Civil War III - To be or not to be?

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I wonder if something very direct would work. A kickstarter to show demand or something. Could be hosted by an Ageod or Slitherine employee for less likelihood of shenanigans.

That certainly needs to happen. A petition of sorts coupled with sustained request/demand within their forum is something they will surely notice. Again, key elements are banging the drum and persistence. The most effective method of getting their attention, however, must surely be a concentrated push from all those who want to see it happen. We need to get ourselves organised.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Sorry you'll have to point me to specific parts or mention again the boldest ideas, and I'll tell you if it is feasible and realistic, work-wise.
I'll leave you planning your offensive then

A few ideas I feel would improve the game are certainly things I've mentioned here in the forum before, but I'll give a basic outline of a few of them here again just so that we can all mull them over and see what's good, what's not, what might work and/or what wouldn't

In no particular order...
1. Recruit by regiment rather than brigade, and being able to build brigades in the way we currently piece together divisions. We could add to or subtract regiments to/from a brigade, or completely and permanently disassemble a created brigade at our leisure.
A brigade once formed would take on the name of the general assigned to command it.
How this would affect the existing elite brigades we currently see featured, and of which I am personally very fond, I'm currently none too sure. Though I am certain that a suitable solution could be found.
1a. For the above idea to work to its full potential there'd need to be a great deal more generals available to the player. I'm thinking essentially anyone who was commissioned a brigadier general on both sides during the course of the war, with particular focus being placed upon their entry into the game roughly corresponding to when they became a general historically, as is currently the case, with the only difference being that their date of entry into the game is directly related to their seniority.
For example; a Brigadier General who enters the game in April of 1861 might have a seniority of 4. A Brigadier General who enters the game in May of 1861 might have a seniority of 5. In August 1861, it might be 8, in November 1861 it might be 11, and so on and so forth.

2. The ability to promote all generals within the game all the way up from a 1 star brigadier, to a full 4 star general.
To attain the next grade of rank I'd imagine something like the following:
Brigadier General to Major General requires 4 'commendation' points.
Major General to Lieutenant General requires 8 points.
Lieutenant General to General requires 12 points.
Upon attaining a promotion, the promoted general would start a 0 points and have to earn the corresponding amount of points to attain the next grade of rank.
It'd make promotion possible for all without making it ridiculously easy to do so.

3. Make it possible for a Major General to command an army, as was almost always the case historically within the Union Army.

4. 3 or 5 day turns; preferably 3. The shorter the turns the better in my opinion.

5. More regions, particularly in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Maryland.

6. Far shorter matching time between regions. I'd suggest an almost 80% reduction in the amount of time it takes to march from region to another. This idea combined with suggestions 4 & 5 would, in my humble opinion, not only place far greater emphasis upon actual tactics and strategy but also drastically reduce the regional back and forth slugging matches that the game all too often tends towards.

7. A general can be wounded as well as killed. A wounded general might be unavailable from anywhere between 2 weeks and 12 months. I would, however, like option of turning one or both options off if I wanted.

8. The ability to change to offensive or defensive posture immediately after a battle. The idea being that the player can then either immediately assume the defensive after what might have been a particularly unsuccessful attack, or exploit a failed attack by the enemy the very next day.

9. Make it so that each state has its own manpower pool, as opposed to a national manpower pool. What the player can recruit from each state per turn then becomes relative to how much manpower a particular state is producing per turn. Not only would it be a much more accurate reflection of how things actually were, but it would prevent to a large degree a player spamming ridiculous amounts of units from a particular state or states on a single turn.

I think that covers it for now, though don't count on it

All are welcome to offer their own thoughts and ideas

[AACW3Plz]

I'll go over my mod idea for CW2, which of course I never got around to, but shows some of the things I might like in CW3. Apologies for a bit of a ramble.

I was going to completely overhaul units and allow recruitment of Regiments and the combination of them, much like you can do with Militia Regiments and sometimes Militia Brigades + Sharpshooters.

