Civil War 3 - that idea doesn't suck, but this one might. Yes, it's a poll.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Just because I'm curious as to whether greater depth and complexity (though nothing too deep or too complex) in a potential Civil War 3 would alienate those who know and love Civil War 2, and would it frighten away new players, I've created the following poll. Note that I've not included improved AI as an option because it seems to be of unanimous opinion that the AI needs improvement. Also note that some of the ideas included here are just things I personally feel would improve the game - I am completely aware that I probably speak for very few here; in fact, most likely none. But, I'm still curious anyways, hence the poll

Inbox me if you'd like an option included.

[deguerra]

Hi BnT,

I've been following these discussions but haven't responded as yet. I like the initiative, but I find it hard to whittle my musings down to a "this" or "that" set of options, so here goes:

I understand Pocus' statement that a more complex setup for a potential CW3 is unlikely to happen, and I don't just mean I understand it from his or a publisher's point of view - I understand it from how I am playing (or more importantly am not playing) CW2.

Now by way of very brief aside, I am a commercial controller. I love spreadsheets, I love details, I love micromanagement and I love having things under my control. In theory, a regiment-recruitment-based, 3-day-turn game with hundreds of generals and state-based manpower pools.

But the reality of my life is that I have a limited amount of time for indulging my passions such as computer gaming, and an even more limited subset that I specifically devote to CW2. And honestly even with that I sometimes have to push myself to fire it up, simply because I know the amount of time I'm going to have to spend on my next turn.

So a new game with more complexity in and of itself is something I will look at and say: "Oh that's cool!". But ultimately, it's not likely to be something that I'll have much of a chance to play. And I know this because it's the exact reaction I've had to seeing videos of the strategy layer of Grand Tactician: Civil War, which actually does a lot of the things you describe in terms of regimental recruitment and number of generals. But even watching someone recruit the Army of the Potomac from that level of complexity puts me right off.

All of which is to say this: I want both.
If I can choose, give me all of the complexity, but make it possible for me not to have to manage it:
- Give players the option to recruit regiments, but also give them the option to have it automated or streamlined or something to make it easier for those of us with less time, be it through the AI managing it (I'm thinking of something like Distant Words: Universe) or at least by letting us create "model" Brigades or Divisions and then just automatically filling those.
- Give us state manpower pools, but don't make me have to look at them unless it's something I want to do. Give us a recruitment queue where I can recruit units I don't yet have the manpower for, so that rather than having to recruit every turn, I can do it once or twice a year (something that was in the original ACW, where there was far less per-turn manpower being created).
- Give us hundreds of generals but let the AI be capable of handling their promotion in the background unless I choose to intervene
- And, sure, give us a game option with fewer days per turn. Not personally for me, both in terms of (real-world) time and because I think the factor of being unable to micromanage too much is part of what makes the game work the way it does, but hey, the more options the better.

As for AI and having all generals in theory be promotable, that is uncontroversial to me.

Now having said all that, to have all these options would likely require a completely new and very flexible engine, not to mention a lot of resources in time and money to implement. I'm going to refrain from any attempt at guessing how realistic it is, because that's simply not my area of expertise.

But what I just wanted to say is that while my heart beats for more complexity and 'immersion' - though I must say I think the latter does not always go with the former, I know in my head that I would marvel at such an immense work but never actually get the chance to play it regularly. And I think that is what Pocus was addressing.

-deguerra

[AACW3Plz]

I do think breaking the factions down into departments, with department heads who can be little Athenas would address much of the complexity issues.

I dont think many would want to bother organizing regiments in Indian Territory either, unless that was the department they wanted to run and they were happy to let Lee manage the East or something.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Still very interested in what y'all think about this, too.

[StatboyVT]

Still very interested in what y'all think about this, too.

