SCENARIO: American Civil War - C3C only

Originally posted by Misfit_travel
That's straight from the v3.x Unit Table. I copied it down exactly.

I also checked the editor settings for V3.x and a golden age lasts 5 turns.

I have no opinion on whether golden age should or shouldn't be in ACW C3C. I open to either idea.

Misfit

Misfit_travel and The Last Conformist,

Misfit_travel

V3.x Do you mean CIVIII-version 3.00 or version 3.01.
In the Conquests-version C3C3.9 a leader will not
start a Golden Age.

---------------------------------

also: this critique is directed against most of the members of
the scenario-team including myself.

Maybe we should start write (for example) Golden Age
instead of GA. This type of code will not make outsiders
more interested in the scenario.

With regard to Golden Age:

Remove it. I see no reason for it.

Misfit_travel,

With regard to your constant critique against me for
lack of documentation I have send you a Personal Message.

Rocoteh
 
Hi , been very busy at work....tis the season......

I may have missed this but did everyone reach a consensus on the idea to include disease on all terrain at a 5 percent rate and higher than that for marshes- swamps to simulate bad medical practice-disease-sanitation. This will help to cut population growth in the scenario in a historically acurate way.

And to those with holiday travel plans-----------

HAPPY HOLIDAYS--------dreadknought:santa:
 
With regard to the terrain, I'm thinking maybe 1 or 2% might be better with regard to realism and epidemic rates, and such for the time period.

It would be frustrating for population to drop in say 10-20 cities EVERY turn.

I'm thinking like 1% for Grassland/Plains/Hills, 2% for Mountains/Desert, 3% for Flood Plains, and the default for Swamp/Marsh (which I would assume is at least 5%).


Open to more discussion on this issue.

I concur with the use of abbreviations, using them too much will cause people to wonder what exactly we are talking about. The sheer volume of information already floating around in the BIG grand-daddy of threads is immense as it is for the new user. :)
 
I can try and use less abbreviations, but I would think most people likely to check out these threads are familiar with abbreviations like "GA"="Golden Age"; it's in common use in the community.

On the subject of abbreviations, you should perhaps then avoid refering to American states with those two-letter codes - KY, MO, or indeed GA - since they're fully opaque to many non-Americans.
 
This is a screen shot of ACW v4.0 revised tech table (1 of 3).
 

Attachments

  • techera1.jpg
    techera1.jpg
    74.6 KB · Views: 412
Take a look at this screen shot. The following art is displayed.

New Union / CSA multiunit art (Volunteer Divisions)
- shown in combat near Wincester

New Union militia
- fortified on hill two squares east of Wincester

New Artillery
- Harper's Ferry Fortress

New Home Guard
- Cumberland

New Union Cavalry
- outside Washington

I have also included a cratered terrain to demonstrate the look and feel with heavy bombardment.
 

Attachments

  • new unit art.jpg
    new unit art.jpg
    97.8 KB · Views: 408
Originally posted by Rocoteh


Misfit_travel and The Last Conformist,

Misfit_travel

V3.x Do you mean CIVIII-version 3.00 or version 3.01.
In the Conquests-version C3C3.9 a leader will not
start a Golden Age.

---------------------------------

also: this critique is directed against most of the members of
the scenario-team including myself.

Maybe we should start write (for example) Golden Age
instead of GA. This type of code will not make outsiders
more interested in the scenario.

With regard to Golden Age:

Remove it. I see no reason for it.

Misfit_travel,

With regard to your constant critique against me for
lack of documentation I have send you a Personal Message.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh:

I believe you are misinterpreting what was written. When I review the documentation and find an inconsistency between that and what is in the editor for version 3.9, I look to clarify what the intent was.

The point of the clarification is to determine whether or not that particular action was intentional (ie we wanted a Leader to start a Golden Age), or unintentional (we just missed it when making modifications).

That is hardly a criticism of you (or the development team). Since I'm a member of the development team, I would effectively critize myself as well.

The point is, if we have inconsistencies, they will lead to assumptions of what is expected within v4.0. I would like to insure, as much as possible, that the expectations of what will be in v4.0 matches the reality of what is actually delivered.

