User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25673
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

---> AACW Public Beta Patch 1.09c

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:13 pm

Hello again :niark:


http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/patch_AACW_v1.09c.zip

==============================================================================
AGEod's American Civil War Update 1.09 a > c
February 21st, 2008 > March 3rd, 2008
==============================================================================

This patch contains all changes since the start.
Warning: All railroads improvements will not be impacted in current games though, although no additional side effects will appears.

[1.09c]
- Units now move at the speed of their slowest element (all compensating effects removed)
- Slight modifications to the model database, for the Gun per Hits entry. A more significant set of modifications are planned latter.
- fixed: A bug preventing the longuer transitions costs between 2 regions to be calculated correctly.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:19 pm

Pocus wrote:
[1.09c]
- Units now move at the speed of their slowest element (all compensating effects removed).


Okay, that seems logical.

However, does this now mean that movement in the game is too slow? Now that units will move at the speed of their artillery, is this speed fast enough to get historical results, or do movement speeds/cohesion losses need to be tweaked as well to get reasonable speeds?

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:42 pm

Movement has always been too slow. I remember some posts about the impossibility to recreate the speed of Sherman's March to the sea. Recently tests was done with the same result about Bragg's 1862 campaign in the Kentucky.

So the new change is just adding slowiness.

I frankly believe the old system to be a reasonable compromise. This new solution is going to introduce new gamey tactics like units tailored to go fast ( without artillery), strange results like cavalry with horseartillery maybe slower than infantry units without guns ... :innocent:
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:44 pm

Everything will work fine if the right numbers are used. It is just a matter of plugging in reasonable march speeds for infantry, cavalry and artillery. Cohesion loss for the different arms while moving also needs to be considered, because cohesion loss means slower movement also.

Tweak the numbers until Bragg's march and Shermans march are possible in the game.

For clarity, let's keep weather out of the discussion for now, and consider movement in dry conditions.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:01 pm

runyan99 wrote:Everything will work fine if the right numbers are used. It is just a matter of plugging in reasonable march speeds for infantry, cavalry and artillery. Cohesion loss for the different arms while moving also needs to be considered, because cohesion loss means slower movement also.

Tweak the numbers until Bragg's march and Shermans march are possible in the game.

For clarity, let's keep weather out of the discussion for now, and consider movement in dry conditions.


Disagreeing: the distorsion between units with artillery and units without artillery will be too huge to not create problems. I don't see how avoiding an infantry unit without guns to move quicker than a cavalry one with guns
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:04 pm

Clovis wrote: I don't see how avoiding an infantry unit without guns to move quicker than a cavalry one with guns


Historically, did an infantry brigade without guns move faster than a cavalry brigade with horse artillery? That would suprise me.

If it did, then implementing that move speed would be historical.

GrudgeBringer
Captain
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:25 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:19 pm

When you say "all changes" does this include all the mods like the 'Leader Mod' ect? (I REALLY hope so)
The Good General looks to Win and then to Battle while the Poor General looks to Battle and Hopes to win.

Sun Tzu

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:21 pm

The leader mod is not being officialized at this time. I'm sure Pocus has listed the major changes.

GrudgeBringer
Captain
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:25 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:24 pm

ALSO, (sorry But I have only one copy and no hard copy backup) If this is a beta patch should I wait until it becomes 'official' as I have only one shot to get it right?
The Good General looks to Win and then to Battle while the Poor General looks to Battle and Hopes to win.



Sun Tzu

User avatar
runyan99
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:34 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:26 pm

That's your call. You can always reinstall the game if you have the setup file you downloaded.

GrudgeBringer
Captain
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:25 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:29 pm

Thats what I mean, I only have the digital D/L so while i would think that this patch is ok to use (as I have complete faith in you guys) I was just trying to get your opinion so I wouldn't have to pony up the bucks agian if something happened....Thanks
The Good General looks to Win and then to Battle while the Poor General looks to Battle and Hopes to win.



Sun Tzu

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:38 pm

GrudgeBringer wrote:Thats what I mean, I only have the digital D/L so while i would think that this patch is ok to use (as I have complete faith in you guys) I was just trying to get your opinion so I wouldn't have to pony up the bucks agian if something happened....Thanks


Hi

The executable you download will not be touched by this or any other patch. The patches go to the installation folder you get when you install the downloaded executable.
In any case, you should backup the downloaded game someway. Like burning the executable (and a txt file with your serial number) on a CD-R or DVD-R or storing it on another hard disc or on a memory stick... or both things.
This kind of security copy of the game its not only legal and allowed, it is also strongly recommended.
That way you will be able to install and reinstall, and keep the game even if your computer breaks.

Regards

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:12 pm

I frankly believe the old system to be a reasonable compromise. This new solution is going to introduce new gamey tactics like units tailored to go fast ( without artillery), strange results like cavalry with horseartillery maybe slower than infantry units without guns




I'm somewhat confused. Clovis seems to be implying that horse artillery is programmed to move slower than foot infantry. Is this so? If it is does that mean that all artillery moves at the same rate and that size and type are not part of the movement formula?

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:29 pm

soundoff wrote:I'm somewhat confused. Clovis seems to be implying that horse artillery is programmed to move slower than foot infantry. Is this so? If it is does that mean that all artillery moves at the same rate and that size and type are not part of the movement formula?



I guess AI isn't aware of this new rule. So as she form sometimes infantry units with siege artillery, you give to the player one new advantage in unit formation, by tailoring fast infantry units or superfast cavalry ones...

All that is, I fear, full of side effects...
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:40 pm

you give to the player one new advantage in unit formation, by tailoring fast infantry units or superfast cavalry ones...


I dont see why Clovis. If the speed formula is Cavalry then Horse Artillery, then Infantry, then Foot Artillery with formations moving at the speed of the slowest element. Then adding Horse Artillery to Infantry will not make the infantry go faster...it will just slow down the Horse Artillery. Likewise adding Horse Artillery to Cavalry will slow the cavalry down to Horse Artillery speed. Surely thats how it should be. And as there is not enough Horse Artillery to 'go around' for every division or brigade it seems right.

P.S. As I'm like a monkey with a microwave as far as computers go can someone kindly tell me how to get the 'originally posted by.....etc etc..... into my posts. I feel so discurteous to fellow players.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:51 pm

soundoff wrote:I dont see why Clovis. If the speed formula is Cavalry then Horse Artillery, then Infantry, then Foot Artillery with formations moving at the speed of the slowest element. Then adding Horse Artillery to Infantry will not make the infantry go faster...it will just slow down the Horse Artillery. Likewise adding Horse Artillery to Cavalry will slow the cavalry down to Horse Artillery speed. Surely thats how it should be. And as there is not enough Horse Artillery to 'go around' for every division or brigade it seems right.

P.S. As I'm like a monkey with a microwave as far as computers go can someone kindly tell me how to get the 'originally posted by.....etc etc..... into my posts. I feel so discurteous to fellow players.


Never forget AI doesn't know putting a Parrot unit in a cavalry unit is slowing the whole. Until now, the movement mechanisms had partly addressed this by reducing the worser effects. Now AI is possibly not better in computing unit composition but the difference in movement rates will be more important. It will give to human player a new edge over AI.

Tht's my primary focus. All the rest can be tweaked but AI has once again lost a battle here...
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:52 pm

Clovis wrote:We can tweak Horse artillery to go faster than infantry. But in this case, we will have new gamey possibilities like giving horse artillery to infantry units.

And I guess AI isn't aware of this new rule. So as she form sometimes infantry units with siege artillery, you give to the player one new advantage in unit formation, by tailoring fast infantry units or superfast cavalry ones...

All that is, I fear, full of side effects...

Hi!
I don't think to give horse arty to infantry units is gamey. Its an option with his advantages and his disadvantages. You pay the increased cost and get less power but higher mobility. Its a choice. Choices are good, IMHO.
The same with using infantry or cavalry units without arty or wagons. Is a fair trade off between speed or hitting power.
Gamey is putting siege arty inside a division and get all the good things and not the bad things.

About the AI, i dont know if she will be wise enough to make this fast forces. But still, his disadvantages will be far less than againts a player that use the real gamey combinations (cav+siege and the like).
Athena wont make gamey combos except by chance and probably wont make fast forces either except by chance. But the difference between a normal and fast force is balanced whereas the difference between a gamey and normal combos is huge.
I don't think the AI will be worst now.
Still, this is a beta patch and probably testing will show that some increse on the speed of the guns or on the cohesion lost by movement is in order.
But that is just tweaking a normal and realistic setup.
Far better than trying to fix an irreal and prone to "real" gamey tactics setup.
Just my 2 cents...

Regards

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:53 pm

runyan99 wrote:Historically, did an infantry brigade without guns move faster than a cavalry brigade with horse artillery? That would suprise me.

If it did, then implementing that move speed would be historical.


Verified the files: indeed this case will not happen given the cureent move rates.

Unfortunatly, I fear distinction between units with guns and without guns will give to human player an edge over AI.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:56 pm

Clovis wrote:Never forget AI doesn't know putting a Parrot unit in a cavalry unit is slowing the whole. Until now, the movement mechanisms had partly addressed this by reducing the worser effects. Now AI is possibly not better in computing unit composition but the difference in movement rates will be more important. It will give to human player a new edge over AI.

Tht's my primary focus. All the rest can be tweaked but AI has once again lost a battle here...


This is only aplicable to divisions make ups.
For my experience, the Ai is prone to mix division with lone batteries, brigades wagons or whatever on a stack losing the advantages most of the time.
Now, the organized and tidy stacks of the player and the "messed up" of the ai will be on equal ground..,

regards!

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:58 pm

arsan wrote:Hi!
I don't think to give horse arty to infantry units is gamey. Its an option with his advantages and his disadvantages. You pay the increased cost and get less power but higher mobility.

Regards


Wrong historically and partially. A large part of Horse artillery was made of 6 pounder and 3 inch ordnance, the only difference being the crew was mounted and not on foot.

I guess power was somewhat reduced but not really considerably.

What limited the generalization of mounted crews was...the lack of horses...Horses production isn't simulated in AACW... We may raise the WSU and money to simulate this, of course, but once again, AI will not be aware of thes changes and I guess she will buy cheaper units first...
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:58 pm

soundoff wrote:.

P.S. As I'm like a monkey with a microwave as far as computers go can someone kindly tell me how to get the 'originally posted by.....etc etc..... into my posts. I feel so discurteous to fellow players.


Just use the "Quote" button you find below the message you want to quote.
Regards

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:02 pm

arsan wrote:This is only aplicable to divisions make ups.
For my experience, the Ai is prone to mix division with lone batteries, brigades wagons or whatever on a stack losing the advantages most of the time.
Now, the organized and tidy stacks of the player and the "messed up" of the ai will be on equal ground..,

regards!


AS player, I will form form infantry units without gun. They will move at a rate of 4 when cavalry moves to 3, when AI units with guns will move to 5...

Interestingly, HOOKER attempted before Chancelorsville to create a light infantry division, but this unit was rather quickly dissolved as being of few military utility...

Now iin AACW having 4 brigades of infantry whose Attack and Defense factors are ghigher than cavalry units have moving quickly to enter a region is something interesting in opportunity.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:41 pm

arsan wrote:Hi!


About the AI, i dont know if she will be wise enough to make this fast forces. But still, his disadvantages will be far less than againts a player that use the real gamey combinations (cav+siege and the like).
Athena wont make gamey combos except by chance and probably wont make fast forces either except by chance. But the difference between a normal and fast force is balanced whereas the difference between a gamey and normal combos is huge.
I don't think the AI will be worst now.
Still, this is a beta patch and probably testing will show that some increse on the speed of the guns or on the cohesion lost by movement is in order.
But that is just tweaking a normal and realistic setup.
Far better than trying to fix an irreal and prone to "real" gamey tactics setup.
Just my 2 cents...

Regards


My point isn't that shouldn't be fixed. what I fear is the " fix" will lead to new gamey tricks.

Another solution, excluding some units to be integrated in divisions ( mostly heavy artillery) would have placed AI and human player on the same foot.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:51 pm

Clovis wrote:AS player, I will form form infantry units without gun. They will move at a rate of 4 when cavalry moves to 3, when AI units with guns will move to 5...

Interestingly, HOOKER attempted before Chancelorsville to create a light infantry division, but this unit was rather quickly dissolved as being of few military utility...

Now iin AACW having 4 brigades of infantry whose Attack and Defense factors are ghigher than cavalry units have moving quickly to enter a region is something interesting in opportunity.



I really do understand where you are coming from Clovis. Not that I play against a computer AI.....however good they are never up to the task. Someday perhaps but I dont think in my lifetime. However given that the majority will play against the AI rather than another human opponent I can see the logic in not weakening the AI

The fundamental problem I have with your view however is that it 'dumbs down' wargaming. For thats what ACW is. A strategy wargame and a good one at that. The difficulty for me however is that if you give the AI a so called equal chance by making movement unrealistic it seems to me that you automatically kill one of the central tenants of historical accuracy in a wargame.......that different types of unit move at different speeds. If you ignore that for movement then what about ignoring it for the ranges for weapons. Why not have a musket firing as far as a 12lb artillery piece. Then we can go a step further and say lets ignore class of troops.....no more A,B,C,D,E etc or whatever names you give to them - Militia to Elite. A soldier is a soldier irrespective of whether he is a new reluctant recruit or a seasoned campaigner.

Yes I know at one level I'm going to extremes but by allowing siege artillery to be linked with cavalry and not slow the cavalry down, as was the case, is going to the same extreme.

As I think Gray Lensman said as well, the trouble is that the engine is used for other AGEOD games of the same genre so the problems probably bleed automatically into say the Campaigns of Napoleon...where light infantry brigades at least were very well established and to an extent speed of movement was everything.

Now I'm no ACW expert, I'm a Brit and although I have a love of the period I am more familiar with my own Napoleonic era. It has always seemed to me that the ACW straddled two types of conflict one being the fast moving Napoleonic era and the other being the entrenched warfare model of WWI which may be part of the problem.

To nail flags to the mast, I would have been quite happy with just making it that certain elements could not form up with others....eg seige artillery to be used on its own. I could even possibly be pursuaded to say cavalry can only be brigaded with horse artillery...though my knowledge of the period is not strong enough to say whether that was the norm but I do reckon that once it was out in the open that divisions did not move at the 'slowest' speed of their component parts that something had to be done.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:57 pm

soundoff wrote:
The fundamental problem I have with your view however is that it 'dumbs down' wargaming. For thats what ACW is. A strategy wargame and a good one at that.





Frankly the solution adopted is no more realist. Taking artillery in Gettysburg day one ( interesting case of meeting battle). It doesn't seem artillery to have played on first day a major role. They were some guns, but on the whole, it seems CSA infantry attacked without artillery support in the first hours.

So the new rule isn't much more realistic.

What seems to be forgotten is AACW is a strategical/operational game. As such, its tactical part is abstracted, both for battle and movement. In reality, the problem is to get a move rate compatible with fast moves on strategic/operational level like Sherman's march to the sea or Bragg's Kentucky campaign. In this sense, the precedent rate was slighty too slow. The new is worse and unfortunatly doesn't adress tactical part better. In a region 100 kilometers wide, the fact your artillery is straggling a few kilometers back to infantry doesn't have meaning on strategical/operational part. The same for any WW2 game representing an armored division with one counter...in reality the support units embedded in this division were always a few kilometers back...and artillery too when it was tracked. that's a compromise.

The point to adress is here., not on the tactical side to know if such a unit when attacked will have immediatly the support of artillery or a few hours later.

Considering how abstracted remains the battle system in AACW ( and rightly as it isn't the scope of the game), I feel this change to be almost uneccessary in realism on tactical level and totally wrong on strategical/operational side.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Jabberwock
Posts: 2204
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Weymouth, MA
Contact: ICQ

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:07 am

Clovis wrote:My point isn't that shouldn't be fixed. what I fear is the " fix" will lead to new gamey tricks.