The difference was that I was going to make the Regiments all unique (not a pool of generics with random names), and name them after historical Colonels, and modify their stats slightly based on the talent of the Colonel (although Militia is still just Militia, so no huge variance). Them being unique units, when they reached an XP threshhold, their Colonel would've spawned as a General unit. I felt this was a good way to simulate promotions, not have to figure out a Colonel as a new unit (what Command would it have?), and offer a lot of risk for people trying alt-history (eg - if you get Cleburne's Regiment killed, you get no Cleburne).

So let's say we have DH Hill's Regiment. It performs well, and DH Hill's Regiment reaches the XP threshold for promotion. DH Hill spawns, and the Regiment is renamed after a pool of replacement Colonels. The same thing can occur if they hit an XP threshold. After X number of Colonel Regiments are used, I'd open up a second pool of Regiments, commanded by some people who were historically Captains at the start of the war. I think this is the route for people like Robert Hoke.

This involved a lot of unique units, but afaik was the only way to get away from Event Spawns of generals annually, work within history, and ultimately work within the engine. I had *not* figured out a way to work in the Department system, outside of vaguely utilizing the Army/Corps system. There wasnt necessarily a way to lock an Army Commander in a Dept Capital, disallow anyone from forming an Army except by attaching a Corps to him, and not screw up the standard Army/Corps system that already existed. That being said, in the case of Dept Commands, much should be similar. You have the historical example of Richard Taylor likely being able to capture New Orleans and Edmund K Smith ordering him away from the job, kinda like having a lousy Army commander giving stat penalties to Corps commanders.

So what I was looking for ultimately is something more hands on with promotions, organization, army structure, etc. Theoretically a Department Commander's stats might influence development/income etc in a Department, so while you might regret EK Smith nerfing the initiative of his subordinates, he was a skilled logistician and might offer some resource/arsenal or recruiting bonuses. It's also nice to have another officer for juggling Seniority. I am entirely happy to get lost in Regimental level details with Colonels or even lower, and would like to see that featured in a CW3. I think scenarios (eg start in 62 or 63) are meant for the historical general spawns, but they dont belong in a 61 campaign past 61.

[AACW3Plz]

Regarding some of the orders, time scales for movement, etc, I think 2 week turns is fine for the Deep West and lousy for Virginia.

So yes, far more regions in the East might start to solve this. You might also want an initiative penalty the further one is from a high development region, or just an Action Point system in which it's "cheaper" to order people in high development areas, so that people won't micromanage Nebraska or something silly.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I'm wondering just how many generals the game could handle? Hundreds? A thousand?

[AACW3Plz]

I'm wondering just how many generals the game could handle? Hundreds? A thousand?

I would hope the new engine would be able to deal with this pretty handily.

Im unsure about the CW2 engine. Is it PoN that is worldwide and has a ton of units? The chief complaint I see with that game is turn processing times, so yes I imagine the old engine starts to break down. Im unsure if part of the load in PoN is dependent on how many factions there are or simply a function of total units.

I like CW2, so fundamentally if the engine could handle a significant update I'd be ok with a DLC rather than a full on CW3, if that made sense from an Ageod financial perspective. Last I saw, and granted I don't go often, but even the Steam FOG Empires forums had CW3 requests though, so I have to think a standalone game is viable.

[Pocus]

If there was a new CW game from AGEOD, I doubt it would go even deeper into details than CW2, with regiments being the base formation, 3 days per turn and thousands of generals. That's just not what management believes is working and aside from some grognards who would play it, if you need thousands of hours? That would be the equivalent of GG War in the Pacific right?

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I feel like I've just been blow torched

[AACW3Plz]

If there was a new CW game from AGEOD, I doubt it would go even deeper into details than CW2, with regiments being the base formation, 3 days per turn and thousands of generals. That's just not what management believes is working and aside from some grognards who would play it, if you need thousands of hours? That would be the equivalent of GG War in the Pacific right?

I think it would actually make the Scenarios viable options. You have Sibley and these smaller campaigns in CW2, which I understand are semi tutorials, but there's really no reason to play them. And the scenarios, because they'd now have depth, would be grounds for some DLCs. I might buy a Shiloh or Manassas or whatever campaign if there was actually something to do.

The other option is similar to CK2, in which you have some feature additions. The base game is entertaining and playable. Maybe a DLC adds more detailed maps, and a turn length setting, for those who want 3 day turns, especially in a smaller Virginia theatre level scenario/campaign. Or Department Commanders DLC which adds some depth because there's a regional development aspect and a seniority aspect, but maybe Department Commanders can automanage some stuff if you're concerned about micromanagement being too crazy for casuals (eg Edmund Kirby Smithdom generates 20 conscripts and 5 WS a turn, and EK Smith can spend that himself and you dont get it in the national pool, but he behaves as a mini Athena and runs his department). Or truly major DLC which uses the map but changes the start time. Mexican American War or 1776 or 1812 or Seven Years.

Ultimately I think real question is what sort of numbers do you need for a game to be viable? A million $ in sales? Less? More? We might be able to just crowdfund that.

[AACW3Plz]

I guess for Pocus, what does the dev team see as the future for the company?

Is it less depth, more breadth? If you were making a CW3, what do you think would be in it that was missing from CW2? I think better AI was a generic complaint, and the new engine itself comes with better graphics/options. Would it be the focus on the tactical element from Field of Glory?

For an example of us Grognards:

I just bought Gary Grigsby's War Between the States

I paid an extra $10 for a digital download option, which actually should be the cheap option.

An extra $10 for shipping for a CD I don't want.

It's $70 for a game from 2008 that probably isn't as good as ACW2.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I need to be brief here as I must soon drag my weary behind off to work, but I don't think that the average CW2 player is, or would be, put off by depth or complexity and I don't think that any of the things I suggested, particularly regiments as a starting point rather than brigades, would necessarily make anything more complex or less enjoyable. I personally would find it very enjoyable to recruit regiments from Rhode Island or Maine or Vermont for example rather than have them lumped together in 'New England' brigades that sometimes feel very afterthought-ish.
People buy games like Civil War II precisely because of their depth and complexity.

[AACW3Plz]

I need to be brief here as I must soon drag my weary behind off to work, but I don't think that the average CW2 player is, or would be, put off by depth or complexity and I don't think that any of the things I suggested, particularly regiments as a starting point rather than brigades, would necessarily make anything more complex or less enjoyable. I personally would find it very enjoyable to recruit regiments from Rhode Island or Maine or Vermont for example rather than have them lumped together in 'New England' brigades that sometimes feel very afterthought-ish.
People buy games like Civil War II precisely because of their depth and complexity.

There's an honest question here, which I don't really know the answer to, but it could make a world of difference to a developer.

After Corps were "invented" in the ACW, did any more Colonels rise to significant command? There are some notable people who started as Colonels, say DH Hill, Forrest, Gordon, Chamberlain, etc. Were any still "Colonels" for any length of time after Corps begun? Because from a programming perspective you could just change Regiment size to a Brigade size in 1862 and you'd need little functional difference between the two units.

[Pocus]

Don't quote me, as I don't have hard data, just guess estimates. If you depend of another company and are not an independent dev, then for a project asking for 2 to 3 years, single man dev (discounting artist costs and all the rest), then starting with 400.000 $ gross gain (if that a word?) starts to be a decent success, but not a great one. If you depend of a publisher. So we are talking of 20.000 copies at 20$ something like that (or 12-13.000 at 30$).

But guess estimate, the actual figures might be +- 50% off.

If you are alone, and pay your bill alone and answer to no one, then probably half of that is decent. Understand a publisher (if it has developers a employees) just don't want you to recoup your costs, because it has a ton of environmental costs and overhead to your own costs. So you must provide serious real income, so it can be used elsewhere.

The population of the forum is anyway very much geared toward grognards, so a poll here is biased toward grognards features.

[Stratman]

The population of the forum is anyway very much geared toward grognards, so a poll here is biased toward grognards features.

Yes, but what about crowdfunding?
The grognards are the ones who will take part in this. Including me!

[AACW3Plz]

Don't quote me, as I don't have hard data, just guess estimates. If you depend of another company and are not an independent dev, then for a project asking for 2 to 3 years, single man dev (discounting artist costs and all the rest), then starting with 400.000 $ gross gain (if that a word?) starts to be a decent success, but not a great one. If you depend of a publisher. So we are talking of 20.000 copies at 20$ something like that (or 12-13.000 at 30$).

But guess estimate, the actual figures might be +- 50% off.

If you are alone, and pay your bill alone and answer to no one, then probably half of that is decent. Understand a publisher (if it has developers a employees) just don't want you to recoup your costs, because it has a ton of environmental costs and overhead to your own costs. So you must provide serious real income, so it can be used elsewhere.

The population of the forum is anyway very much geared toward grognards, so a poll here is biased toward grognards features.

Thank you. This is pretty helpful.

I would assume much of the language from CW2 scripting carries forward to the new engine?

If someone were to copy and paste the CW2 data over, hire an artist or two, and a few reasonably good programmers to fill in gaps/fix things, is this a realistic way to get a CW3 in a short-ish amount of time? Or is the new engine sufficiently different that this is not possible? I know CW1 to CW2 was a bit copy and paste in parts, but that was also the same engine.

[Pocus]

Alas and on the contrary, the 2 engines vastly differ in their syntax. The current one has been developed by a Slitherine developer and is an interpreted language based on C, whereas the AGE engine has been developed by me, in Delphi.

As for crowd funding, you are welcome to launch one obviously! Being a Slitherine employee, I can't do this, as you might guess. But if you want to have something close in spirit to CW2, then you should probably contact Slitherine, so you can use the CW2 data. Or you can go your own way and do your own CW game, that's a possibility.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Keeping with my habit of throwing ideas out there to see what might work and what wouldn't, is it possible to do 2 versions of the same game within one? In one version you have a complex and highly immersive grognard paradise, and the other a more vanilla & simplistic & streamlined Civil War 3-lite, which might hold broader appeal to the relatively AGEod uninitiated?

[Pocus]

It's certainly possible, but all of this is wishful thinking with one or several developers investing many months of work...

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

It's certainly possible, but all of this is wishful thinking with one or several developers investing many months of work...

And if it did happen and you were left to your own devices and were free of any external influences, where would you take it? What would be your vision for it?

[Pocus]

I would more or less keep the same scale, while adding more economy and political components. But I have not given too much thoughts about it, honestly, even if I would gladly have this as a topic for a next game within Slitherine. If I could choose my own subject for a game, without any financial constraint, I would either do a Victorian era game, perhaps a steampunk one (I would love to make something on Mars, but with some strong colonial vibes) or some card-driven WW2 strategy game, to sidestep several difficulties of making a regular wargame on WW2.

[Taillebois]

You have my sympathy Pocus.

Making historical wargames is more a labour of love rather than a money spinner.

Last weekend the Times had an article on the amount of money some people are earning from designing Roblox games.

The link below will at least show you the beginning of the article which summarises how much some are making - they are all so young

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/robl ... -cck8lzhrz


Anyway, thanks again Pocus for your games which keep my interest in history going.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Historical war games should be a money spinner though, and that they aren't is a sad reflection of our times.

[lightbrave]

I would buy CW3. Never played the first one but I love CW2

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I would buy CW3. Never played the first one but I love CW2

CW2 is a beautifully made game, no doubt. I'd find it difficult to believe that there isn't a significant market out there for a CW3.

[Slickandjake]

I bought this game a few months ago and finally got the time to start playing. Only playing my first game against AI now bit it seems to be going well. Is there a place to find people interested in PBEM games? I am not ready yet, but perhaps in a few months and just wanted to know where I could find potential human opponents.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

I bought this game a few months ago and finally got the time to start playing. Only playing my first game against AI now bit it seems to be going well. Is there a place to find people interested in PBEM games? I am not ready yet, but perhaps in a few months and just wanted to know where I could find potential human opponents.

@pgr might be looking for a game if you can track him down. He's a good guy!

[pgr]

For my two cents...

1. Re-focus the map. CW2 created a bigger map than CW2, but most of it is unused space. (Too bad there weren't the resources for a French intervention in Mexico DLC). I'd suggest a zoomed in approach. Similar map to CW1, but with CW2 number of regions. Gives some space to maneuver in Va (and frankly NM can be off the map)

2. De-centralize unit recruitment. States should have manpower pools, and the player (as the federal government) requests that states furnish a quota of forces. (I would vote for force pools as individual regiments)

3. Treat states as almost independent countries. (Think coalitions WON style) Each state would have an over all loyalty and moral, with particular interests. (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio wanting to re-open the Mississippi to trade for example...or Georgia protesting any infringement on its rights by Richmond ). If a Union player doesn't pay attention to regional needs, they could loose sectional support and or the war. (Think anti Lincoln votes in 1862 and 64)

4. Make the supply system truly national. As it stands, CW2 is awash in GS. The AVN is perfectly capable of being fully supplied from Southern VA alone. Units should eat more and large armies require inter-regional flows of supply, so that players can truly attack supply lines.

5. A dynamic leader system. CW2 requires a leader file for each leader at each rank. (a 2 star Grant file, and a 3 star Grant file etc.) Certain leaders cant get promoted beyond a certain point, and there can be a lack of leaders (esp for CSA.) It would be nice for any leader to develop, based on engagements they are in, and to have a random leader generator to populate fictitious leaders if the leader pool needs to expand.

The new hotness right now in CW gaming are the Grand Tactician guys, and I think one could be inspired by how they attack points 2,3, and 4. But that game feels like it is trying to be everything at once (RTS, strategic plus tactical) and it has no multiplayer. I think there is a place for a turned based game that does the grand strategy very well while allowing for PBEM.

[AACW3Plz]

For my two cents...

1. Re-focus the map. CW2 created a bigger map than CW2, but most of it is unused space. (Too bad there weren't the resources for a French intervention in Mexico DLC). I'd suggest a zoomed in approach. Similar map to CW1, but with CW2 number of regions. Gives some space to maneuver in Va (and frankly NM can be off the map)

2. De-centralize unit recruitment. States should have manpower pools, and the player (as the federal government) requests that states furnish a quota of forces. (I would vote for force pools as individual regiments)

3. Treat states as almost independent countries. (Think coalitions WON style) Each state would have an over all loyalty and moral, with particular interests. (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio wanting to re-open the Mississippi to trade for example...or Georgia protesting any infringement on its rights by Richmond ). If a Union player doesn't pay attention to regional needs, they could loose sectional support and or the war. (Think anti Lincoln votes in 1862 and 64)

4. Make the supply system truly national. As it stands, CW2 is awash in GS. The AVN is perfectly capable of being fully supplied from Southern VA alone. Units should eat more and large armies require inter-regional flows of supply, so that players can truly attack supply lines.

5. A dynamic leader system. CW2 requires a leader file for each leader at each rank. (a 2 star Grant file, and a 3 star Grant file etc.) Certain leaders cant get promoted beyond a certain point, and there can be a lack of leaders (esp for CSA.) It would be nice for any leader to develop, based on engagements they are in, and to have a random leader generator to populate fictitious leaders if the leader pool needs to expand.

The new hotness right now in CW gaming are the Grand Tactician guys, and I think one could be inspired by how they attack points 2,3, and 4. But that game feels like it is trying to be everything at once (RTS, strategic plus tactical) and it has no multiplayer. I think there is a place for a turned based game that does the grand strategy very well while allowing for PBEM.

I'm currently modding away the command system, otherwise Id tinker more, but I suppose you could do something similar to a state manpower pool by cutting national manpower to a trickle and making RGDs which spawn Conscripts, rather than the current Partisans/Militia. Iirc the current card costs VP but it could cost WS and Support/Loyalty.

[AACW3Plz]

viewtopic.php?f=340&t=54084

It's not CW3, but I have been doing some work on this game.

I've added Brigadier and Colonel functionality, a few new generals, started modifying the forcepool, and made brigades a bit more configurable.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=340&t=54084

It's not CW3, but I have been doing some work on this game.

I've added Brigadier and Colonel functionality, a few new generals, started modifying the forcepool, and made brigades a bit more configurable.

Good to see you back, mate