An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario - 9/23/2008 1:54:48 AM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

Since buying this game when it first came out, I have played exclusively as the Union side, 1861 campaign, and with CSC's on. I have given it a number of play throughs vs. the AI, have recently started a couple of PBEM games, and have been a close observer of discussions on this board. I am also a Civil War history buff, who has been both a student of the period, and have played conflict simulations of it ever since Eric Lee Smith's The Civil War came out in 1983. Based on this background, I would like to offer the following observations and would welcome the commentary of the community.

With all due respect to the designers, whom I believe have made an excellent game, I think that the 1861 leader file is flawed needs some significant work, at least from the Union perspective. The reason I say this is as follows. When you play the 1861 campaign as the Union, a couple of things tend to happen to you every time. First, the majority of the leaders arrive later than they did historically, sometimes significantly so. While you have no shortage of Alexander Asboths and his 1-2-2 contemporaries, you dont get the major corps commanders of the Army of the Potomac until such time as after the Peninsula campaign had already started. If you only get Sumner, Keyes, and the like in March or April 1862, and then only after wasting 25-30 picks on mostly obscure leaders who rarely played a prominent role in the war, it puts you at a significant disadvantage in prosecuting a campaign against the South. The same goes in the Western Theater, where men who commanded divisions in the Army of Tennessee, like Lew Wallace, WHL Wallace, and even Sherman, rarely show up prior to March or April 1862, meaning they arent going to be in position for a spring offensive, even though they had all participated as formation commanders in the Fts. Henry and Donelson campaign in early February. Particularly because getting initiative is so dicey, the Union first has to wait for the right commanders to show up, and then hope they get initiative sometime after they are deployed and troops attached to their formation.

The second issue is that in my opinion, too many of the Federal commanders come in both too late, and with too many command points. For example, many Union officers such as Reynolds, Meade, Hancock, Sykes, Sedgwick, and many other show up already capable of corps command. I think this contributes to what some would call the 'Virginia problem', where Union forces are very inactive in the first two years of the war. Historically, many epic battles and campaigns were fought during that time, but only a foolish Union player would repeatedly attack with the Army of the Potomac during that time in the game because his leaders were so inferior. Instead, it behooves you to wait for two years, and then when Reynolds, Hancock, and Meade show up, you put them in immediate command of a corps and then attack. This is something that would have never have happened historically. With no incentive to attack in Virginia, and the strong disincentive to attack because of the likelihood of major/strategic defeats giving the Confederate many PPs, not much happens out East, other than an ahistorical amount of Union amphibious invasions of the South.

I think that what should be done is for all of these Union officers to enter much earlier, but at a 1 star rank and a command rating of either 5 or 6. That way, they can command a division, but not a corps. If you want them to be able to command a corps, you have to use the Army of the Potomac to attack and give them the experience necessary that will improve their CP rating. It would also mean that they might be killed or wounded, just as in real life. During the Peninsula and Antietam campaigns, most of the future AoP corps commanders were commanding brigades or divisions. Since it might unbalance the game to start them all out at 2 or 3 CP colonels, I think 5 or 6 for all of them would be right. So, you get the leaders when they historically appear, but they have to earn the right to move to the top, and the only way to do that is for the Union to go out and fight, not wait.

The same situation should apply in the West. In my Glory Road AAR, I am in August 1864, and still dont have Andrew Jackson Smith yet, who historically played a big role in the 1862 and 1863 Western campaigns as a division and later as a corps commander. At the same time, leaders like McPherson, Schofield, and many other show up ready to take over a corps on day 1. Once again, I think these leaders should come in earlier, as brigadiers, with a CP rating of 5 or 6 -- just enough to keep them from starting as a corps commander, but not so much that it is unlikely that they will be able to command a corps after a few battles.

In my view, the only leaders that the Union should get that can come in and command a corps or army off the bat are mostly the political generals, such as Banks, Butler, Buell, Halleck, etc, and the Young Napoleon McClellan. The only leaders who should come in as corps commander eligible are the four original Army of the Potomac corps commanders, designated as such by Lincolns order in January 1862, Keyes, Heintzelman, Sumner, McDowell, plus the two Little Mac added, Porter and Franklin, and the politically connected Burnside, who had a large independent command. David Hunter and a handful of others should be in this group, but the rest should have to fight for the top.

