Narwhal wrote:As a future AACW2 player (though I did not play the first one), and as a player of everysingle other AGEOD game, I am not too much in favor of this, which is in my opinion simulated as a proxy by supply / ammo level.
Narwhal wrote:If you want to fine tune, wouldn't that be better simulated by tying better the level of cohesion, supply & strategic rating. For instance :
- A good strategic rating would allow commander to have more supply/munition than the "normal" maximum, [say up to 200% for a level 6 strat general] provided they get from one of those major depots.
- In addition to allowing to hold longer, having more than 100% of the maximum supply / ammo would give a combat bonus
- Having less than 75% of the "normal" maximum would give a cohesion malus. Currently, a player only has a malus when the supplies reach 0.
You would have to take the supply wagons out of the equation, though.
Still not in favor. Would be in favor of having [current ammo / total ammo] have an impact on combat efficiency.
Narwhal wrote:"Intercept" => I am in favor in theory, but I see so many issues with it. The worst issue would be how to determine how strong a force should be intercepted. If the enemy tries to sneak some light cavalry, or some partisan, should you all army follow suit and lose its better position.
Ace wrote:Campaign points would be a new rule which would only complicate campaign managing. Imagine, you are at the gates of Richmond, but have to stop because you expended your campaign points. I do not want that. But, imagine, you have to stop because your troops are exhausted and you are in need of rest, that I can imagine and handle. If you are worried about loads of activity being unhistorical, just tone down the cohesion recovery while out of depot a little down. It would bring the desired result with a logical feel to it.
Ace wrote:I see you are worried about armies spread out holding a front line instead being in their depot waiting for the opponent's move. Heightened attrition, if out of radius of mayor depot (a x province radius from the mayor depot-the exact number should be tested in gameplay) had crossed my mind. It would force the armies to stick to their supply source and not spread out in ww1 style frontline.
Ace wrote:Another point regarding entrenchment. As it is now, it is possible for a militia to build and guard entrenchments which can later be occupied by an merging Army. While playing as CSA, I used to have a bunch of cav and milita with cheap art behind the frontline making and guarding entrenchments which can be occupied if my front line is being pushed back. I had multiple lines of defence this way. This is unhistorical, and could be prevented. When merging units, the entr lvl should be average of 2 merging stacks, not the entr lvl of the stack being merged to.
(Possible formula:
unit A entrenchment*unit A weight + unit B entrenchment*unit B weight) / Unit (A+B)weight =
New unit entrenchment)
This way if a lone cavalry joins entrenched big army stack, no entenchment would change, but if a moving army joins entrenched cavalry, enrenchments would be reduced to 0. If two stacks of equal size (one entrenched to lvl 8, and one to lvl 0) should merge, new entrenchment would be 4.
I hope I formulated this clearly, English is my foreign language after all.
Cheers!
caranorn wrote:That Campaign Point idea sounds interesting, but I'm pretty sure not implementable, at least not for release. This would also give army commanders a bigger role I think...
Army Intercept I find even more important as it's essentially the reason for the front lines we have to form in the game now. If armies could intercept in a reasonable radius corps could be kept more concentrated near the depots. This might also be easier to implement, though I expect still not in time for release...
As to the running out of CaP (to differentiate from Command Points CP) in front of Richmond. You'd have the options to a) try and attack anyhow with an exhausted army, b) build a new major depot close to Richmond and thereby maintain your army in the field but static for a few turns, or c) return to your original depot and prepare for a new campaign along the same lines as the previous one. In a way the Confederate Maryland Campaign might be an example of an army running out of CaP before achieving it's objective (campaign cost could be variable, for instance operating in friendly territory less costly than in enemy or neutral, in this case Lee was gambling that Maryland was friendly when it really turned out as neutral, other factors could be weather, subordinate officers (positive as well as negative) etc.), where Lee chose d) go on the defensive while pondering the other alternatives, as McClellan still had CaP he could assault Lee's position finally forcing him to return to his depot...
So I like those ideas, but I think they'd be more for an AACW-III or a DLC thazn AACW-II at publication as I expect Pocus would have to change a lot of code and afterwards it would have to be thoroughly tested...
DrPostman wrote:At the very least, the "Seahawk of the Confederacy", Charles W. Read, should be represented
along with George Holins and James Waddell, all 3 of which should start as 1 star (1 anchor).
