possible solution to kentucky problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

heroldje -> possible solution to kentucky problem (8/22/2008 5:14:29 PM)

i found that if you edit the regions file and put two militia in each kentucky region (or as i prefer, each one with a city)... it goes a long way to solving the union blitzing kentucky.

- it requires 1 unit per militia unit to capture a territory.. so i put 2 neutral militia in each region, and now you can no longer capture the territories with a single horseman, although two horsemen could.
- these "battles" cause no casualties
- if you fail to overrun the territory it does not trigger the kentucky was invaded event
- the netural militia doesn't display on the map

wallah. only forces of 2+ units can capture kentucky territories.



tran505 -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/22/2008 7:55:41 PM)


I never quite thought about it quite as being a "kentucky problem", however I do think that the Union "Kentucky Blitz" is an automatic and no-brainer move for the Union turn 2. The Union needs the war to start in Tennessee -- not in Kentucky; the complications of a "Confed Blitz" taking the state with confed fortifications/heavy artillery along the Ohio River are too horrible to contimplate.

While a bunch of playtiesting may be in order, this "fix" will make the "blitz" move less of a no-brainer sure-thing for either side, AND opens much more possibility of the state being split. That is, KY will not go all or almost 100% to the side that pulls the trigger first, but rather, be split, contested and fought for..., at least for a while.

If it works, it may be a candidate for an "official" change, or at least an "official" option.

Great, job heroldje !! [sm=happy0065.gif]

- P



Erik Rutins -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/22/2008 10:30:23 PM)

Interesting find and a great mod opportunity, Heroldje. We've got similar ideas under discussion internally and there's general agreement that the modeling of Kentucky will get another pass.



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/22/2008 11:38:55 PM)

The Key of my original Kentuck Blitz post was to slow down the 1861 action in the Middle- Anything from either side regarding Kentucky before SEptember 1861 would just not have been politically possible. We 21st Century players have a tremendous advantage of knowing more than the guys at the time- But both militaries were commanded by civilian governments. Neither sides politicians were willing at that early stage to move on Kentucky. We 21st Century folk are much more ruthless.

  My idea was to limit the initial KY invasion- and not allowing it to happen at all before Sept 61 just seems to be the easiest way to do it. A Gentlemens agreement if you will between the players. It was also easiest to just limit the invader to three regions- After that the game kicks back in. An invader penalty to invoke the unsure thinking and abilities of the forces and leaders at the time- this is 1861 not 1944. 
With this simple agreement there is No need to change anything programing wise. That is something the designers can do themselves when they address this thing officially later- but its something you can do with the game just the way it is now.
  
While I like Haroldje 2 militia idea- it involves messing with file setup perrameters- I am not confident enough to dive into reprogramming anything- That is for software wonks- I'm just a game player.

SO my idea is simply a simple patch to a rather bigger issue- that of early war disorganiztion. POlitically as well as Militarily.



herwin -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/23/2008 11:33:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tran505


I never quite thought about it quite as being a "kentucky problem", however I do think that the Union "Kentucky Blitz" is an automatic and no-brainer move for the Union turn 2. The Union needs the war to start in Tennessee -- not in Kentucky; the complications of a "Confed Blitz" taking the state with confed fortifications/heavy artillery along the Ohio River are too horrible to contimplate.

While a bunch of playtiesting may be in order, this "fix" will make the "blitz" move less of a no-brainer sure-thing for either side, AND opens much more possibility of the state being split. That is, KY will not go all or almost 100% to the side that pulls the trigger first, but rather, be split, contested and fought for..., at least for a while.

If it works, it may be a candidate for an "official" change, or at least an "official" option.

Great, job heroldje !! [sm=happy0065.gif]

- P



Playing the Union against the AI, I've found I can afford to wait. The dogfight in Kentucky weakens the Confederacy more than starting the war in Tennessee.



tran505 -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/23/2008 11:57:31 PM)


I think the dogfighting will happen regardless whether you are in KY or TN; I would just rather have it happen in TN. There are only three full campaigning seasons in the game, and I don't want to spend one of them rooting fortified Confeds away from the Ohio River.

The idea behind the proposed change is a good one, I think. The main issue is that whichever side pulls the trigger first, will take all, or almost all the cities, rail in reinforcements, and build fortifications before the other side has any possibility of reacting. This just feels wrong, especially if the side pulling the trigger is the South. With some opposition, it would be considerably harder to mass the force needed to take over completely in a single move at this early stage of the war. The KY decision (as I said -- for me a no-brainer as the US) becomes much more interesting and uncertain. Nice side benefit is that it is also less programmed and more fun. [:)]

- P



wargamer123 -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/24/2008 12:11:05 AM)

Would the simple solution here be the historical one, had the South protected her Gut it would've left her head open to get severed?



IronWarrior -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/24/2008 1:29:15 AM)

I'm starting to think that the main problem lies in overruns. With overruns the Union side seems like it is too overpowering. I think it also voids the leader initiative part of the game, as you can just send in cavalry to overrun and follow up with the infantry without worrying about leader initiative.

I'm starting to think that the game might be better off without overruns at all, but maybe a solution is that only corps can make an overrun. I might try a game with a gentleman's rule about overruns and see how it goes.

Kwhitehead where are you? [:D] I have been following an AAR of yours on the ACWGC forum and hope that you post it here. I think it shows how incredibly powerful overruns can be and might need looking at for the sake of balance (and historical accuracy).



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/24/2008 4:43:28 AM)

Iron Warrior- I think the no overruns in Neutral space Gentlemans rule would certainly go some ways to slowing down this one sided land grab- though I still think neither side should be able to enter Kentucky until September- which is when they decided to do it.



Capt Cliff -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/26/2008 7:41:24 PM)

Giving Kentucky a "moblized miltia" at the start prevents the cavalry overruns, unless your using 2 cav ... hmmmm that needs more thought.



heroldje -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/27/2008 3:48:37 AM)

just as an update, i found that this doesn't play too well with the AI.  for whatever reason, the AI completely ignores the western theatre when you put neutral militia in kentucky.



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/27/2008 6:40:05 AM)

For now the best solution without reprograming seems to be my Gentlemans House Rule to not invade KY until September- and the Invader gets Three regions- IT has worked in several games I have tried.



JAMiAM -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/27/2008 7:17:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc o War

For now the best solution without reprograming seems to be my Gentlemans House Rule to not invade KY until September- and the Invader gets Three regions- IT has worked in several games I have tried.

Hi Doc,

Check out my revised house rule in the first post of this thread. I think I prefer it, as it doesn't straight-jacket either player into a strict historical timetable, allowing for them to make their own risk-reward decisions, based on the circumstances. However, it still imposes a pretty realistic dampening of movement through Kentucky in the first few turns. The inability to take a huge amount of territory on the first turn of invasion, along with the threat of the state going to the other side, and allowing reaction movement should, by default, make early attacks progressively more risky, not only in long-term effects, but in short-term, operational aspects, as well.



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/27/2008 7:40:36 AM)

Jamiam- I like this House rule of yours- lots of math involved but we can handle it - I shall send it out to everyone I game with
New Kentucky Honor Rules.

While Kentucky is neutral, that is, neither aligned with either side, nor a permanent state, the following restrictions apply to both sides:

1. No strategic movement, rail or naval, allowed into any Kentuckian region on the first player turn that the region is attacked. Only tactical movement, as restricted below, and amphibious invasions, are allowed.
2. On the first player turn that any Kentuckian region is attacked, no units may move into it by tactical movement, unless they begin their turn with a leader that has initiative. Also, no leaders may move into the region, unless they too, have initiative
3. No tactical movement, nor amphibious invasion, is allowed into a Kentuckian region unless it will contain enough units to ensure that it is "pacified" at the end of the player turn.
4. You may not conduct an overrun of a region, until there are three times as many units in it to ensure that the region is "pacified" at the end of the turn. All overrunning units and their leaders must remain in the newly "pacified" region until the start of the next player turn. If you don't meet this threshhold, then you may not click the overrun icon, and must leave the forces in the region to do battle with any enemy militia that may spawn, as well as any reacting enemy forces.
5. "Pacified" is to be defined as having a number of friendly Infantry, Militia, Cavalry, or Mounted Brigades remain in the region through the end of the player turn in which it is first attacked, that is equal to, or greater than, the sum of two times the number of Population in the region, plus the number of Resources in the region, plus one.
6. On subsequent turns, a player may reduce the number of friendly units in a previously pacified region, voluntarily, or involuntarily, without concern for movement restrictions under these house rules. Note that this is at his own risk of inviting partisan activity in the region.
7. These movement restrictions expire immediately when Kentucky aligns with either side, or becomes a permanent state of either side. Note that the latter case is checked at the end of the first player turn in which Kentucky is invaded, when the file to be sent to your opponent is being saved.