When I look at the 1862 scenario, numerous Union leaders are in place as division commanders with precisely the 5 and 6 CP ratings I am talking about here. Slocum is there, as is Couch, as is Sedgwick, Sykes, Hooker, and others. Even Henry Hunt, the great AOP artillerist who made such a difference at Malvern Hill, and who normally doesnt show up in the 1861 campaign til much later. In the West, same thing, several divisional commanders in place, ready to go, at lower CP ratings than their counterparts in the 1861 scenario, who show up later and with higher CPs.

What I would propose would be this. Constructing a leader mod for the 1861 scenario whereby the entry dates are moved up for quite a few Federal, and some Confederate commanders, with a corresponding reduction in command ratings for all of the leaders. I would be curious as to what fellow gamers here think about this proposal, and also about the following?

1. If I move up the dates, but lower the CP rating, will it unbalance the game for the AI opponent?
2. What about actually being able to get the leaders? I am not sure how the percentage system works on the leader draw, and why certain leaders, such as Edward Morgan, cannot be ignored no matter what, and remain at 100% chance turn after turn until you pick them, whether you want them or not. So, if I make the changes I am contemplating, can I be sure that it wont result in just burying Sedwick, Meade, Hancock, Hooker, et al. in favor of the likes of Asboth and Abercrombie, thus defeating the purpose?
3. Should the same alterations be put in place for the Confederates as well? I know the ANV only went to a corps system after the Seven Days. At Seven Days, they were in divisional structure, albeit big divisions.
4. If I make a mod like this, is there interest among the players in using it? I am experienced at making mods, but it takes a long time. I did the original leader mod for AGEOD's AACW last summer, and it was a whale of a project. This would be shorter, as I have all my reference notes from that one, but still time consuming to do the data. I want to make sure I am on the right path, that there is an interest in this, and that I would not be inadvertently destroying game balance or mechanics in doing so.

In general , I dont have any quibbles with the ratings of the individual leaders, I think Gary and the team did a good job with that. It is more the arrival times and size of the CP rating, which as I mentioned makes it impossible for a Union player on the 1861 scenario to be able to accomplish the starting setup for the 1862 scenario of the same game by March 1862.

I would welcome the thoughts of the community on this idea.

Post #: 1

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 5:22:19 AM

wargamer123

Posts: 278
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

I think the fact the Union outweighs the South so heavily in so many ways so early, makes things tough, give leaders to an adept Yank and you may be facing a juggernaut that rips through the south much earlier than historical also! So how would you fix it, what if like in some other war games I played, Leaders as they did in history had to earn some of those Traits?

Personally as the Units have experience bars I think leaders should have to earn them too. Lee was an experienced General, and many Generals had to gain experience and lose a few before they won a few. The West is the perfect region for this, the North should not be Storming through Virginia for a year or two

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 2

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 8:04:12 AM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

A very interesting post.
I have noticed that basically whatever you activate as Union after 62 is a Corps Commander. I agree with you about the fact they have too many CP (luckily more than they can handle but they can still improve the CSC below them). Probably there should be many more colonels in the game, a higher mortality rating pushing you towards that promotion button and an incentive to pursue campaigns in VA with PP gain for the union (or loss if not doing so), still your proposal with forcing the Union to produce the CSC rather than simply spawn them by making the player use them in the Army of the Potomac would achieve this same result for the VA camping issue.
I have proposed several times the use of scripted events on PP handling...we will see.

The General's stats and starting dates are fully moddable so i guess anyone could propose a "reform" explaining why. The team definitely would consider officializing such a job if it came about with a good documentation.
I can't really relate on the general stats (that's why i only speak of rank and CP) because by default i play semi random and hidden. This essentially means i have never seen the historical ratings.

A very good post, Hancock.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 3

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 10:03:30 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

Hancock- a very good post- I see what you intend- and I think it has merit- though I wonder what it will do to the play?- will it super heat the UNion early? Or will the lower CP Commanders simply get killed off faster- the CSC system seems a bit bloody at the lower rank end. Which does make sense- brigade and divisional commanders were used up pretty fast in the first half of the war. Steep Learning curve.
Would Grant be backed down a few notches?

I would like to see the final CP listings-perhaps a CP of 4/5/6 as a start depending on the abilities of the commanders when they start. But it sounds supportable and while a major mod job- probably a good fix. Most commanders are already ok CP wise. This would basically effect the big fish- Like Sherman, etc. Not the dozens of minnows- the endless unknowns. It would force the Union to fight in the east to improve his top Generals. The historic original AoP Corps commanders could have timed promotions to match history also. Th eones Lincoln and Lil Mac chose.

