leader activation, traits and uncertainty.

[veji1]

Reading the Corps exploit thread I happened to read a sentence from Pocus saying :

Also, done on purpose, is to calculate activation status for the next turn, so that the players can know if a given leader is active or not (deemed too frustrating for most players otherwise).

I understand the decision was made otherwise players would commit seppuku because of the unforeseeability of a general moving, etc.. Nevertheless I think this sort of goes against the whole philosophy of activation rules... We should have to risk a leader not being activated, and plan our orders accordingly, meaning the CSA player in 1862-63 could plan to play aggressively in the east because with good leaders chances would be that his troops would move accordingly and he wouldn't end up having a corps isolated because the others were inactive. On the contrary a USA player would have to be very conservative in the east in order to withstand the inevitable inactivity of many leaders... Would make sense. Now a player can see who is active and who isn't and can therefore find his way around that aspect of the game.

Now add that to the possibility given to modders to create or add traits that can be used specifically when a leader is active or inactive. This possibility isn't that interesting if we can see by advance if the leader is active or not, while with surprise this whole trait building would be a lot more interesting.

Say I have this general, Joe Johnston, that has a trait that says that when he is inactive he can will automatically try to retreat if attacked, well he might be a good general but I can't take the risk of him commanding a key defensive line because if he ends up inactive I'll lose my position..

Say we have a leader like Bragg who if inactive gains a trait that makes his stack lose cohesion... Well he is a not too bad as a leader when active, but if he gets attacked while inactive his troops become very likely to rout...

All these possibilities would be interesting if and only if we don't know beforehand that a leader is active.. I would really like to at least be able to have an option toggle for that, it would make planning and playing a lot more challenging...

[Brausepaul]

First, I do see some logic in the proposal to hide activation status, but I get a bad feeling about new players trying to understand the rational behind this when they get to know the game. I'm sure the hardcore gamers and/or historians might like this, but the casual gamer looking for some entertainment might be put off by this. Making this an option could be one solution to please both sides, but let me add that Forge of Freedom's huge option screen (like "Customized CSA footware", "Replacement camps in all kind of flavors" and what not; okay, I do exaggerate a bit) was one thing that I really disliked right from the beginning.

[Jabberwock]

A manic/depressive Beauregard? Interesting concept.

[veji1]

Well let's just say that specially for PBEM, having it as an option would greatly affect the way players play, making them more conservative by fear of losing an isolated corps and therefore slowing down the game, which like many games, tends to go a bit too fast at the moment.

[soloswolf]

[quote but let me add that Forge of Freedom's huge option screen (like "Customized CSA footware", "Replacement camps in all kind of flavors" and what not; okay, I do exaggerate a bit) was one thing that I really disliked right from the beginning.[/QUOTE]

ROFL! And, agreed.

[WhoCares]

Activation also affects some other aspects handled while making your turn, e.g. the forming of divisions - an option to hide the envelope and tooltip information on activiation is not enough. It might require a new set of routines and maybe even rules to handle things like that. Otherwise I like the idea...