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/27/2008 7:45:32 AM)

Opps left out bottom half:
 
New Kentucky Honor Rules.

While Kentucky is neutral, that is, neither aligned with either side, nor a permanent state, the following restrictions apply to both sides:

1. No strategic movement, rail or naval, allowed into any Kentuckian region on the first player turn that the region is attacked. Only tactical movement, as restricted below, and amphibious invasions, are allowed.
2. On the first player turn that any Kentuckian region is attacked, no units may move into it by tactical movement, unless they begin their turn with a leader that has initiative. Also, no leaders may move into the region, unless they too, have initiative
3. No tactical movement, nor amphibious invasion, is allowed into a Kentuckian region unless it will contain enough units to ensure that it is "pacified" at the end of the player turn.
4. You may not conduct an overrun of a region, until there are three times as many units in it to ensure that the region is "pacified" at the end of the turn. All overrunning units and their leaders must remain in the newly "pacified" region until the start of the next player turn. If you don't meet this threshhold, then you may not click the overrun icon, and must leave the forces in the region to do battle with any enemy militia that may spawn, as well as any reacting enemy forces.
5. "Pacified" is to be defined as having a number of friendly Infantry, Militia, Cavalry, or Mounted Brigades remain in the region through the end of the player turn in which it is first attacked, that is equal to, or greater than, the sum of two times the number of Population in the region, plus the number of Resources in the region, plus one.
6. On subsequent turns, a player may reduce the number of friendly units in a previously pacified region, voluntarily, or involuntarily, without concern for movement restrictions under these house rules. Note that this is at his own risk of inviting partisan activity in the region.
7. These movement restrictions expire immediately when Kentucky aligns with either side, or becomes a permanent state of either side. Note that the latter case is checked at the end of the first player turn in which Kentucky is invaded, when the file to be sent to your opponent is being saved.

To make it easier to see the necessary force needed to pacify, or overrun, a region, I've listed the regions and amounts below. The first number is the necessary amount of Militia, Infantry, Mounted, and Cavalry units needed to pacify, and the second is the amount needed to conduct an overrun.

Paducah: 4/12
Henderson: 2/6
Bowling Green: 4/12
Louisville: 6/18
Glascow: 4/12
Lebanon: 3/9
London: 4/12
Lexington: 6/18
Ashland: 1/3
Knott: 1/3
Pike: 1/3



JAMiAM -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/27/2008 8:51:13 AM)

Hi Doc,

I added another sentence to rule 2, extending the initiative requirement to leaders, as well.  If you would be so kind as to likewise amend your quotes, I'd greatly appreciate it.



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/28/2008 7:40:02 AM)

JAMIAM- EDITED POSTS-doc



Tempest_slith -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/31/2008 8:57:12 PM)

A question for the game designers that ties to the Kentucky rule discussion.

15.2.1 Kentucky Neutrality says: “If a player exits their movement phase with units in a neutral region of Kentucky before Kentucky’s neutrality has been violated, an attack will immediately be executed in the area.”

The game behavior is that if more than one Kentucky region is entered without an overrun executed, the above attack is only executed immediately after exit of movement phase in the westernmost region invaded. The combats for other regions are executed in the opposing player’s turn.

Was this single region immediate combat execution the design intent, or was it intended to apply to all affected regions? If per intent, why is the westernmost region selected?

There is a significant game play difference in the answer should Kentucky join the other side as a permanent state. If Kentucky does join, the unresolved combat attacked regions will both spawn militia prior to the combat(s), and the regions would be eligible for opposing player reaction move reinforcement. This doesn’t occur if the combats occur during the attacking players turn.



Doc o War -> RE: possible solution to kentucky problem (8/31/2008 11:29:57 PM)

Tempest- I think what happens is as soon as the first region of Kentucky is attacked- which seems to be the western most- Paducha usually- it gets to have have an attack done first even if you have just moved pacifying forces into other regions, such as Louisville or Lexington. That first attack is all Kentucky needs- it immediately makes its decison, and could go confederate and the other regions would have militia rise up and fight.   or it might stay Neutral- in which case both sides are locked down by the Kentucky invasion rules until the state goes one way or the other.
  That is how I read this outcome.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625