The better Generals would have the better results CP wise- if they survived. They could go up in CP ability without nessessarily getting more stars- Being a one star who could command 4 - then perhaps up to 6 or 7 units then maybe get a two star and have steps in that rank- up to their max. Say 11 or 12. This would make it much more likely that some of the bigger fish would get killed off early as the war progressd- Most of the Civ war Generals survived close encounters with death during the war- the Civ War Battlefield was an exceedingly dangerous place to be- even if you were a general.
In every good account of the war's battles- you can read about Generals seeing their personal staffs killed all around them during the course of the action.
This could have a very interesting final outcome- I shall stay tuned and see what develops.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 4

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 4:13:09 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wargamer123

I think the fact the Union outweighs the South so heavily in so many ways so early, makes things tough, give leaders to an adept Yank and you may be facing a juggernaut that rips through the south much earlier than historical also! So how would you fix it, what if like in some other war games I played, Leaders as they did in history had to earn some of those Traits?

Personally as the Units have experience bars I think leaders should have to earn them too. Lee was an experienced General, and many Generals had to gain experience and lose a few before they won a few. The West is the perfect region for this, the North should not be Storming through Virginia for a year or two

Well, my goal is not actually to make it any easier for the Union, (or Rebs) for that matter, but rather to make it more historical, and perhaps, even more challenging.

Right now, I think it is too easy for the Union in the sense that you can sit back for 18-24 months and make no attempts to do anything in Virginia, while waiting for the crop of good AoP leaders to show up. Then, you automatically put them all in charge of the corps, and move out against the Rebs, who now have a serious threat in the East. In real life, if McClellan had just sat in DC for up to 2 years without attacking VA, he would have been fired, or Lincoln impeached, whatever. And in real life, Reynolds, Hancock, and Meade wouldnt have just shown up out of the blue in early 1863 and been given command of the 3 biggest corps of the largest Union Army, without having proven themselves first. My thought is that they 'prove' themselves by coming in at a level that prohibits corps command until they earn more CPs in battle, and the only way to do that is for you to send them to battle, risking both major/strategic losses against the Rebs, and the loss of the commander to wounds.

As far as unbalancing the game in favor of a skilled Union player, I am not sure whether this would happen or not. The only way for them to take real advantage of getting a bunch of the better leaders earlier as division commanders would be to use them as CSC's or have an Army of a lot of divisions. Either way, they still would be at a disadvantage vs. an ANV with Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, and Stuart in terms of combat. Also, given that the March 1862 scenario included in the game has a lot of these leaders at exactly the rank/CPs I am thinking of giving them, it may not unbalance it at all. I havent played that scenario yet, I wonder if anyone who has can comment.

(in reply to wargamer123)

Post #: 5

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 4:21:54 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

A very interesting post.
I have noticed that basically whatever you activate as Union after 62 is a Corps Commander. I agree with you about the fact they have too many CP (luckily more than they can handle but they can still improve the CSC below them). Probably there should be many more colonels in the game, a higher mortality rating pushing you towards that promotion button and an incentive to pursue campaigns in VA with PP gain for the union (or loss if not doing so), still your proposal with forcing the Union to produce the CSC rather than simply spawn them by making the player use them in the Army of the Potomac would achieve this same result for the VA camping issue.
I have proposed several times the use of scripted events on PP handling...we will see.

The General's stats and starting dates are fully moddable so i guess anyone could propose a "reform" explaining why. The team definitely would consider officializing such a job if it came about with a good documentation.
I can't really relate on the general stats (that's why i only speak of rank and CP) because by default i play semi random and hidden. This essentially means i have never seen the historical ratings.
A very good post, Hancock.

Thanks GShock. I have a lot of my notes from my leader project mod I did for AGEODs AACW, where I researched arrival dates for leaders based on 'date they rose to prominence' For purposes of that mod, the 'date of prominence' was division command. For the federals, I based it on the two volume set I have in my library by Welcher called 'The Union Army 1861-1865' One book is dedicated to the Eastern Theater, one to the Western Theater. It starts at the beginning, and lists all of the organizational aspects of every Union Army, Corps, Division, Department, etc. It shows who was assisgned to command at what level and what date, and in the case of the campaigns, it goes down to the brigade and regiment level showing which ones were attached to which division, etc. There is also a wealth of info on rear area commands, such the the Middle Department, Union VIII Corps, etc, that you usually dont find in other histories. My source materials on the Rebels arent quite as detailed, but are still good.

What I am thinking is making a mod where the leader becomes 'due' to be available based on the date they historically assumed a division command, and then bringing them in as a 4,5, or 6 CP depending on some other factors, including ability, political rating, personal judgment. Then, as outlined in my first post, have the guys who really did come in as corps and army commanders, remain the same.

I have no quibbles with the way the Generals are rated on att-def-inf and the other ratings. I think the team did a good job there. Leaving those alone, and concentrating on just historical arrival dates would be my goal. I would then want to play test it to see how it works, and whether game balance is affected, etc.

Any suggestions you would have would be very welcome.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 6

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 4:26:33 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

Hancock- a very good post- I see what you intend- and I think it has merit- though I wonder what it will do to the play?- will it super heat the UNion early? Or will the lower CP�Commanders simply get killed off faster- the CSC system seems a bit bloody at the lower rank end. Which does make sense- brigade and divisional commanders were used up pretty fast in the first half of the war. Steep Learning curve.
Would Grant be backed down a few notches?
�
I would like to see the final CP listings-perhaps a CP of 4/5/6�as a start�depending on the abilities of the commanders when they start.��But it sounds supportable and while a major mod job- probably a good fix.� Most commanders are already ok CP wise.�This would basically effect the big fish- Like Sherman, etc. Not the dozens of minnows- the endless unknowns. It would force the Union to fight in the east to improve his top Generals. The historic original AoP Corps commanders could have timed promotions to match history also. Th eones Lincoln and Lil Mac chose.
�
The better Generals would have the better results CP wise- if they survived. They could go up in CP ability without nessessarily getting more stars- Being a one star who could command 4 - then perhaps up to 6 or 7 units�then maybe get a two star and have steps in that rank- up to their max. Say 11 or 12. This would make it much more likely that some of the bigger fish would get killed off early as the war progressd- Most of the Civ war Generals survived close encounters with death during the war- the Civ War Battlefield was an exceedingly dangerous place to be- even if you were a general.
�� In every good account of the war's battles- you can read about Generals seeing their personal staffs killed all around them during the course of the action.
This could have a very interesting final outcome- I shall stay tuned and see what develops.

Doc, you definitely understand exactly what I am looking to do. You are right that of the hundreds of Union leaders, the majority of them dont need to be 'fixed' on CPs. I have no intention of doing anything with the ones rated 1,2,3,4, 5 etc. It is the Joe Hookers, John Segwicks, James McPhersons and the like who come in at 7,8,9,10,11 and so on and so forth, who can jump right to corps command, that I have in my crosshairs.

Also, I am happy with the ratings the design team did on abilities, so no need to change or mod that. Perhaps this wont take as long as I potentially thought it might. I will keep you posted, and welcome further comments and suggestions.

(in reply to Doc o War)

Post #: 7

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 4:30:39 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

Actually, in thinking about making these changes, one thing has occured to me. They will only likely work for players who use the CSC rule on, because otherwise, the guys who used to come in as capable of commanding a corps but now come in as a division level leader wont be able to get the experience to advance to corps command ability level unless they have done some fighting, most likely as CSCs. Either that, or I am going to have to set automatic promotions to 2 star rank at some point for all of them.

I assume most players use CSC's so I doubt this would be too big a problem though.

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 8

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 6:34:28 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Some good points, I could see bringing some of these guys in a month or two earlier during the Winter, but much earlier than that and you're basically requiring the Union to attack early in order to build up their command points. As it is, there wasn't really a serious effort to attack by the Union in the East between First Bull Run and the Peninsula Campaign and I think that's about how it works out now. The West and Kentucky are usually much more active in 1861 and early 1862 than the East.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 9

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 7:50:41 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Some good points, I could see bringing some of these guys in a month or two earlier during the Winter, but much earlier than that and you're basically requiring the Union to attack early in order to build up their command points. As it is, there wasn't really a serious effort to attack by the Union in the East between First Bull Run and the Peninsula Campaign and I think that's about how it works out now. The West and Kentucky are usually much more active in 1861 and early 1862 than the East.

Erik, this is exactly what I am thinking. Basically mod it so you get the AoP division leaders like Hooker, Kearny, etc. in at a 5/6 CP level in January of 62, when they would then be available to be assigned to a corps, which would have to be led by the likes of Heintzelman, Sumner, or Keyes. Then add others in at dates appropriate -- like Hancock at a 6 cp level in 8/62, as he took command of a division after Richardson was killed at Antietam. If you want Hancock to be a corps commander in 63, he needs to fight and work his way up through the ranks.

Same deal in the West, have Hurlbut, Lew Wallace, WHL Wallace, Prentiss etc at 5 or 6 in January 62, ready to lead divisions towards Ft. Donelson and Shiloh.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 10

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 8:14:03 PM

tran505

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline

Erik:

I think 'ole Hancock hit the nail on the head with his description of the "Virginia Problem". The system does a good job recreating the inactivity in the East from 1st Manassas thru Summer '62; the problem is that the game provides no incentive for the South to take the offensive in the East (see my "Southern Victories on Northern Soil" thread) AND provides strong dis-incentive for the North to attack until mid-game. The AI kills itself with "The Seventh Battle of Manassas" syndrome when playing the North -- with Strategic defeat after Strategic defeat killing the Union PP total. No human player will do that.

Instead, the game rewards keeping the AoP in Washington until mid-'63, and using Washington as a launch point for as many amphibious invasions as you can attempt until then. If the Federals lose -- the invasions are always below the "strategic defeat" threshold. If the Federals win -- they lock down a port, AND increase their PP total -- again, with no chance of losing points to a Strategic defeat. Given the way the system works, NOT attacking in the East and doing amphib ops is the surest and safest route to final Federal victory.

I don't know if this proposal is the solution to the problem, but I think there should be some acklowledgement that there is a "Virginia Problem". A solution will take thought and no small amount of playtesting I am sure. Finally, this is not to say the game is broken or is not fun. I am having a wonderful time and I thank you, Gary, and all concerned. As per 'ole Hancock -- the risk/reward structure of the game favors ahistorical play and to some extent punishes play down historical lines for both sides.

- P

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 11

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 10:38:33 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Well, the next update (in testing) already has a few new tweaks to address various suggestions. I think it will be well received, but we have to finish testing it before sharing it with you all.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to tran505)

Post #: 12

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/23/2008 11:17:21 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tran505
...No human player will do that.

I did...see my post on how I was gubbed by the AI

(in reply to tran505)

Post #: 13

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 2:59:38 AM

Doc o War

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline

Indeed I think putting the big hitters in a Div commanders in Jan 62 is a good idea- with an auto 2 star at some point down the road in case they just dont get the combat they need to advance- having them serve under the Historic corps commanders first would certainly move this in the historic path. The AOP would have to fight or its leaders would grow mouldy. And endless Amphib ops seem to me to be an ahistoric result in the east. The Navy was not really setup to support all that amphib early in the war.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 14

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 10:24:40 AM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winfield S. Hancock

Thanks GShock. I have a lot of my notes from my leader project mod I did for AGEODs AACW,

Ah, so you are that Hancock guy (yes i am that G-Shock guy too).

Considering you have the documentation and experience, and considering the leader files are excel modules, i think you should start working on more appropriate arrival/activation times and CP only, I share the same convinction as you do that the other stats have been modelled close to perfection (i observed the xls file last night for the first time).
The main issue being the CP and the fact that past 62 all Union leaders are CSC-able is a sure problem towards the "On to Richmond" missing event in WBTS and the camping technique of the Union player in VA.

Tuning down the ** leaders to 6 CP (even less) would force them to fight at least one battle before they can become CSC...let's not forget late Union leaders are as strong as the CSA leaders.

However, in order to really push the Union player towards a more aggressive playing style in VA, i think scripting is needed for the On to Richmond event giving a penalty in PP to the Union player when not achieving strategic victories in VA (i.e. lose 10 pp in 61, 50 pp in 62, 100 pp in 63 and 300 pp in 64).
I consider scripting a major implement to wbts towards accuracy, realism, feeling.

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 15

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 12:19:35 PM

jimkehn

Posts: 265
Joined: 2/5/2003
From: Western Nebraska
Status: offline

GSHock, I like your idea. The Union player must suffer some VP penalty for not attacking into VA.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 16

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 3:48:26 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winfield S. Hancock

Thanks GShock. I have a lot of my notes from my leader project mod I did for AGEODs AACW,

Ah, so you are that Hancock guy (yes i am that G-Shock guy too).
Considering you have the documentation and experience, and considering the leader files are excel modules, i think you should start working on more appropriate arrival/activation times and CP only, I share the same convinction as you do that the other stats have been modelled close to perfection (i observed the xls file last night for the first time).
The main issue being the CP and the fact that past 62 all Union leaders are CSC-able is a sure problem towards the "On to Richmond" missing event in WBTS and the camping technique of the Union player in VA.

Tuning down the ** leaders to 6 CP (even less) would force them to fight at least one battle before they can become CSC...let's not forget late Union leaders are as strong as the CSA leaders.

However, in order to really push the Union player towards a more aggressive playing style in VA, i think scripting is needed for the On to Richmond event giving a penalty in PP to the Union player when not achieving strategic victories in VA (i.e. lose 10 pp in 61, 50 pp in 62, 100 pp in 63 and 300 pp in 64).
I consider scripting a major implement to wbts towards accuracy, realism, feeling.

Yep GShock, I am that Hancock guy. Good to see you over here as well as there. I am planning on getting to work on the arrival/activation CP stuff today. I am not planning on changing any of hte other ratings.

I agree with your 'on to Richmond' idea. There really was tremendous pressure early in the war to attack, not sit and train. And then think of Lincoln's 'General War Orders' that mandated an attack by all Union forces on Washington's birthday in Feb 1862. McClellan eventually talked him out of it, but at a price. So even during that fall and winter period of 1861-early 1862, there was a lot of pressure to resume the offensive despite bad weather conditions, etc. No way any AoP commander would have been retained if they sat in camps around DC until May 63 beforre venturing into Virginia.

Another thought I am having is maybe the whole PP's on major/strategic victories might need to be tweaked just a bit. Under the current system, a strategic victory at Manassas in 1861 is treated the same as a strategic victory at Gettysburg in 1863, if I am not mistaken. I am not sure if this is possible, but I wonder if there is a way to vary the requirements to get a strategic victory based on what year it is. I am not sure if this can be done without messing up the EP requirements, but in some way, it just seems that right now, it is too difficult to do anything in VA without handing the Confederates a ton of PPs and losing a ton yourself with a series of strategic defeats.

I am wondering if the historic course of the war in the east could be better modeled by the following:

Strategic victory in Virginia for Confederates or Union in 1861/1862 -- small amount of PPs added/deducted both sides

Strategic victory in Virginia for Confederates or Union rest of war -- medium amount of PPs added/deducted both sides

Strategic victory in Maryland at any time -- substantial boost in PPs for Rebs if win, small loss if lose. If Union loses, substantial loss of PPs, if Union wins, modest gain.

Strategic victory in Pennsylvania or other original Northern state -- huge boost in PPs for Rebels, big loss for Union if Confederacy wins. If opposite, substantial boost for Union, moderate loss for Confederates.

And so on and so forth. I guess what I am looking at is a graduated/geographic based system of some sort that takes into account WHERE the strategic victory occured and WHEN in the war it happened. Something that would provide a dazzling prize for the Rebels if they could win a Gettysburg. Something that doesnt preclude the AoP from dusting itself off after yet another defeat at the hands of the ANV and returning to campaign in VA again and again. Something that magnifies victories the likes of Vicksburg and Atlanta over victories such as Murfreesboro. I am not sure if I am on the right track with this or not, or how easy it would be to implement, but thought I would throw this out in the mix too.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 17

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 4:07:23 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

One additional thing that needs to be fixed are the army mods.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 18

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 4:31:12 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

Actually, bringing up the army mods reminded me of one other idea I had regarding the game. I wish that there were some kind of mechanisms whereby corps/divisions become attached to a particular army commander, or vice versa, with the goal of preventing the shuffling of army commanders all over the map each turn, from one trouble spot to the next. In the real ACW, this didnt happen -- Lee wasnt in Virginia one month, Memphis the next, and Charleston SC the month after that. A good army command structure required the army commander have a solid staff, have spent time with the army, knew the capabilities of the corps and division leaders and the units they commanded, and so on and so forth. You could not accomplish this by moving around the country month after month after month to different locations and commanding different armies.

So, if there was a way to make the leader/army commander some kind of 'container unit' for lack of a better word, I would support it. Something that

1) would result in far greater and historic stability of Army Command structures from turn to turn
2) have a way to pair or tie a particular army leader to particular corps commanders that consist of 'his army'
3) give some type of bonus over time for the army commander and his subordinate corps to remain together, promoting cohesion and reflecting the benefits of familiarity
4) institute something for army commanders like the limited command point recovery system that already consists for corps and divisions leaders, which limit their ability to transit the map and immediately take command of another army. So, if you want Grant to move east and take over the AoP, fine, but you have to detach him from his western army, move him out east, and have some kind of transition period before he is able to organize the army up and take over with full effectiveness.
5) perhaps even some kind of political point cost for an army commander to switch commands. These guys were for more the most part very arrogant, so if they were assigned to a 'lesser' army command than their present one, it would present some problems for the politicians who made the decision to do that.

I understand that this may not be possible to do, but I would personally prefer a system whereby once a leader is committed to the command of a particular army, you cant shuffle him all over the map indiscriminately as some kind of 19th century 'fire brigade' to put out every hot spot where the enemy threatens.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 19

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 4:39:55 PM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

quote:

Another thought I am having is maybe the whole PP's on major/strategic victories might need to be tweaked just a bit. Under the current system, a strategic victory at Manassas in 1861 is treated the same as a strategic victory at Gettysburg in 1863, if I am not mistaken.

Victories for CSA in any northern state will be undergoing a rule change in next patch. This will ensure both sides can gain/lose a higher deal of VP in combat in these regions. This will push CSA player to play more offensively and the Union to properly guard against invasions.

Doing such complex thing as the one u mentioned for PP varying according to the year/theater of the strategic victory, would basically mess up everything else. I don't think it's possible if not with a great deal of work and toil. The aforementioned rule change is perfect but of course, it doesn't force the Union to attack in VA (but it does give a great option to CSA nonetheless).

As of the "leader mod" you have to take into account the activation probabilities as a very destabylizing factor with the effects you plan to achieve. In the west, the Union may activate (and should) Halleck, suitable for AC the very first turn. With the coming of Jan62 with the CSC rule, the number of possible activations is basically unlimited and at no price to be paid, thus it is possible to activate anyone, everywhere you want him. Yes, a CP tune-down would really help but i think a tune down of the rank of such generals would be even better. It might be worthy of notice that beyond 62 there's no way to activate a Colonel and there's no leaders with less than 4 CP that i recall at the moment. Surely more generals can fit but definitely more Colonels and, in a more abstract way, more leaders with less CP are needed.

I personally think 1 CP per colonel, 2 CP per * and 4 CP per ** would really help a lot.

At this point, compelled to use high-mortality rating generals would screen out both good and bad, allowing the historical CP/rank rise according to the trial and error in combat.
Finally, a notably side-effect would be that we start using that promotion button (+2 CP increase) that currently, due to its costs and unusefulness (other leaders have already the CP required to attach needed brigades) is totally ignored.

Looking forward to see what you come up with.

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 20

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 4:57:31 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

The underlying problem is that historically the army headquarters and logistic support was pretty well locked into an army zone with well-defined bases. Individual corps (sometimes divisions) then operated on a line of advance from those bases, although they could shift within the army zone. The AC was then attached to the HQ and the TC was responsible for supporting a number of army zones. Union army zones were associated with rivers, since most forward supply was delivered by ship or boat. Confederate army zones were associated with departments, since they were on the defensive.

_____________________________

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 21

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 5:03:25 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

Actually, another idea just occured to me that might be simpler way to deal with the Army Commander issue. In a future patch, could the designers consider adding a new 'army HQ' unit that the AC would be attached directly to? If so, then what coudl be done is to attach the leader to the HQ, and then have the HQ only able to move tactically, rather than strategically. Or, if it is moveable strategically, make the transport cost so high that while not prohibitive, it would severly impact the ability of the player to move other units, etc, if he decided to move the HQ. This would go a long way towards modeling what a logistical nightmare it would be to move an army commander and his staff, and to gain familiarity with a new army, to the point that it would only rarely be done, and at a price. Additionally, you could add names to these Army HQs, adding some historical flavor as well.

For the Union
1) Army of the Potomac
2) Army of the Tennessee
3) Army of the Cumberland
4) Army of the Ohio, Army of the West, or Army of the James

For the Confederate

1) Army of Northern Virginia
2) Army of Tennessee
3) Army of Mississippi
4) Army of the West, or Army of the Valley

This might be easily workable, and add to historic flavor and realism.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 22

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 5:04:17 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

The problem with leaders starting out lower is the resulting casualties. You would need to assess some of the early commanders who died or were severely wounded on their potential for higher command. The adjustment in army mod with victories might be important. Call it command (in)experience. A question: I remember something about the army mod affecting corps commanders. Is that actually the case?

_____________________________

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 23

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 5:56:31 PM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

I think the Army mod affects all commanders in regards with the initiative rolls, and of course, gives an eventual penalty to the AC itself when committed. Such stat, as well as the att/def stats or training for instance, do not vary with experience. Only command does and i think it's proper.

To a higher degree of long-range thinking on lowering the CP to the leaders, do not forget the total number of troopers they can attach. Having more lower ranked, and possibly poor generals, emphasyzes the importance of a good corps commander. The tradeoff in CSC rule is that a 10 CP leader with a 4 CP subleader can still attach only 10 troops while, separated, they would make 14...quite a difference. I'm wondering if the number of activable leaders could also be modded. That, coupled with these reductions, would ensure you don't exploit the CSC rule by activating dozens of leaders only to discard them.

The idea of the HQ unit wouldn't be so easy to achieve, but an easier step could be to reduce the number of MP the AC has and disable the strat MP totally (with the exception of the amphibious landings). Again ...easier is an euphemism in this field.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 24

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 5:59:08 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

Harry, I dont know the answer on the army mod affecting corps commanders. At least initially, I have no plans to alter the army mods or other stats besides entry date and CP rating at this point. Perhaps in the future, but in general, I dont find enough disagreement with the ratings the way they are to change them.

With regards to casualties, you raise a good point, and it is something I have been concerned with. I want the historic leaders who rose to prominence to enter play as division leaders, and then rise to corps rank through action. While I dont want to make them bulletproof, I dont want them to all die off to quickly too early, leaving the armies with no Corps Commanders either. I imagine some play testing will be in order, but even then, it is going to be hard to figure in the plain luck factor on leader casualties. I have seen Scott with an 18 survive the whole game, I have seen him die on the first turn. How that might affect a Hancock with a 2 mortality as division commander, I dont know. Does he get killed too often, before he can rise to corps command, or not? How can you even tell, I am not sure.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 25

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 6:06:29 PM

tbriert

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

To a higher degree of long-range thinking on lowering the CP to the leaders, do not forget the total number of troopers they can attach. Having more lower ranked, and possibly poor generals, emphasyzes the importance of a good corps commander. The tradeoff in CSC rule is that a 10 CP leader with a 4 CP subleader can still attach only 10 troops while, separated, they would make 14...quite a difference. I'm wondering if the number of activable leaders could also be modded. That, coupled with these reductions, would ensure you don't exploit the CSC rule by activating dozens of leaders only to discard them.�

Question -- with the CSC rule on, would not the troops in the 10 CP leaders corps fight better than the ones in the individual 4 CP leaders division, because the ones the corps get both the corps leaders and CSC's inf skill bonus, while the ones in the separate division only get the bonus of its own leader? If so, this should be a disincentive to have an army of 30 seperate brigades and divisions, rather than one of 5-6 corps fully stocked with CSCs, which I believe is the intent of having that rule.

(in reply to GShock)

Post #: 26

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 7:08:53 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Winfield S. Hancock
Question -- with the CSC rule on, would not the troops in the 10 CP leaders corps fight better than the ones in the individual 4 CP leaders division, because the ones the corps get both the corps leaders and CSC's inf skill bonus, while the ones in the separate division only get the bonus of its own leader? If so, this should be a disincentive to have an army of 30 seperate brigades and divisions, rather than one of 5-6 corps fully stocked with CSCs, which I believe is the intent of having that rule.

That's correct. Having a well-commanded Corps structure is potentially much better than having individual divisions/brigades in terms of combat performance.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to tbriert)

Post #: 27

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/24/2008 8:32:40 PM

tran505

Posts: 133
Joined: 11/11/2007
Status: offline

GShock:

In the "Southern Victories on Northern Soil" thread I started, I noted that rewarding the South to play more aggressively may also make the Northern player play more aggressively as well. The best way for the North to avoid Southern Victories on Northern Soil is to attack and capture all zones in Southern territory that are adjacent to Northern Territitory. The best defense REMAINS a good offense. And if that works..., why not move "On to Richmond" ??

If my ramblings had anyting to do with this mod..., I am honored!

And I can't wait to see what you guys come up with!!

- P

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 28

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/25/2008 11:06:27 PM

heroldje

Posts: 95
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

I had this exact same thought and spent too much time modifying the leader sheet only to realize that i simply didnt have the knowledge or time to do as thorough of a job as i would like. if you finish this i would love to see the results.

i would also suggest further modifying the game (as i did) to knock the start date back to april 1861. this simplifies the "what generals are available when/where" question, and incidently leads to a much more diverse early game.

(i actually completed this with historic troop levels, and found the results quite good... my only issue being that it needed more testing/tweaking and i have been so unbelievably busy lately i cant even play the game, let alone tweak it)

(in reply to tran505)

Post #: 29

RE: An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 sce... - 9/26/2008 6:40:19 AM

GShock

Posts: 1245
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

There can never be a leader shortage. Wounded ones come back and even captured ones of the caliber of R.E. Lee come back sooner or later. Problem of "no corps commanders due to losses" is impossible with this high number of ** at least for the Union. Could be an issue with the CSA but as i said we need to do something with that promotion button. A hard-coded limiter forcing no CP increases to leaders who have reached a certain peak (according to their rank) would really feel good right now.

(in reply to heroldje)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> An improvement I think needs to be made to 1861 scenario

Page: [1] 2 next > >>