Perhaps even James Montgomery with low stats to represent his poor command (at the Battle
of Memphis). More than once I've played a game where I've poured more money into ships
than historically (I really want that option preserved too) and wished I could have more
than just 2 commanders. By the same token the 2 "Liverpool Rams" ought to require payment
in order to have the event even happen (make them an option perhaps) with at least a 50%
chance of them being seized by the British, if not higher.
khbynum wrote:I agree completely. I'll also make one more plea for giving the CSA player the option to build ironclads, and instead use that war supply, etc to do something else such as building coastal artillery, improving railroads or building wooden gunboats in larger numbers. I've always regarded the South's fascination with ironclads as equivalent to Hitler wasting money on rocketry when he should have been building u-boats and Panther tanks (no other historical comparison implied or intended). Other than the Arkansas and Albemarle, I can't think of a single case where CSA ironclads made a tactical difference. Virginia, and later the Richmond squadron made an operational difference in that theater, appropriate to the level of this game, but I'd like the option to try something different.
khbynum wrote:I agree completely. I'll also make one more plea for giving the CSA player the option to build ironclads, and instead use that war supply, etc to do something else such as building coastal artillery, improving railroads or building wooden gunboats in larger numbers. I've always regarded the South's fascination with ironclads as equivalent to Hitler wasting money on rocketry when he should have been building u-boats and Panther tanks (no other historical comparison implied or intended). Other than the Arkansas and Albemarle, I can't think of a single case where CSA ironclads made a tactical difference. Virginia, and later the Richmond squadron made an operational difference in that theater, appropriate to the level of this game, but I'd like the option to try something different.
Wraith wrote:Honestly, though, there are so many of those enforced things that I'd rather just get something else for; namely, most of the "raiders" or militia units I'd rather just get the WS and CC, as opposed to so many free reinforcements into a section that I might not even use all that often.
Ace wrote:Building forts was a major undertaking, just hitting the button and deducting from your stockpile wouldn't simulate time and effort for building it. Building supply wagons and artillery and moving it to the location somewhat simulates it.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Raiders are not near as useful as they were, however. And they did some fantastic things during the war.
Both McNeil and Mosby captured generals in the field. Jackson’s train raid was awesome. They tied down huge amounts of troops to protect infrastructure. Raiders also captured shipping on waterways and cannels.
Ambush should work much better for partisan units too. They often eluded large forces sent after them and killed or captured much larger units sent after them.
McNeill led a charge of his 50 men that routed and captured a force 5 times their size. In the west, whole areas were just given up on as too costly and difficult to control. The Union resorted to reprisals against civilians in an effort to stop it. Needless to say that only made things worse. Burning towns and hanging innocent people has a way of even turning supporters against you.
The extent of the guerrilla war in the west is lacking in the game. Missouri and Arkansas were more guerrilla theaters rather than of organized armies. Not that there were no organized CS troops from the states, they were just sent east.
http://www.harding.edu/jndockery/Harding/HIST_402_files/SUTHERLAND%20GUERRILLAS.pdf
chainsaw wrote:I'm all for anything that reduces my micromanagement and increases my enjoyment of the game. Why make the player plan and implement 6 steps to achieve one goal: a new fortress at point X on the map? Can't we all agree that it costs a lot of material, artillery, war supply, money, etc and requires labor and time but that making it easier to actually do that as the player is a good thing?
I don't have to dig the coal, mine the iron ore, shear the sheep, hire the labor to make the rifles, ammo and uniforms for a new infantry brigade.![]()
chainsaw wrote:I'm all for anything that reduces my micromanagement and increases my enjoyment of the game. Why make the player plan and implement 6 steps to achieve one goal: a new fortress at point X on the map? Can't we all agree that it costs a lot of material, artillery, war supply, money, etc and requires labor and time but that making it easier to actually do that as the player is a good thing?
I don't have to dig the coal, mine the iron ore, shear the sheep, hire the labor to make the rifles, ammo and uniforms for a new infantry brigade.![]()
Clurgyruitly wrote:meiliugg5 Calyste watched all the landing from the luggage, sending your line michael kors satchel every so often a glance at Croisic, through which he hoped to see a second boat make to cross to the small promontory, and reveal michael kors hamilton carriers him Beatrix, actually to an individual's eyes which Beatrice was to Dante, a fabulous marble porcelain figurine on which to hang his garlands and his awesome flowers. You'll people find out the travelling container as aCoach Retailer Store Onlinepossible daily case so as to commute towards your workplaceCoach Outlet Onlineand even today utilize it when by encouraging cover its the womenCoach Shop Store Onlineduring the night time. Many of them get timelessCoach Outlet Retailer Onlinepatterns.
I have to declare that I love Acquire End Fabric. What I appreciate even more is they always have magnificent stuff on discount sales, so, at all like me still around my buy anything decent pertaining to fear of it being ravaged within 5 minutes by a One, 2, Contemplate, and/or 6 year old, or more possible me action, I can get a heap of really great dresses that make perhaps me appearance decent even though covered in every one sorts of youngster good So i don be required to feel bad that I merely ruined some thing which I expended too much about. In my scenario $5 is really an excessive amount to spend with anything that will go near our 4 little ones.
Beginning with the well-known, the standard jean continues to be seen with many different silhouettes with an array of accessory. This season "patch work" is apparent. AG Adriano Goldschmied jeans are usually complete development of spots while the Disparity presents one small random use.
Captain_Orso wrote:I've been monitoring this thread waiting for some, so-to-say, Meat-n-Potatoes™ arguments for Campaign-Points, but I'm sorry to say that I just don't see any.
Armies of the time didn't go into camp because it would take weeks and months to gather supplies again and to rest the troops. That could be done in a matter of days and weeks at the most as long as a depot was nearby. Mainly they went into camp because the weather was or had turned bad. With the poor condition of the roads there was little to no point to campaign during late fall, winter an early spring. You would just run down your troops to get them moving at a snail's pace. And in general, since you had to maneuver around your enemy they had less marching to do that the attacker, so it was seldom an option.
And no, the troops did not camp on the depots either. That would be a grave strategic error, for any movement of the enemy forcing your army to react and leave the depot would leave the depot unprotected. Depots were generally not on the front in the battlefield, but in the hinterland. Exceptions are when the battlefield moved to the depot.
Also it does not take weeks and months to recover from march and battles--I'm not talking about the wounded here. Unless a force has exhausted itself so greatly that a large number of the troops are ill and/or injured from the effort--this would be covered by the attrition rules--they would not need weeks and months to recover.
aryaman wrote:As an Historian focused on premodern military history I would like to clarify the point of campaigns in winter season. There are multiple examples of those campaigns, however it is true that most of the time it was avoided. The reason for that is not the weather in itself, it is the lack of green fodder for the horses and mules. Fodder was the largest supply item for any army, a horse requirement being more than five times the weight of what a soldier required (and taking still much more room in cart). If an army moved out of camp in winter season, aproximately between December and April/May it would find very little green fodder, and could not supply itself while in the march, so that the supply required for the army from a his supply depot would be greatly increased, and since the extra supply required would be carried in carts, any extra cart would add to the supply requirement. To add to this, the condition of the horses would deteriorate fast. For all this, armies that elected to campaign in winter were exposed to suffer a very high attrition.
That in the game should be translated into a high attrition/loss of cohesion for armies moving not just in bad weather, but in the time period in which green fodder was not available in the field. Bad weather will add misery but it is not the main factor itself.
Stauffenberg wrote:It was really wonderful how our numbers increased during this month. Brigades which had been reduced until they only looked like only small regiments began again to look like brigades. Not only did the tens of thousands of stragglers left along the roadsides in our marches come back, but a good many fresh men from home came on, & were incorporated in the old regiments, & we began to feel that we again had an army.... McClellan sat quietly on the north side, likewise employed in getting reinforcements & supplies & getting his army in the best possible shape. He must be credited for knowing how to do that, even if he never learned how to fight it.
Ace wrote:Just make replacements rate slower at a depot, and at a snail's pace when out of depot, and you will get the desired effect. In your quote, the armies where resting because they were receiving and training their replacements.
I was always amazed how fast the regiments would show up at full strength anyway. The time for regiment refitting should be near the time needed to build a new one (little faster than building a new one when using replacements on a depot, and slower when out of depot).
aryaman wrote:As an Historian focused on premodern military history I would like to clarify the point of campaigns in winter season. There are multiple examples of those campaigns, however it is true that most of the time it was avoided. The reason for that is not the weather in itself, it is the lack of green fodder for the horses and mules. Fodder was the largest supply item for any army, a horse requirement being more than five times the weight of what a soldier required (and taking still much more room in cart). If an army moved out of camp in winter season, aproximately between December and April/May it would find very little green fodder, and could not supply itself while in the march, so that the supply required for the army from a his supply depot would be greatly increased, and since the extra supply required would be carried in carts, any extra cart would add to the supply requirement. To add to this, the condition of the horses would deteriorate fast. For all this, armies that elected to campaign in winter were exposed to suffer a very high attrition.
That in the game should be translated into a high attrition/loss of cohesion for armies moving not just in bad weather, but in the time period in which green fodder was not available in the field. Bad weather will add misery but it is not the main factor itself.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:I think you are missing that the war was fought in the southern US. The weather determines grass growth. If it is too hot or too cold you have the same problem.
Grass will grow from about 56°F to about 88°F. Water levels are also a factor but mainly in summer.
If it is just a matter of green forage than July to September are also a great problem in those regions as that is when grass goes dormant due to the heat.
Late February to June and October to mid November is when there is the most forage but of those months before May are also some of the wettest of the year, making campaigning difficult. That only leaves two months of prime campaign weather by your standards.
Of course in the more southerly regions grass and fodder would grow almost the year round.
The game’s weather model is also on the severe side. Even though it was a cold period of history there were not long periods of freezing weather and deep snow. The lower Ohio, the Arkansas, middle and lower Mississippi, and the lower Missouri Rivers did not freeze during the years of the war. The Appalachian and Ozark Mountains are not prone to blizzard conditions. Those are rather found on the plains from Kansas northward with the occasional blizzard reaching into Texas, mostly in the west and north west of that state, and the Great Lakes region where lake effect snow is always possible during cold periods.
Here is a link that will give a bit of information on horses in the ACW:
http://www.reillysbattery.org/Newsletter/Jul00/deborah_grace.htm
Pasturing horses was avoided when possible. Horse fodder was a commissary item.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests