalty events or not. If so, I think that would work somewhat.

As for money, I think that is fungible across state lines, so I don't think that is a worry.

For making conscripts state specific, there may be little that can be done. Maybe a bit of imagination could help, I'm a bit dense. You've suggested that you don't feel like the forcepool constraints are a satisfying way to model this, but I tend to disagree. Restricting the number of regiments that can be recruited from a state in the early years feels quite satisfying on this point. There isn't a close equivalent to CW2 conscripts in real life. Soldiers were people before they were conscripts, and if you make recruitment affect loyalty and loyalty affect how easy it is to recruit from a state, state specific conscripts don't seem meaningful.

For making WSU respect state lines, its a bit tricky but I think it can be modeled in two ways. First, unit weights don't affect recruiting as I think they do in other AGEOD games (I've never played any other than AACW and CW2). If I'm correct, each unit is assigned a weight in recruitment, and depending on the characteristics of a city, only a certain total weight of recruitment can go on at a time. One could think of this as relating to WS in that the capacity of a city to bring in training materials and apply them to new recruits is limited by the size of the city, its buildings, etc. You could let loyalty and national moral affect this max weight per city (the same way they affect economic production, in fact the same equation seems fine to me). Second, and I'm not sure if this is possible, units could cost a bit of transportation capacity in states where there isn't an armory/powder mill/iron works (we can assume each keeps a warehouse and has the capacity to move significant numbers of weapons in and out within the amount of time it takes to recruit in nearby areas).

My understanding is that in the Rome AGEOD game there is more territory-level activity, and I'm not sure if any of that code is portable, or if anything that they do differently would work in CW2.

Sorry if my post is very long, and sorry if I've missed your point severely. I agree with Captain_Orso that it isn't likely that a total rewrite will be forthcoming, but I think that these ideas are mostly doable (except the large early war armies thing, which you didn't suggest anyway), even by us in a (admittedly complicated) mod.

[Z74]

I think it's all to be reworked on a state level with choices that tie the local governors to the president.
Just like the investment on armories can be managed by event (and it should also fail, not necessarily pay off) so virtually any interaction between you (the president) and the governor (which acts on the "regional choices") should produce economic and political effects that pay off in the war effort.

The fact a regiment is produced doesnt' mean it can fight. Regiments should train for months and those men you put on the firing line are not working anymore, hence they don't produce revenue in taxes or goods in supply. The more you recruit, the more your economy should hurt but this doesn't happen in the game. a City always produces the same... the loyalty doesn't drop unless some very bad mistake is done.

Also... I've never gone out of supply due to lack of production in AACW (no need to speculate on the fact CW2 might be different). In CW2 I am not at 1862 yet and I've basically already won with a non cheating AI (only bonuses to fog of war and activation but not to the rolls or cohesion, etc).

It is relatively easy: you call drafts and money at the same time, build ALL the units the closest possible you can to the intended target and then you convey them to the place you will launch the attack from. CSA cannot see where you're going until you are within the fog of war radius and by then, you have over 1500 combat factors placed against nothing. You split the DIVs and you capture a whole state in 2 turns basically unchecked.

The idea devised to slow down the Union is to use bad generals' activation rolls. You push for the siege but the structure doesn't fall because the general has gone idle. This is an outrageous solution if you consider a garrison of 16 combat factors may hold for months against any force size just because the general won't go to assault. Solution (gamey) remove the general and an unknown hero-colonel will lead a huge 35% penalty stack against a puny 16 combat factors.

The proposed solution takes a good idea and develops it into a bad design choice with an easy gamey trick to bypass it.

The easy cheap gamey trick to employ the whole power of the Union against a helpless CSA is to do as I said. The CSA has got to defend everywhere at the same time (doesn't know where you'll come) and the Union player doesn't have the REAL problems behind the war effort:

1) The more you recruit, the more upkeep you've got to pay and at the same time, the less people work the fields, trade, do the workers in factories and, more in general, produce a revenue you can tax.

2) Logistics: Ever wondered how to move 10.000 men by rail? It's not just the men, the supplies, the equipment, the horses... it takes DAYS only to organize the transfer and it's not even sure you'll get there. What is this insanity of 25% MC allowing you to march by train in front line? Because it's obvious 25%MC is a front line. What do the units do if they are both travelling on the same rail. Stop and fight from the train roof? ...

3) with a system of supply/ammo/wsu that goes local and a system of money and transportation that goes national the result is a mess.

CSA may capture Philadelphia and take out... say... 15 conscription points. The Union has 10 more towns it can recruit 500 conscription points from all over the nation and put them ALL in PA. Figure that 2 turns later, like all the trains in the USA were in PA and like there were 10 rail lines in each region (able to make 10 trains pass at the same time) and with little to no loss in cohesion, the CSA who by miracle captured Philadelphia (and gained virtually nothing in NM/resources) finds itself pitted against a cheap 1500+ combat factors around Philadelphia and there's no way to keep it (and no bonus if it does).

Now if a player may not counter this... how can the AI? I myself just captured Island 10 with Grant building a huge flotilla in just 1 month time and delivering a dozen regiments from IL and siege guns from PA like it was easy as the press of a button. It isn't... that's why the Union could hardly move at the beginning.

I am more for the construction of a system where you've got choices to do. Let the generals use the regional decisions (military) in a special button, let the President handle the main choices on the book (the so called federal powers) and let the regional choices be held by the governors (whose loyalty should ALSO be a game in a game for the president).

Example: PA produces its own resources (supply, wsu, ammo, money, conscript, transport). How these resources get transferred to some other state (move 5 trains from PA to OH or transfer 10 wsu from PA to MO) or to the Capital (national pool that can move to some other state) that must entitle a choice. What PA produces as manpower is another game in the game. It must be kept loyal... drop down local taxes? Begin infrastructure works to keep the people happy? suspend habeas corpus or proclaim martial law? give new concessions to tycoons? enroll new police/fire fighters?

What happens now is that you recruit 10 units in MO using the conscripts of NY and further build 5 artillery pieces with WSU coming from all over the coutry and money coming from Shipping box. next month you have 1500+ in Rolla... tell me how does Watie counter that in Springfield? He can't do that otherwise Richmond falls. Another final detail: are you sure the foundries and artillery factories were actually there in MO because I am pretty sure there are too many recruiting points in the game right now... and there you go it's another game in the game... capture a gun factory in PA and the Union has to transfer new arty from NY (with the local rail system I mentioned). Now make it so you can raze it to the ground and you'll see a drop in loyalty in PA and have caused a HUGE damage to the Union who now has to move those pieces... not as easy as clicking a button and moving 1000 units by rail at the same time throughout the entire nation.

... sorry if I had a long post too but I had to make lots of examples to show my point on why the current system should be changed and how to do so (now those are just examples). I've got to admit though that the AI, in these conditions, plays very well. Surprisingly well actually.

That is absurd, really and as I said it's a true gamebreaker to me.

[Mickey3D]

@Z74 : I think it was already written in a previous message but the current game engine is not able to implement the elements you are proposing. And changing the engine to accomodate your proposals would be too huge and would be the equivalent of a new game development because you are changing its whole logic.

[tripax]

@Z74 : I think it was already written in a previous message but the current game engine is not able to implement the elements you are proposing. And changing the engine to accomodate your proposals would be too huge and would be the equivalent of a new game development because you are changing its whole logic.

I agree.

[Z74]

I know it's quite a big change but I think I argumented sufficiently about it being extremely needed.
Perhaps it's looking big from a player's standpoint but the choices are there (the regional choices), new choices for the federal powers can be programmed just like the events, then comes the UI adjustment and perhaps a long time to finetune the AI on the new logics.

The only REAL problem here is the fact every single resource in the game needs to be separated from the national pool and put back to the state pool where it belongs.

Figure... if you want to give CSA any chance to win the game politically (since it's obviously impossible to win it with the military) you've got to create something that hurts the will to fight of the Union. Winning dozens of battles doesn't seem possible for CSA (to some extent if you meet a stupid opponent you could actually do it but does this look credible?).

Capturing and holding key Union towns doesn't seem feasible (as I explained, the Union may build a nearly infinite number of combat factors and deliver them by magic right there, with the current transportation system).

I don't see much of a choice here... The game must recreate the political, logistical and economic difficulties Lincoln had or CSA really has no chance.

I mean, I couldn't patch so I couldn't play for a month because of internet connection problems... now... it's dec 1861 and I've already won, it's pretty obvious there's something wrong, isn't it?
By just manouvering (and I repeat, no bonus to CSA but medium fow and activation bonus is present) I can kill those 2 stacks in VA and win without even capturing Richmond. CSA has a stack in Bowling Green KY (It's the Army of TN probably) with 500 factors. Grant has 500 now and he'll have 2000 within a month... tell me what chance does CSA have on the military aspect?

Figure now the historical situation at the battle of Gettysburg.
If I am Lee and I beat Meade... and I beat him bad, the Union will not fall in this game unless the Union player has played very very bad and lost many battles.

Yet how can it loose with that sheer combat power and this magical transportation system I have no idea.

[GraniteStater]

Of course, one can always play War in the East if one wants a simulation.

I'm still trying to grok the game they published.

[minipol]

Like some people here, I think we should be able to burn cities, and industry. If I infiltrate the Union lines, it's to capture a city which I would normally burn to waste, and return to my lines.
It really hinders the CSA warfare of hit and run. It always bugged me, i'm not sure how difficult this is to model.

Also, a destroyed city (and industry) shouldn't be rebuild because the timespan of the game wouldn't allow for a whole city to be rebuild in a few years.
Maybe only large cities should suffer from being permanently put out of action, at least production wise.
Smaller cities could stop producing for a number of turns simulating the fact they were razed.
Another good reason to keep some forces home instead of sending them all (unrealisticaly) to the front.