Another solution, excluding some units to be integrated in divisions ( mostly heavy artillery) would have placed AI and human player on the same foot.


The new gamey tricks will have much less impact than the old gamey tricks.

I hope more players do try light infantry divisions. Most who do will only try it once. Sending in unsupported infantry is a quick way to get a whole lot of dead infantry.

I don't think you will find Athena has lost here. If you do find that, then it will merely point out that she was using a crutch. For her to grow up, she needs to throw away the crutch.
[color="DimGray"] You deserve to be spanked[/color]

Image

User avatar
arsan
Posts: 6244
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:35 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:08 am

If current movement rates are too slow to reflect historic cases, they can be tweaked. But always taking a reasonable setup as a base.
To simulate Bragg or Sherman speed by allowing siege guns moves at cavalry speed is no better solution that allowing them to use motorized pools like the WW2 armies.
Both are bad and irreal solutions.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:11 am

Jabberwock wrote:The new gamey tricks will have much less impact than the old gamey tricks.

I hope more players do try light infantry divisions. Most who do will only try it once. Sending in unsupported infantry is a quick way to get a whole lot of dead infantry.

I don't think you will find Athena has lost here. If you do find that, then it will merely point out that she was using a crutch. For her to grow up, she needs to throw away the crutch.


With the original files, yes. As I found only 10% of losses on battlefield came from artillery fires, I reduced their hit values... So I guess it will be more notable in my own version than in vanilla.

You're reasoning here in pure game terms. I doubt historically failure of the light division was due to artillery problem.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:12 am

arsan wrote:To simulate Bragg or Sherman speed by allowing siege guns moves at cavalry speed is no better solution that allowing them to use motorized pools like the WW2 armies.
Both are bad and irreal solutions.


Never said a solution isn't needed. I just disagree on the current solution. :niark:

BTW this current solution is jsut worsening this difficulty, yet existing but which will more evident....unless Sherman decides to move without artillery... :bonk:
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
soundoff
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:23 am

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:21 am

Clovis wrote:Frankly the solution adopted is no more realist. Taking artillery in Gettysburg day one ( interesting case of meeting battle). It doesn't seem artillery to have played on first day a major role. They were some guns, but on the whole, it seems CSA infantry attacked without artillery support in the first hours.

So the new rule isn't much more realistic.

What seems to be forgotten is AACW is a strategical/operational game. As such, its tactical part is abstracted, both for battle and movement. In reality, the problem is to get a move rate compatible with fast moves on strategic/operational level like Sherman's march to the sea or Bragg's Kentucky campaign. In this sense, the precedent rate was slighty too slow. The new is worse and unfortunatly doesn't adress tactical part better. In a region 100 kilometers wide, the fact your artillery is straggling a few kilometers back to infantry doesn't have meaning on strategical/operational part. The same for any WW2 game representing an armored division with one counter...in reality the support units embedded in this division were always a few kilometers back...and artillery too when it was tracked. that's a compromise.

The point to adress is here., not on the tactical side to know if such a unit when attacked will have immediatly the support of artillery or a few hours later.

Considering how abstracted remains the battle system in AACW ( and rightly as it isn't the scope of the game), I feel this change to be almost uneccessary in realism on tactical level and totally wrong on strategical/operational side.


Oh yes it will be Clovis. To take your own example if the CSA want to fight a 'realistic' Gettysburg then the Infantry will have to outstrip the Artillery in pace...not arrive at the same time. Otherwise they move at the slower artillery speed and allow the Union forces to become entrenched in position.

Similarly, AACW does not represent the equivalent of a WW2 armoured division with one counter...that really is the whole point. In order to make the equivalent of the WW2 armoured division the player has to join units together. If you are going to use that as a suggestion then lets only have divisions from the start....and not components of them.

I still see where you are coming from...but I totally disagree with your premises as you do with mine....thats the trouble with wargaming in any medium...you can argue for hours

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests