RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> After Action Reports



Message

spruce -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 1:23:25 AM)

about oversized armies, isn't disease and attrition likelyhood more painfull on behemoth armies ... meaning that people could exagerate with their army sizes ... but in reality shouldn't do that due to mentioned reasons.



jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 1:26:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

about oversized armies, isn't disease and attrition likelyhood more painfull on behemoth armies ... meaning that people could exagerate with their army sizes ... but in reality shouldn't do that due to mentioned reasons.


And how! In fact... I'll be posting some more of the PBEM AAR here shortly and will demonstrate just how right you are. [:(]



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 1:44:16 AM)

Is this posting some sort of head-game, to make me think that one of your armies was just hit by disease, leading me to attack it and get crushed? I guess I'll just have to attack all three armies to see which it was...



spruce -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 1:44:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

about oversized armies, isn't disease and attrition likelyhood more painfull on behemoth armies ... meaning that people could exagerate with their army sizes ... but in reality shouldn't do that due to mentioned reasons.


And how! In fact... I'll be posting some more of the PBEM AAR here shortly and will demonstrate just how right you are. [:(]


just read your AAR post ! Really a coincidence ! [:D] altough I feel a bit sorry for you - it seems you lost 15.000 troopers out there ...

well I've just edited the numers, so GIL should see this as "fog of war" ... [:'(]



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 5:59:47 PM)

Hey guys I have a couple more thoughts/comments/questions.

I think a camps should be regional, ie. a camp in st.louis should support troop strengths in the miss region, where as a camp in new york should support the virginia theatre ect.  I understand that troops could be moved around the country but for strategic purposes and gameplay i think it will add a little more flavor.

jchastain referred to the shenadoah as useless hill or something to that effect.  I think some strategic importance needs to placed on this area.  During the war the shen valley was considered the breadbasket of the csa, and it was a priority of the anv to protect it.  later in the war grant recognized this and sent sheridan, i believe to burn it down.  he made a march similar to that of shermans through goergia.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 6:37:07 PM)

The Shenandoah Valley does have value, since it has a railroad going through it, which means that the CSA needs it for troop movements by rail.

That's why jchastain just happened to send a division in there the very same turn that I had decided that I could no longer leave it exposed and vulnerable.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 6:41:40 PM)

As for camps being regional, I sort of like that idea. I can see problems with it, though. In the case of the South, since for AI purposes we divided it into different theaters (so that the strategic AI will attack at different points, and not just in Virginia), it would probably be relatively easy to have all camp reinforcements stay within the theater. But how would this be handled for the North when its forces are in Confederate territory? I guess we could have rules saying that camps in western Union states reinforce western Union armies, but that then becomes complicated. Plus, since these theaters aren't something the player is supposed to worry about, we'd have to come out with a list of which states are in which theaters, etc. So it's an idea worth thinking about, but not one without problems.



USSLockwood -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 6:49:37 PM)

The Shenandoah was also a covered approach to threaten Washington, which was why Lincoln always reacted vigorously (perhaps too much so) whenever Jackson moved there.

Dave
San Diego
Home of the World's Busiest Radar Approach Control



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 6:54:12 PM)

I'd add that if the Virginia theater heats up in our PBEM game Shenandoah will see a lot of action. So far, the actions in Virginia are hardly worthy of a Civil War game., though



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 6:56:35 PM)

Gil thanks for the fast response.  I understand that a rail junction is important, but i think the shen valley should be material producing province, much more so than wheeling.  I think in that province yoyu had the arsenal at harpers ferry, franklin, winchester and as mentioned before many food producing farms.  I know it is to late in the ballgame to cahnge now but a patch should consider removing wheeling and palcing a large resource value to the shen valley even if it means taking resources from the deep south.  this will also force the union to act in northern va instead of just sitting on their thumbs and fighting away from the anv.  If they know they can hurt the south economically by taking the shen then they will probably try. I think the change would be historically accurate also.

as for the the camps you will have to add theatre lines to the map like frank hunter did in acw sumter to app.  this will be easier (for the players) than making a list.



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 6:58:20 PM)

sorry about the poor typesmenship but i am at work and typing in a hurry.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 7:07:41 PM)

The idea of making Shenandoah more of a target makes sense. I'll try to remember this, but you might want to resuggest the idea once the game is out.

As for camps, it occurs to me that the easier thing to do would be to have camps reinforce either the closest units or those within X provinces distance. At the same time, I think that the system of a global reinforcements pool works well -- it's only a matter of whether this would improve the game.



elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/14/2006 8:29:01 PM)

Thanks for the enjoyab le AAR! Sorry if this has been asked already but I have not seen it come up in your game yet. What happens if opposing forces in adjacent regions try to move into each others region? Thanks.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 1:14:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Thanks for the enjoyab le AAR! Sorry if this has been asked already but I have not seen it come up in your game yet. What happens if opposing forces in adjacent regions try to move into each others region? Thanks.


I'm not sure if I get the question. Do you mean to ask what happens if USA is in Province A and CSA is in Province B and they simultaneously try to move into the other? If so, the answer is that whichever force has the high initiative moves first, and there is then a battle in the destination province. However, if both armies are set on "Avoid Battle" then they switch provinces without an encounter. (The way "Avoid Battle"/"Seek Battle" works is that if both armies have the same setting then there is a 100% chance of them getting their wish, but if one army wants battle and the other doesn't there is a 50% chance of battle.)



kfmiller41 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 1:49:32 AM)

quick question. Do units that move into areas with railroads get to destroy them? Wouldnt that make garrisoning areas important to protect those?




elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 2:19:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Thanks for the enjoyab le AAR! Sorry if this has been asked already but I have not seen it come up in your game yet. What happens if opposing forces in adjacent regions try to move into each others region? Thanks.


I'm not sure if I get the question. Do you mean to ask what happens if USA is in Province A and CSA is in Province B and they simultaneously try to move into the other? If so, the answer is that whichever force has the high initiative moves first, and there is then a battle in the destination province. However, if both armies are set on "Avoid Battle" then they switch provinces without an encounter. (The way "Avoid Battle"/"Seek Battle" works is that if both armies have the same setting then there is a 100% chance of them getting their wish, but if one army wants battle and the other doesn't there is a 50% chance of battle.)


Yup, you got my drift. Thanks for the answer.



Mr. Z -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 4:08:28 AM)

In retrospect it might have been nice to include Harper's Ferry, but it would also have been difficult. Occupation of a city directly grants occupation of a province (and all its resources), and this might have been unfair to the Southern player. Perhaps a fort wouldn't have been out of place, though it would have been odd to see a fort called "Harper's Ferry"! (Even though really, that's all it functioned as--the arsenal, i.e. the Armory, was effectively destroyed at the beginning of the war.) Also the decision to eliminate Food as a resource reduced the relevance of the Shenandoah Valley's agriculture.

If it is possible to adjust the Forage values of non-city provinces, I will try to push for this perhaps in a forthcoming patch, but I'm afraid I couldn't say with certainty how much of an influence this has on gameplay.



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 6:53:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z

In retrospect it might have been nice to include Harper's Ferry, but it would also have been difficult. Occupation of a city directly grants occupation of a province (and all its resources), and this might have been unfair to the Southern player. Perhaps a fort wouldn't have been out of place, though it would have been odd to see a fort called "Harper's Ferry"! (Even though really, that's all it functioned as--the arsenal, i.e. the Armory, was effectively destroyed at the beginning of the war.) Also the decision to eliminate Food as a resource reduced the relevance of the Shenandoah Valley's agriculture.

If it is possible to adjust the Forage values of non-city provinces, I will try to push for this perhaps in a forthcoming patch, but I'm afraid I couldn't say with certainty how much of an influence this has on gameplay.



Mr. Z, I agree about harpers ferry the south took the main arsenal eqpt to richmond very early in the war, if i remember correctly. If you have been watching the great PBEM fight going on you will notice that the north has no incentive to move on northern virginia. considering that virginia contained the large majority of the south's manufacting capacity and industrial economy both sides had great interest in fighting for it, not to mention the whole capitol thingy. IMHO i think if more resources were consentrated in virginia (shen would be a place to start) the northern player may find reason to engage there. Right now there is more incentive for holding on to wheeling (which never had a chance to go with the csa) then the shen valley.

In a seperate thought i guess part of the problem is union player has an advantage knowing the south has better leaders and he is afraid to fight the ANV early. I bet lincoln whished he had known that. This makes a case for the random leader option.

by the way i love what you guys are doing here and it is great that you entertain so many suggestions. I am going to buy 2 copies one for me and my nephew.

oh yea by the way the lower province in west "by GOD" virginia is actually spelled Kanawaha but maybe kenawha was some early spelling.



elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 2:26:39 PM)

One thing I noticed in both AAR's is that the vast majority of screen shots are of the "spreadsheet" variety. Are you guys really spending all your time pouring over ledgers or is an equal amount of time spent pondering the map but we're just not seeing that? This is not meant as any thinly veiled criticism. I'm buying this the day it is available so I'm just trying to get a feel for how the game plays out which is a bit hard from just seeing a few selected screen shots. Thanks.



jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 5:36:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

One thing I noticed in both AAR's is that the vast majority of screen shots are of the "spreadsheet" variety. Are you guys really spending all your time pouring over ledgers or is an equal amount of time spent pondering the map but we're just not seeing that? This is not meant as any thinly veiled criticism. I'm buying this the day it is available so I'm just trying to get a feel for how the game plays out which is a bit hard from just seeing a few selected screen shots. Thanks.


