Civil War III

[graydingo]

Yes, but doesn’t the CSA player receive replacements quicker than the USA player based on the historical fact that the Confederacy placed more importance on filling up existing regiments compared to the Union’s reliance on new regiments in order to take advantage of the higher rate of recruitment this brought, thus continually weakening their experienced units. While the veteran Confederate regiments were receiving newbies that were gradually being folded into their ranks, in effect maintaining their “veteran” status?

[Gray Fox]

http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war ... -rank.html

This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's. What if we only gave Union Divisions 10 slots? Until CW3, such a house rule might put some new life in the CSA.

[Captain_Orso]

Yes, but doesn’t the CSA player receive replacements quicker than the USA player based on the historical fact that the Confederacy placed more importance on filling up existing regiments compared to the Union’s reliance on new regiments in order to take advantage of the higher rate of recruitment this brought, thus continually weakening their experienced units. While the veteran Confederate regiments were receiving newbies that were gradually being folded into their ranks, in effect maintaining their “veteran” status?

I believe it had more to do with politics. Everyone and their brother wanted to lead a regiment, bc after the war it would be something they could draw upon as showing their leadership skills and advance their political careers. Many who already enjoyed political contacts were allowed by their states to raise their own regiments and then take command of them, often under the guise of being voted by the regiments to lead them, bc they had raised the regiments. Thus a large portion of the Union military was introduced to the federal government already organized into regiments. Thus fewer troops were available to be divvied up to reinforce depleted regiments.

The South did this as well, but quickly ran out of persons to raise new regiments, as their population was much smaller and many were much quicker to raise a regiment early in the war. The South was also far more divided in their ideologies. IIRC in Georgia you could not raise a regiment other than for the state militia. The state government would have to pass an act to allow for a state militia regiment, even if raised privately, to be turned over to the Confederate government. So troops raised by the CS government were more likely to be distributed by the CS government, and used to replenish depleted units already in existence.

[Captain_Orso]

http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war-army-organization-and-order-of-rank.html

This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's. What if we only gave Union Divisions 10 slots? Until CW3, such a house rule might put some new life in the CSA.

Without having looked deeper into it, that might be a good house rule. It would certainly help the South, especially later in the war.

[graydingo]

Captain_Orso, yeah, you’re probably right about those Northern regiments. I guess I was just assuming “citizen-soldiers” would rather be part of a new unit with their friends then to sign up and be shipped to a unit with a bunch of strangers.

[graydingo]

Gray Fox, this works great to replicate 61-63, but by the time the Overland Campaign starts the Army of the Potomac is cramming more regiments into brigades and more brigades into divisions (and more divisions into corps). With the element cap (both the house rule and/or the vanilla game) this isn’t possible. In the end it really doesn’t matter, I suppose, as Captain_Orso said about replacements being bought or new units being created is up to the player. I was overthinking the way one would handle shortages in the field. The player still couldn’t cram any more regiments into the division unit though after hitting 18 elements.

[graydingo]

And thanks to both of you for responding. You guys always have some of the best and most thoughtful responses. Good on both of you.

[Citizen X]

http://www.nellaware.com/blog/civil-war-army-organization-and-order-of-rank.html

This states that CSA Divisions were sometimes twice as large as the Union's.

That was due to lack of high ranking Generals. On the battlefield however, the largest tactical unit was still the brigade on both sides.
Also, after the '62 campaigns both sides reorganized their brigade-structure from mixed arms to single arms brigades. Would be nice to have that de-facto reform implemented, too.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Just a suggestion (sing its praises, slap it down or dutifully ignore it at your leisure); allow the player to recruit by regiment rather than brigade. The player can then determine the strength (with limits and maximums, obviously) and the geographical composition of said brigades (For example: 3 Virginia regiments + 1 North Carolina regiment + 1 Georgia regiment, or, 2 Alabama regiments + 1 Louisiana regiment. You get the idea). To complete the picture, anybody who was commissioned a brigadier general in the Union or Confederate army should be included in a generals pool, and introduced into the game roughly around the date when they received their commission. The player can then choose a brigadier to command their newly created brigade which then takes on the name of the commanding general.

I like it. I really like it...

[grimjaw]

Zombie thread, but since I am revisiting CW2 ...

I have both AACW and CW2 on this computer. There are parts of AACW that I can almost paste into CW2 files and they'll still work. Those parts mostly have to do with unit spawning and events. The majority of work that *I* can see between the two games was on the map and the engine. Several of the issues with the original game campaigns were carried over from the original.

That, plus these:

- Many things were not addressed in CW2; not talking about new features but old issues that exist past version 1.06.3.
- The treasure trove of information on the AGE wiki was supposedly lost due to some server crashing and not having a backup. Luckily for me I had a bunch of that info saved locally (and I do have backups of it ...), but anyone wanting to fix broken things on their own are potentially hamstrung by a lack of reference information. The Wayback Machine might not last forever, and referring users there for support on your engine is hardly what I'd call confidence-inspiring.

I would not be willing to plunk down a significant amount of money on CW3. I paid $10 for the original AACW. If CW3 was in any way similar to CW2 (new/revised engine, same old event/unit/scenario code slapped into it and wrangled to fit), I wouldn't pay $10 for it.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?

[DrPostman]

Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?

Probably not for a few more years. It will have to appear economically viable for AGEOD.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?

Probably not for a few more years. It will have to appear economically viable for AGEOD.

Does it not currently appear to be so?

[DrPostman]

Will there be a CW3 though? And if so, when?

Probably not for a few more years. It will have to appear economically viable for AGEOD.

Does it not currently appear to be so?

Not with all the other projects they have going. Keep in mind that these types of
games are a niche market. They aren't making money like Blizzard or Ubisoft.

[coach]

And not until people stop buying Civil war II. As long as it’s profitable they won’t interfere. Once it runs its course they’ll give it a year and then use the built up base with a new one.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

And not until people stop buying Civil war II. As long as it’s profitable they won’t interfere. Once it runs its course they’ll give it a year and then use the built up base with a new one.

The game was released in 2013 if I'm not mistaken. It's time for something fresh and new

[Bamilus]

Field of Glory Empires was a (seemingly) economic success, getting lots of attention and praise on Reddit and Steam, specifically because it's a good game and is coming a few months after the Paradox Imperator Rome launch disaster.

Being their most popular and successful game, I have to imagine AGEOD will revisit Civil War at some point with the new engine. There are some benefits to new engine:

1. Looks better and unfortunately many sales are still based on graphics and presentation, especially when you're on Steam
2. Simpler engine. While I want my games to be as complex as possible, having a simpler engine might allow for better AI.
3. Ability to export games to Field of Glory. I'd imagine they might eventually have it where you can export games to a Civil War era Field of Glory type game but Civil War setting.

I have no inside knowledge, but I can't imagine not seeing or at least hearing about a Civil War 3 in development in next few years. ACW is and will continue to be one of the most popular eras in wargaming. It would be foolish for them to follow up success of FOG:Empires by covering some random obscure theater (even though I'd enjoy it!).

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I have no inside knowledge, but I can't imagine not seeing or at least hearing about a Civil War 3 in development in next few years.

Good lord... perish the thought!

[Poorlaggedman]

I apologize because I haven't read most of this but if there was a Civil War III I'd highly appreciate a better way to multiplayer than PBEM.

The AI limitations are mind-crippling sometimes and it feels empty to play in many games. The only thing the AI is really good at is snatching up my non-combat units if I decide to risk moving them unescorted near the front lines.

I agree that a re-make should be more than what was I to II.