Awkward

[Jerzul]

In my current PBEM game. I just had the "McClellan takes command" where Mac is promoted to 3* and supposedly put in command in Washington...

Except he isn't. He's still sitting in Ohio and what makes it awkward is that General Scott is still kicking it in DC as a 4* and obstinately in command of the Union Armies. Shouldn't this event only fire after Scott retires? Also, shouldn't the event have automatically moved Mac to DC (not that I want him there)?

I'm thinking there is a second event that makes Mac the CnC of the Union forces, but I thought the first one was supposed to move him to DC and create the Army of the Potomac. I have an army slot available (I've only created one in addition to the NVA) if that matters.

Insights are welcome!

[Cardinal Ape]

Yes, it is a bit awkward. I think the way the events unfold is mainly dictated by the limitation of the game engine.

After division formation hits the field it becomes very tricky to re/move generals with events. As far as I know the game is not capable of removing a general from the game without killing the entire division the general was leading. So rather than upsetting the player with lost divisions the game leaves some generals in the field that should not be there. I believe this is why all generals who get removed after division formation with events are locked so they can not form divisions.

The events with MaC may differ for the AI, but as a human you will have to move and appoint MaC an army command yourself. The main thing the event does for a human is to promote MaC to 3* and raise his political stat through the roof.

[Jerzul]

Yes, it is a bit awkward. I think the way the events unfold is mainly dictated by the limitation of the game engine.

After division formation hits the field it becomes very tricky to re/move generals with events. As far as I know the game is not capable of removing a general from the game without killing the entire division the general was leading. So rather than upsetting the player with lost divisions the game leaves some generals in the field that should not be there. I believe this is why all generals who get removed after division formation with events are locked so they can not form divisions.

So what about the events that can remove Fremont, Mac, and more directly (when it comes to divisions) Van Dorn and W. Nelson (among others?) Are they still in the game?

When you say that the division is "destroyed" do you mean the units within the division are broken up or are they actually removed from the game?

[Teatime]

I happened to have an event set up to remove T Runyon in July 61 (He was an NJ Militia general who mustered out when the militia did after their 3 month enlistment) .. so I tested this out

1. If the removed general is brigaded with 1 unit then there is no impact .. the general is removed fine, the brigade remains as it was

2. If the he was in command of a division then a very odd thing occured

Before I formed a division
[ATTACH]38959[/ATTACH]

After I formed a division
[ATTACH]38960[/ATTACH]

After Runyon was removed
[ATTACH]38961[/ATTACH]

So
1. Runyon was removed .
2 A new brigade called Runyon was created using elements from brigades in the division, The T Runyon brigade has an element each from 1st New Jersey Bde, 1st Brigade and 2nd Brigade
3. That new brigade could actually be used to form a division!!!

Conclusion .. do not remove division commanders by event .. Brigade, Corps and Army Commanders look ok to remove

[Captain_Orso]

Actually, no, it's not so awkward. Really awkward is when McDowell has been doing a great job, just not as AGEod had planned (ie McDowell didn't taken Manassas, but maybe he's taken Fredericksburg, and maybe he's threatening to take Richmond), and an event throws him out and puts Lil'Mac in charge of McDowell's army, while McClellan has done nothing at all but sit in Cincinnati and train volunteers.

There were so many complaints about the former events giving the player no options, and this was the solution which was devised.

[Jerzul]

Actually, no, it's not so awkward. Really awkward is when McDowell has been doing a great job, just not as AGEod had planned (ie McDowell didn't taken Manassas, but maybe he's taken Fredericksburg, and maybe he's threatening to take Richmond), and an event throws him out and puts Lil'Mac in charge of McDowell's army, while McClellan has done nothing at all but sit in Cincinnati and train volunteers.

There were so many complaints about the former events giving the player no options, and this was the solution which was devised.

Sounds like the event needs to be modified to make a series of checks to determine Union progress in the early war...something for CW3 perhaps?

[Captain_Orso]

The real question is, how should this 'event' really look? Should it really be a simple binary either the North takes Manassas and wins the event, or should it be much more nuanced? Should there be more than one possible goal? More than one way to show successful aggressiveness? What should they look like?

[Jerzul]

The real question is, how should this 'event' really look? Should it really be a simple binary either the North takes Manassas and wins the event, or should it be much more nuanced? Should there be more than one possible goal? More than one way to show successful aggressiveness? What should they look like?

That's what I meant by a series of checks. I think the event should check for Union control of a number of places (Manassas, Fredricksburg, Richmond, Charlottesville, Petersburg, the upper James peninsula). If one or more of those are Union controlled, then McDowell should remain in command. This is a rough list, of course. More veteran players could probably make better suggestions.

[tripax]

Why not Manassas, Richmond, or two (one? three?) steps of seniority. A long list requires the Confederacy to play defense all over when the real goals were the opponents capital or army.

[Teatime]

What is there works pretty well though is not ideal

Probably the only way you overcome this issue is to have a per turn (or maybe per month, to give time to relocate and reassign a command) cost for having a more senior general sitting idle, the cost would be a derivative of the difference in seniority and the political value of the generals. It should also apply for all generals with seniority who are not in command.

i.e if generals with seniority of 1, 2 & 5 have commands then a cost should be incurred for generals with seniority of 3 & 4 who do not have commands.

Seniority and political value can be earned from battlefield victories (as it is now) as well as capture of locations, eventually removing the cost and therefore vindicating your choice.

It would be easy to argue that a generals seniority should also be influenced by their political value .. Lincoln was forever having to find commands for the War Democrats who he needed to keep on side .. (ala John McClernand)

I don't think a system like this could be managed purely through events though

[Captain_Orso]

Why not Manassas, Richmond, or two (one? three?) steps of seniority. A long list requires the Confederacy to play defense all over when the real goals were the opponents capital or army.

It would be very simple to check both Manassas and Richmond, but is that thorough enough?

The event is supposed to represent the hot-head publishers and writers in the newspapers pressing for actions and successes, and riling public opinion. So, what would counter that?

Would land-grabs alone do it? What if the Union took all of the Shenandoah Valley up to Strasburg? or New Market? or Staunton? I could go on naming towns all over eastern Virginia, but I think the idea is understood.

What about counter-moves by the South? If McDowell takes Manassas, but Beauregard is standing in Washington, does the Union still win the event? What if P.T. is only in Fredericktown? or Gettysburg? What if he invades all the way up to Pittsburgh?

What about minor or partial victories? Should it be all or nothing?

What if the Union captured no major locations, but beat the Southern armies all to hell?

[Captain_Orso]

What is there works pretty well though is not ideal

Probably the only way you overcome this issue is to have a per turn (or maybe per month, to give time to relocate and reassign a command) cost for having a more senior general sitting idle, the cost would be a derivative of the difference in seniority and the political value of the generals. It should also apply for all generals with seniority who are not in command.

i.e if generals with seniority of 1, 2 & 5 have commands then a cost should be incurred for generals with seniority of 3 & 4 who do not have commands.

Seniority and political value can be earned from battlefield victories (as it is now) as well as capture of locations, eventually removing the cost and therefore vindicating your choice.

It would be easy to argue that a generals seniority should also be influenced by their political value .. Lincoln was forever having to find commands for the War Democrats who he needed to keep on side .. (ala John McClernand)

I don't think a system like this could be managed purely through events though

This is a completely different issue, and without 'theater' command-structures, I don't think there is much that could reasonably be done here. There would have to be some way of assessing a theater having a measurable amount of importance--number of men under command, proximity to strategic areas, etc. Otherwise one could take McClellan and put him into Boston to command the Mid-Atlantic theater and he'd be a happy camper, which isn't historical at all.

Also, being a 'theater' commander historically did not mean that the commander was in the field with an army. Fremont IIRC only sat in Saint Louis and sent orders per currier to the field commanders. Halleck did that most of the time too, with devastating results when he did actually go into the field with the armies under his command.

BTW political values do not change with XP. They are defined in the model and do not change. A leader can have different models for the same rank though. This is what is done with McClellan.

[tripax]

If the Union took all of West Virginia, I don't think the editors would care. If the Union took Richmond or won a battle so large that McDowell gained a point of seniority, I think they would. Adding in Manassas gives the Confederacy something difficult to protect. If all the Confederacy had to do was defend Richmond and not lose any big battles to McDowell, they would never lose and you might as well give them the NM automatically. Making Manassas a goal gives a nice historical touch and keeps both sides honest.

[Teatime]

This is a completely different issue, and without 'theater' command-structures, I don't think there is much that could reasonably be done here. There would have to be some way of assessing a theater having a measurable amount of importance--number of men under command, proximity to strategic areas, etc. Otherwise one could take McClellan and put him into Boston to command the Mid-Atlantic theater and he'd be a happy camper, which isn't historical at all.

Also, being a 'theater' commander historically did not mean that the commander was in the field with an army. Fremont IIRC only sat in Saint Louis and sent orders per currier to the field commanders. Halleck did that most of the time too, with devastating results when he did actually go into the field with the armies under his command.

BTW political values do not change with XP. They are defined in the model and do not change. A leader can have different models for the same rank though. This is what is done with McClellan.

Yes, my post goes a bit beyond satisfying the March on Richmond event which, I think, is designed to put McClellan in charge of the East but does not. The usual approach is to give McClellan an army command and put him out of the way training volunteers and conscripts up to line infantry. I am not sure you would need to implement theater commands but I do think a system that better simulated the challenges of political generals would be good, but we can have that discussion elsewhere.

FYI, My observations are that any battle that impacts NM will also result in a change to the generals political value as well as their seniority (as least per their unit cards displayed in the bottom right). I watched McDowell go from Pol 15 to Pol 19 over the course of a couple of victories. I will get some screenshots of that and post them in a separate thread and will watch this a bit closer to see if I can determine how the mechanic actually works.

[Captain_Orso]

If the Union took all of West Virginia, I don't think the editors would care. If the Union took Richmond or won a battle so large that McDowell gained a point of seniority, I think they would. Adding in Manassas gives the Confederacy something difficult to protect. If all the Confederacy had to do was defend Richmond and not lose any big battles to McDowell, they would never lose and you might as well give them the NM automatically. Making Manassas a goal gives a nice historical touch and keeps both sides honest.

Yes, but what if McDowell is besieging Richmond at the end of September '61, should the press be unhappy about this? I think not.

[tripax]

Yes, but what if McDowell is besieging Richmond at the end of September '61, should the press be unhappy about this? I think not.

If this is possible, how likely is it because of an exploit? If it happens because of an exploit, how sorry should we be that it doesn't jive with the event? That said, you might be right, maybe the condition should include if McDowell has X units in the Richmond region/

[GraniteStater]

If this is possible, how likely is it because of an exploit? If it happens because of an exploit, how sorry should we be that it doesn't jive with the event? That said, you might be right, maybe the condition should include if McDowell has X units in the Richmond region/

Personally, I think that the if Union can bypass Manassas and take Fredericksburg (which it most certainly can, it's not that hard if the CSA player is a tad neglectful), then that should obviate the Manassas NM penalty.

I first did it against perhaps the best player we have - Pat 'Stonewall' Cleburne (to be fair, in AACW, not CW2 - and, geez, I miss him, no idea what happened to him - a most formidable opponent, on either side).

If we embraced F-burg in Eventology, then it would force the CSA player to spend some resources garrisoning it. It is a key point; quite arguably, much more so than Manassas.

[Captain_Orso]

It's not a question of Manassas or Fredericksburg, nor besieging Richmond, its a question of the army not sitting back on its haunches; it taking command of the situation, and having some measure of success.

From a game perspective, it's the question of deciding what this might be, and how to measure it.

[Cardinal Ape]

If it was measured based upon general success instead focused on Virginia then I would be happy. The name of the event drives me nuts, A lack of a Union offensive? Taking New Orleans, Charleston, Nashville, and Savannah is not good enough for the papers? They have no clue what an offensive means.

But yet as time passes, I've grown to accept this event and become one with it. No matter how good I do the papers won't stop complaining, they will never sing my name in praise, that's just what they do. And as the Union President it is my job to go out in public and complain about how the press is inaccurate with their reporting and how they misunderstand me. For example, If I controlled every single region throughout the entirety of America except for Richmond then I would expect the next days headlines to read, "Union Stretched too thin!" The press will never shut-up, maybe the broken thing about this event is that it's even possible to please them.

[Captain_Orso]

If it was measured based upon general success instead focused on Virginia then I would be happy. The name of the event drives me nuts, A lack of a Union offensive? Taking New Orleans, Charleston, Nashville, and Savannah is not good enough for the papers? They have no clue what an offensive means.

New Orleans: Captured April '62
Charleston: Never captured
Nashville: Captured February '62
Savannah: Captured December '64

First Manassas/Bull Run: July '61

Surrender of Fort Sumpter: April '61

But yet as time passes, I've grown to accept this event and become one with it. No matter how good I do the papers won't stop complaining, they will never sing my name in praise, that's just what they do. And as the Union President it is my job to go out in public and complain about how the press is inaccurate with their reporting and how they misunderstand me. For example, If I controlled every single region throughout the entirety of America except for Richmond then I would expect the next days headlines to read, "Union Stretched too thin!" The press will never shut-up, maybe the broken thing about this event is that it's even possible to please them.

In the game, capture Manassas by mid-September. That's all you have to do.