I rarely post, and I'll admit that I'm a guy who prefers the original AACW with the Clovis mod. Brigade building in CW2 didn't seem very realistic to me, though it's been a long time since I've played it, so maybe I'm remembering it wrong. I still sometimes play AACW with the Clovis mod, though.

To me, the question is whether or not the next game is streamlined for AI performance, or user vs. user play? If you add too many bells and whistles, the AI probably gets worse. So for me, loading it up with a bunch of advanced stuff would be amazing for a solitaire or multiplayer game, but worse for an AI game. So what should be the priority? If it's AI, it should probably be simplified for a more challenging experience. If it's the other two, then by all means, add the bells and whistles.

Either way, I think 7-day turns would be an improvement.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

My preference for brigade building stems primarily from the fact that I really dislike the mixed brigades so prominent in CW2. I'd also like the flexibility that comes with being able to assemble and disassemble a brigade at my leisure. Also, on the Union side of things, I'd like to be able to recruit individual regiments from New England as those regiments from Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, etc, tend to be quite forgotten about.
Another problem with the mixed CW2 brigades, specifically Union brigades, is that Union cavalry from New England entirely, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc, exist only as part of infantry brigades. I really dislike that, too.
As such, building by regiment would be an exciting step forward.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Regarding 7 day turns; I can't say that I'm much sold on that idea either. I think that 5 day turns, if possible would be a far better option. In a perfect world, 1 day turn processing combined with much faster marching times to and from regions (it really shouldn't be taking 10 days to march from Winchester to Harper's Ferry, etc, etc, etc, etc) would be a complete game changer.

[StatboyVT]

My preference for brigade building stems primarily from the fact that I really dislike the mixed brigades so prominent in CW2. I'd also like the flexibility that comes with being able to assemble and disassemble a brigade at my leisure. Also, on the Union side of things, I'd like to be able to recruit individual regiments from New England as those regiments from Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, etc, tend to be quite forgotten about.
Another problem with the mixed CW2 brigades, specifically Union brigades, is that Union cavalry from New England entirely, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc, exist only as part of infantry brigades. I really dislike that, too.
As such, building by regiment would be an exciting step forward.

Yep, the mixed brigades is really the main thing that turned me off about CW2.

And I agree on 5-day turns. I just said 7-day because it's a clean week, but yes, 5-days would make more sense from a pure realism standpoint.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Yep, the mixed brigades is really the main thing that turned me off about CW2.

And I agree on 5-day turns. I just said 7-day because it's a clean week, but yes, 5-days would make more sense from a pure realism standpoint.

Again on the subject of mixed brigades; were they not a thing in the original ACW? It's been quite a while since I played that and I don't remember.

[StatboyVT]

Yep, the mixed brigades is really the main thing that turned me off about CW2.

And I agree on 5-day turns. I just said 7-day because it's a clean week, but yes, 5-days would make more sense from a pure realism standpoint.

Again on the subject of mixed brigades; were they not a thing in the original ACW? It's been quite a while since I played that and I don't remember.

I believe that they were a thing, though maybe not as much as in CW2. But I always played with the Clovis mod, which eliminated the mixed brigades.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Again on the subject of mixed brigades; were they not a thing in the original ACW? It's been quite a while since I played that and I don't remember.

I believe that they were a thing, though maybe not as much as in CW2. But I always played with the Clovis mod, which eliminated the mixed brigades.

Where do I download the original from? I want it just for old times sake

[StatboyVT]

I believe you can still get the original ACW game on the Matrix website.

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Cheers!

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Some of these ideas are being included in an upcoming mod that a couple of fine young men are working on

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

viewtopic.php?f=340&t=54285

Check out the new hotness

[Duc de Montebello]

Some of these ideas are being included in an upcoming mod that a couple of fine young men are working on

When will you give preview of the work?

[Blood and Thunder Brigade]

Some of these ideas are being included in an upcoming mod that a couple of fine young men are working on

When will you give preview of the work?

You can get a glimpse of it here, mate
viewtopic.php?f=340&t=54285