I spend a lot more time look and thinking about the map than about the numbers. The numbers are really just check points more than anything. Is income OK? Is anyone's supply below where it should be? It is just much easier to look down the list than it is to visit each city and each army individually. I have also gotten to where I do most of my "builds" from the city list. I don't know that that was the original design vision as the city detail screen is gorgeous. But I can see all of the implications for various alternatives in the city list screen which makes that the more efficient choice for me. Same with weapon upgrades. I do those in the military list screen most of the time. Again, I can look at an tire army and see both their quality level and their current weapon. Those types of "management" functions are where I spend real time in the ledger. Curiously, my most common reason for vising the city detail screen is to see research progress. It is listed there and no where else.

One thing worth mentioning is that much of the low level analysis is due to us playing an advanced game. As you reduce the complexity, you will find yourself focusing more and more on the map and less and less on the underlying data.



elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/15/2006 5:45:31 PM)

Ok, thanks. Logistics is certainly important (critical?) in any good operational game so I have no problem spending time on the numbers. Just wanted to hear that there is a good balance between that and the planning on the map. Who made the quote to the effect that "amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics"?

Edit - No way I'm reducing the complexity. Bring it on! [:D]

Edit - Answering my own question from Google:

"Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics."

--Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/16/2006 10:49:12 PM)

Disease seems to be a little inflated.  Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs?  COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time.  Can you turn disease off?



elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/16/2006 11:06:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Disease seems to be a little inflated.  Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs?  COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time.  Can you turn disease off?


Here is a quote from one Civil War website on the subject:

"While the average soldier believed the bullet was his most nefarious foe, disease was the biggest killer of the war. Of the Federal dead, roughly three out of five died of disease, and of the Confederate, perhaps two out of three. One of the reasons for the high rates of disease was the slipshod recruiting process that allowed under- or over-age men and those in noticeably poor health to join the armies on both sides, especially in the first year of the war. In fact, by late 1862, some 200,000 recruits originally accepted for service were judged physically unfit and discharged, either because they had fallen ill or because a routine examination revealed their frail condition."



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 12:42:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Disease seems to be a little inflated. Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs? COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time. Can you turn disease off?



Yes, this can definitely be turned off.



regularbird -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 2:19:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Disease seems to be a little inflated.  Can you explain the formula for determinig disease and its effects and what historical factors influenced the formula designs?  COG did not have this and I think they would have even more disease problems considering the army sizes during that time.  Can you turn disease off?


Here is a quote from one Civil War website on the subject:

"While the average soldier believed the bullet was his most nefarious foe, disease was the biggest killer of the war. Of the Federal dead, roughly three out of five died of disease, and of the Confederate, perhaps two out of three. One of the reasons for the high rates of disease was the slipshod recruiting process that allowed under- or over-age men and those in noticeably poor health to join the armies on both sides, especially in the first year of the war. In fact, by late 1862, some 200,000 recruits originally accepted for service were judged physically unfit and discharged, either because they had fallen ill or because a routine examination revealed their frail condition."


Thanks elmo, I know that disease was a factor I just do not remember to many instanced where an army was smoked for 20,000 men in a 2 week period. not to mention 2 seperate armies in a 4 week period.



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 2:30:47 AM)

Someone, somewhere, recently expressed surprise at the large size of the armies. I thought I'd post the overview screen from the very beginning of the July 1861 scenario. Note that unlike the November scenario, by which time both sides had formed large armies -- as reflected in the game with the multiple army containers -- back then the units are scattered in several corps and divisions. Since it will take the player several turns to build the extra Barracks necessary for producing army containers and then those will take additional time to produce, the July scenario involves smaller forces fighting. It's therefore a very different game, at least for the first year of the war.



[image]local://upfiles/16018/EA94D64E1B7C4C42A0C8F928AC166C05.jpg[/image]



elmo3 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 2:33:19 AM)

Is that Jeb Stuart way up there in Canada? Lee is gonna be pissed if it is. [:)]



Gil R. -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 2:36:15 AM)

To be honest, I'm not sure what that is. I vaguely recall one of the playtesters seeing this before. (Since I've already shut down the game I can't easily check on it. I'll try to remember to do so later.) It might have something to do with British forces being present in Canada, poised to strike if the USA ticks them off...



kfmiller41 -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 4:25:09 AM)

Is the Game AI any good? I am sure I will play PBEM but would sure be glad if the computer can fight a decent fight?




jchastain -> RE: PBEM AAR - Discussion (11/17/2006 5:20:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Is that Jeb Stuart way up there in Canada? Lee is gonna be pissed if it is. [:)]


Actually, that is the canadian army. Since they have the potential to join the CSA (through British diplomacy) they are shown in red even prior to being active.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.609375