In reality, the press never shut-up at all. McDowell probably would have won at Manassas, if Patterson had pinned Johnston in the Valley; not that the press new that. The loss at Manassas was seen as a mismanagement of the military simply because the Federal army came tumbling back to Washington, and maybe it was.

The event does not contend that the press was correct in any fashion, only that they played a role in pressuring the actions of the government, and that the press influence the public.

Without the even, would the Union player ever move from the Potomac before Meade and Reynolds are running things? Why would he?

[Cardinal Ape]

Oh.. I didn't mean that the event should be about anything other than Virginia, just that the message one receives should be named something more fitting, like, 'A Lack of Progress In Virginia' rather than 'A Lack of a Union Offensive.' Really, I am just nit-picking the wording. Its a dumb sort of tunnel vision I have with the undefined 'offensive' wording. When I get the event and I look at the map to see key Confederate cities under Union control I am left to scratch my head a bit, because I have conducted major successful offensives, just not the Virginia one they wanted.

[Captain_Orso]

<Campy-Voice>But of course the press was infatuated with the East. Richmond is only a few days march from Washington, and the West, well, that's far away, and there's nothing consequential there anyway. The population is far lower, far more thinned out, and far less cultivated.</Campy-Voice>

It's pretty much how England treated the colonies before the rebellion, except the West was not concerned with what the East thought of them, and the question of rights had already been solved. *cough*cough* mostly

If it sounds like the press considered the war to be in the East, and directly on the plot of land between Washington and Richmond--as the crow flies--it's because that's how they thought of the war.

Anyway, event texts are a completely different subject. We could go through every event text in the game and probably improve 95% of them, but the question on hand is about how the event(s) should work.

[Jerzul]

<Campy-Voice>But of course the press was infatuated with the East. Richmond is only a few days march from Washington, and the West, well, that's far away, and there's nothing consequential there anyway. The population is far lower, far more thinned out, and far less cultivated.</Campy-Voice>

It's pretty much how England treated the colonies before the rebellion, except the West was not concerned with what the East thought of them, and the question of rights had already been solved. *cough*cough* mostly

If it sounds like the press considered the war to be in the East, and directly on the plot of land between Washington and Richmond--as the crow flies--it's because that's how they thought of the war.

Anyway, event texts are a completely different subject. We could go through every event text in the game and probably improve 95% of them, but the question on hand is about how the event(s) should work.

(Emphasis mine)

Has anyone ever tried to put a group together to make a CW2 improvement mod? Something that goes through and corrects bad English translations, fixes improper generals (for instance, Runyon on the Union side was only a 90 day soldier. He should be removed in September of 61, or Robert Milroy who starts as a 2* despite the fact that he never commanded a Corps and only promoted to Major General in March of 63. So why is he one of the two initial 2* for the Union?)?

I'm sure a ton of things could be fixed with relative [coding wise] ease and then kept fairly up-to-date with patches as they come out...and let's be honest, does anyone think there will be another patch for CW2?

[Cardinal Ape]

Anyway, event texts are a completely different subject. We could go through every event text in the game and probably improve 95% of them, but the question on hand is about how the event(s) should work.

Yeaaah, sorry. After a beer or two it appears I didn't manage to say anything useful, just some grumbling about the press.

Maybe it is too easy to shut the press up completely. It is tough to take Manassas by the required date, but the next two events are fairly easy to satisfy, and once done they will silence the press for the rest of the game.

The Union needs to have 40 elements withing two regions of Richmond for two turns. Once completed the press will be forever satisfied. It matters not if Lee shows up on turn 3 and destroys the entire Union force that threatened Richmond. Nor does it matter if Lil' MaC turns tail and sails back home, never to set foot in Virginia again.

Perhaps the press should not be so easily fooled by a peninsular campaign that ends in total failure. If the Union should be under constant pressure to take Richmond, then the events that pressure them into to doing should not stop until they take Richmond, no?

[Cardinal Ape]

I'm sure a ton of things could be fixed with relative [coding wise] ease and then kept fairly up-to-date with patches as they come out...and let's be honest, does anyone think there will be another patch for CW2?

I wouldn't rule out another patch, but unless there are game-play bugs to be fixed, I wouldn't count on it.

A lot of the tool-tips could use some work. Those bother me the most, the bad information makes it even harder for new players to get into them game. The rail and river pools really stand out to me, they say once every six months, but it is once every month. I'd be willing to help fix such things, though I prefer it to be official rather than a mod.

[Captain_Orso]

Yeaaah, sorry. After a beer or two it appears I didn't manage to say anything useful, just some grumbling about the press.

Cheers!

Maybe it is too easy to shut the press up completely. It is tough to take Manassas by the required date, but the next two events are fairly easy to satisfy, and once done they will silence the press for the rest of the game.

The Union needs to have 40 elements withing two regions of Richmond for two turns. Once completed the press will be forever satisfied. It matters not if Lee shows up on turn 3 and destroys the entire Union force that threatened Richmond. Nor does it matter if Lil' MaC turns tail and sails back home, never to set foot in Virginia again.

Wellllll, if Lee did manage to wipe out a naval invasion, the NM loss would be extensive from the normal game rules alone.

Besides, since the last patch, I think I would be loath to use some of the tactics I had used before that, ie landing in Trappahanoch or near Fredericksburg with a corps and just sitting there for two turns, and then packing up and heading home again. With the 'new' retreat rules, that corps would have nowhere to retreat after losing a battle, which would make such an invasion suicidal if Lee came to repulse it.

Perhaps the press should not be so easily fooled by a peninsular campaign that ends in total failure. If the Union should be under constant pressure to take Richmond, then the events that pressure them into to doing should not stop until they take Richmond, no?

I think the 'Press' events are not only to represent the heavy handed way the press represented the inability of Federals to make progress in the East, but also to push the Union player's hand in at least trying. Otherwise the North could play the East fairly casually (completely defensively) until '63.

Of course, the '62 'Press' event could be tweaked to be more difficult--I believe it's 42 elements, BTW--, because that's only just over 2 division. Not a force I'd really feel terribly threatened by as the Confederate player; a fat thorn in my side for sure, but not the force that might take Richmond.

The size of the required force could be easily increased. Increasing the number of turn they must be present could also be done, but not so easily, and I'm not sure that would be necessarily realistic.

Currently pulling a 'small' corps out of Norther Virginia is not so terribly difficult. The AoP should be large enough to hold back a the Confederates long enough to satisfy the event, until the invasion returns to the rest of the AoP.

If the invasion were doubled in size, it would really represent a force worthy of threatening Richmond with the intent of actually assaulting it; and pulling 5 division from the AoP will make holding Lee back, while the invasion is 'on the peninsula', a very difficult task. So the South would have a viable choice of trying to hold out in Richmond while Lee might either take on the AoP, in it's weakened status, or bypass it, and march on Washington. Or he could try to pull back quickly and hit the invaders hard before the AoP could follow him toward Richmond; a typical Lee tactic of getting the AoP to divide itself and hit it piece-meal.

After '62 I think the North will have more than enough leadership resources to operate offensively, without an event to animate the player, otherwise he will hardly have time to win the game. I think the game can then operate on the merits of the players alone, awarding and penalizing NM from battle results and strategic locations, without special events.

After the peninsula debacle, I believe the press had realized that the Confederate army in Virginia was a force to be reckoned with, especially after the Seven Days and 2nd Manassas. After that there were enough real issues for them to report, without having to speculate about what the AoP ought to be doing.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm sure a ton of things could be fixed with relative [coding wise] ease and then kept fairly up-to-date with patches as they come out...and let's be honest, does anyone think there will be another patch for CW2?

I wouldn't rule out another patch, but unless there are game-play bugs to be fixed, I wouldn't count on it.

A lot of the tool-tips could use some work. Those bother me the most, the bad information makes it even harder for new players to get into them game. The rail and river pools really stand out to me, they say once every six months, but it is once every month. I'd be willing to help fix such things, though I prefer it to be official rather than a mod.

From my experience, we would have to basically prepare everything ourselves in advance. Then we might expect it being published as an official patch. This would include play-testing event changes, which change game play, and might change play-balance.

Simple changes to event and tool-tip texts are probably not so precarious.

But Phil-n-Phil*™ will still have to check that everything is as it should be, which alone is a huge task.

[Jerzul]

From my experience, we would have to basically prepare everything ourselves in advance. Then we might expect it being published as an official patch. This would include play-testing event changes, which change game play, and might change play-balance.

Simple changes to event and tool-tip texts are probably not so precarious.

But Phil-n-Phil*™ will still have to check that everything is as it should be, which alone is a huge task.

Honestly, I think it would be worth it. Maybe have two simultaneous patches - one that is just localization fixes - and one that changes bigger things like Generals and such. We could work on it as an unofficial patch that we provide "as-is" that can eventually be made an official patch if it is approve by Phil-n-Phil(???) or whomever does that for AGEOD.

I get that official patches are best, but this game could use some help to make the base game more fun and less confusing and an a regularly updated player patch might be the best way to get that done.