In this case if I had continued to go by the documentation, Leaders would have been modified to start Golden Ages. Last Conformist's initial statement about Great Leaders (post #36) triggered my statement about the documentation stating that it was in fact a trigger action for a Golden Age. Had he not raised this issue, we would have had unexpected functionality added to the v4.0 release.

If you were offended by my statements, I'll apologize for that. But I would ask that we all try to understand that we are dealing with many different people, operating in different countries, where English is not necessarily everybody's first language. Communication difficulties are bound to arise.

Having now spent the better part of two weeks working with the development team on the v4.0 release, I have a great appreciation for the work both you and Procifica have done in bringing ACW to where it is. It is a massive undertaking in time and energy to make modifications.

I also believe that I have amply demonstrated a willingness to listen and discuss before taking action on anything. I think you should interpret all my statements in that light (that I'm looking for clarification or guidance), rather than assume that I am implicitly critizing you or any other member of our team.

I would hope that we can put this misunderstanding behind us and continue to work together on v4.0.

Regards
Misfit
 
Misfit_travel,

I wanted to point out that in the Conquests-version C3C3.9
a battle-created leader does not trigger Golden Age.

.....also there is no secret that version C3C3.9 lacks
documentation.

The reason: My first goal was to create a good, playable
Conquests-version of ACW with as few bugs as possible.

I allocated most of time during several days to this.
Still I missed the "Demi-Division" bug.

OK, then: No hard feelings.

I think its good you bring up the language-question.
As I mentioned sometimes earlier: In my own language
I am fast writer and a fast talker, not so in English.
When I am writing in English I am often disturbed by
the fact that I have search for words, since I never
have to do that in my own language.

On the past and on the future with regard to the
ACW-scenario. Since February I have (with the exception
of spending some 30 days at my old cottage) worked
with ACW each day.

The scenario will exist in the future, that is sure, but I
think my role in the history of the scenario are reaching the end
of the road. I will take decision after the new year, but I
think if I still will be connected to ACW, it will be limited
to an "adviser-role", should anyone want my advise.
In such a case I will no longer be a "formal" member
of the scenario-tem.

That is way I think now, but as I said I will
return with a decision after the new year.

Regards

Rocoteh
 
Originally posted by Procifica
With regard to the terrain, I'm thinking maybe 1 or 2% might be better with regard to realism and epidemic rates, and such for the time period.

It would be frustrating for population to drop in say 10-20 cities EVERY turn.

I'm thinking like 1% for Grassland/Plains/Hills, 2% for Mountains/Desert, 3% for Flood Plains, and the default for Swamp/Marsh (which I would assume is at least 5%).

Ive have testing this out and at a 5 percent rate across the board then you generally see 3-5 cities (seems like it would be more but is not) per side suffer a pop. drop per turn. I have ran through at least 40 turns in a game .

If you prefer a mixed number to give flood plains-swamps more then an average of 5 percent works well.

However since everyone suffered alot from sanitation-disease-lack of medicine then I think across the board is more realistic for what we wont the damage to reflect.


We could do 4 percent normal(grassland-plains) and 6 percent floodplains- swamp for a little difference. 1 percent as a starting point will hardly have any effect so it should start a little higher.

I think those screenshots look OUTSTANDING....

Regards----dreadknought
 
Dreadknought, ACW2 will have more cities....I guess I was quoting figures for that.

I would probably double then the figures given, for ACW C3C. 2/4/6, with 10% for swamp/marsh.


Misfit, did you leave out Engineering on purpose for 1861-mid1862 tech tree? By the way they look REALLY nice. I definitely wouldn't mind if you could do the ACW2 tech tree for me when I have it finalized. I spent probably 8 hours doing ACW's tech tree design (the arrows and such).
 
Those units look very good! Are the 3 Volunteers in the CSA Division as opposed to the 4 in the USA Division supposed to represent the different number of brigades each side had in a Division? If so, I think you have the numbers backwards.
 
Originally posted by Procifica


Misfit, did you leave out Engineering on purpose for 1861-mid1862 tech tree? By the way they look REALLY nice. I definitely wouldn't mind if you could do the ACW2 tech tree for me when I have it finalized. I spent probably 8 hours doing ACW's tech tree design (the arrows and such).


Yes, two techs are missing from the ACW C3C tree that are in the ACW2 tree. I made that call because the two techs in question, Engineering and Improved Repair, didn't have anything associated with them (ie no improvements, actions or units).

I have templates of what I did to create the look and feel of these tech trees. When you finalize ACW2 let me know. I'd be happy to help out. Adding things now is easy (I spent the time to set it up to make it more adaptable on future projects).

Misfit
 
Originally posted by Noldodan
Those units look very good! Are the 3 Volunteers in the CSA Division as opposed to the 4 in the USA Division supposed to represent the different number of brigades each side had in a Division? If so, I think you have the numbers backwards.


Thanks for the feedback. It took a little digging but I found the units all over the place and adapted them. (Wait till you see the later division / infantry units and irregulars).

There are actually 4 men in each Division sized unit. You have to look closely at the screen shot to see the fourth man, due to the orientation of the combat.

If I have time let over, and am ambitious enough, I'll mod the graphics to the correct number of brigades per division. I'll be honest though, that may be outside of my current abilities, and I already have way too many other priorities on this release. That is a "would be nice" type feature, rather than the "must haves" which are in the project plan.

The Irregular / Guerilla units and the Home Guard will not be in national colours. I thought they would look good as is since they aren't really main line troops. It also adds something to the Western part of the map.

I'll post a screen shot of some of the other units as I work my way further into the release.

Regards
Misfit
 
Originally posted by dreadknought


Ive have testing this out and at a 5 percent rate across the board then you generally see 3-5 cities (seems like it would be more but is not) per side suffer a pop. drop per turn. I have ran through at least 40 turns in a game .

If you prefer a mixed number to give flood plains-swamps more then an average of 5 percent works well.

However since everyone suffered alot from sanitation-disease-lack of medicine then I think across the board is more realistic for what we wont the damage to reflect.


We could do 4 percent normal(grassland-plains) and 6 percent floodplains- swamp for a little difference. 1 percent as a starting point will hardly have any effect so it should start a little higher.

3-5 cities a turn losing 1 population point is pretty high. If you consider that it takes the average city between 8 - 12 turns to grow 1 pop. point.

That would mean that between 24 - 60 cities will have lost 1 pop. point BEFORE they would have a chance to grow one normally. That would be a pretty heavy hit to the potential production points. I think it might be a good idea to start smaller because there are other variables, like drafting and unit construction, that will come into play to reduce pop.

Also keep in mind that we have introduced two techs to stop disease in marsh and floodplain. So by middle of era 2 you will have effectively stopped disease from marsh and floodplain tiles.

I think we need to debate the implications of this a little further so we don't wind up stripping the cities of their production capacity.

Misfit
 
In this screen shot you will see the balance of the new artwork.

Native Indian
- located on the Indian village

Mounted Native Indian
- located to the right of the Indian village

Union and CSA Raider
- to the left of the Indian village

SpringField Rifleman
- on the hill south of the Indian village

SpringField Division
- southwest of the hill

Infiltrator
- south, southeast of the hill (mounted in tan)

CSA Spencer Rifle Division
- northeast of the hill
(Union division looks the same, just in blue and is located two square away to the southeast)

Conf. Irregular
- east of the hill (in tan with long coat)

CSA Cavalry
- east of the Irregular

CSA Enfield Division and Brigade
- north of the CSA Cavalry
(There are five guys standing there, four belong to the DIV unit, the fifth, which is furthest east, is the brigade)
 

Attachments

  • new unit artwork.jpg
    new unit artwork.jpg
    26.5 KB · Views: 350
Please take a look at the attached screen shot. Give me your opinion on what look works best for the Indian Village.

Thanks
Misfit
 

Attachments

  • village choices.jpg
    village choices.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 328
I've got two different looks available for the Fortress & Barricades. Tell me which you think looks more period historic.

Please note: I've changed the Swamp terrain from V3.9 to the Marsh terrain from Conquests. I think it makes for a much cleaner look in the deep South.
 

Attachments

  • 1 of 2.jpg
    1 of 2.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 337
Top Bottom