SCENARIO: American Civil War - C3C only

Originally posted by Procifica
I can't really say which looks more historical, but I like post 60's better.

ditto................
 
Originally posted by Misfit_travel




So did I. I wonder what dreadknought, Last Conformist and Rocoteh will say. I guess it will be after Christmas before we hear back from them.

Misfit

Hi, I 3rd that----post 60 looks very nice to me.

Ive been busy but still checking in from time to time. Dont see that I can add much to the tech trees -map work (not my strong suit) but am admiring the great work being done. Really like the multi-unit stuff.

Any AI questions let me know.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
 
Im still working on testing a new artillery unit that the ai uses. It is ,in a nut-shell ,(FLAGGED)a offensive unit without ranged bombard that is actually the strongest attack unit on the field and still has some defense.

There are several important keys to this working out which I will mention.

With extra hitpoints to improve durability it has the highest attack but also needs to be the slowest unit on the field. Without a movement adjustment the unit is not workable.

cannon-artillery movement 1----------wheeled---except horse artillery 2
footunits 2
calvalry 3

All road movement reduced 1 to 2

NOTE-The immobile (fortress guns can still be built with higher defense lower built in attack)


Also the AI must auto-built this at a set rate (FROM A NEW STRUCTURE-----iron works?-artillery works?) so that the amount can be controlled and also so that it wont only try and build this unit.

I also let artillery have stealth attack to increase its help on the battlefield

If these conditions are met then then ai can have a artillery unit on the field that it will use very well and the human artillery advantage is gone.

Artillery in this sense is a powerfull but slow-moving unit that can also help greatly with defense. However this would mean that ships would not have to fear artillery attacks but I dont see that as a big deal.

Let me know if this might be worth testing in the future, If not thats fine also.
 
Here is quickie guide I wrote up as if it was a personal journal. It provides a little more strategy, than the West Point guide and is written from the CSA perspective.

Merry Christmas to all.

misfit
 

Attachments

  • military journal, robert e. lee acw c3c.txt
    2.5 KB · Views: 151
Good guides, Misfit_Travel. You should definetly include them in the next download.
 
Merry Christmas, folks!

I'm not cut off from 'net access, merely busy! Currently reading up on the threads again.

I don't actually care all that much for artwork, but I do think the post #61 fortress graphics look better. But the majority seems to favour the #60 ones, so let's go for those.

The new units graphics looks good too. Anything that makes units distinguishable at a glance is good in my book, but of course it does not hurt if they look pretty too, which these do.

I'll be taking a look at those guides too.
 
Well, the guides should achieve what they're meant to achieve. I've personally never cared much for strategy guides written from an "internal" PoV, but that's just a question of taste.

dreadknought: You're basically suggesting CivII style arty. It would eliminate the human arty advantage, which would be a major good. OTOH, I suspect it would make arty the main attacking unit, which is right out of the window realism-wise.

No need to lose coastal artillery, btw; the AI handles that fine enough, so just keep those as traditional CivIII arty.
 
Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Well, the guides should achieve what they're meant to achieve. I've personally never cared much for strategy guides written from an "internal" PoV, but that's just a question of taste.

dreadknought: You're basically suggesting CivII style arty. It would eliminate the human arty advantage, which would be a major good. OTOH, I suspect it would make arty the main attacking unit, which is right out of the window realism-wise.

No need to lose coastal artillery, btw; the AI handles that fine enough, so just keep those as traditional CivIII arty.

Thanks , Well we need to control the ai builds (something we couldnt do before) by making it only buildable with a made up great wonder for certain cities and make it cost enough to not be the only unit a human player will turn to.

We can keep the various versions and adjust for various attack-defense points depending on its preferred use.

Agreed on coastal artillery.
 
Dreadknought, definitely something which might need further testing. Problem though again, is Artillery's role in the American Civil War is pretty low, and your proposal would make Artillery a possible dominant weapon (which it did not become until WWI).
 
dreadknought:

The AI artillery idea is interesting. Could you upload something for those interested to try on their own? Maybe a stripped ACW scenario variant? (I for one would like to understand it better before commenting further because I'm not quite sure I understand exactly how it would function).


Last Conformist:

I thought to get people into the mindset of the Civil War the point of view guide approach would work better. I could write it like a textbook, but that wouldn't have the same effect. I respect your feedback on this. Another way to do this is to write it like a letter from U.S Grant or R. E. Lee to a newly promoted General <player> with some mentoring advice. If we did it that way we might be able to embed it in the civilopedia and actually insert the player name.

Merry Christmas to all
misfit
 
Its not the loading time that bugs me, its the time between turns, also my computer crashes after about an hour of playing simply because it cant run such a big scenario.
Originally posted by Rocoteh
With regard to Yoda Power I notice that he did
post 1 (one) time(out of 2 300) in the general ACW-thread, launched
April 6 by Procifica.

I hope that the sudden interest for ACW is not connected
to Procificas Napoleon-wars scenario plans.

Rocoteh
I have always been following this project. I played the scenario three times, one time when you released it, and now a few days ago I tried again. That was before Procifica announced anything btw.

If you have anything to say to me in this matter send me a pm.

I dont want a dispute:)
 
I tended to lean toward post #60 only because the barricades look in post #61 complete obscures any terrain below it. The water look barricade also doesn't strike me as terribly historic.

However, the problem I've discovered is that when you put units on top of the post #60 fortress or barricade, you can't tell which is which. (I'm in the great white north of Ontario at the moment doing the Christmas relatives visit, so I can't upload a screen shot of this, but imagine an infantry unit sitting on top of the fortress / barricade artwork in post #60 / 61).

The unit will effectively block out whether or not the "tower" artwork is present, thus visually you won't be able to distinguish a fortress from a barricade. This is not a problem for the artwork in post 61.

SIDE NOTE: For those that are unaware, a barricade has Zone of Control and stops all enemy movement for the balance of the turn.


It comes down to this; you can have artwork that makes it dead obvious what's a fortress and what's a fortress with barricade, but lose all terrain visualization, or you can use the other style, which will show you the terrain, but you can't easily tell a fortress from a fortress with barricade.

What's more important, telling the difference, or making it look pretty?

Merry Christmas to all.
misfit
 
Originally posted by Yoda Power
Its not the loading time that bugs me, its the time between turns, also my computer crashes after about an hour of playing simply because it cant run such a big scenario.
I have always been following this project. I played the scenario three times, one time when you released it, and now a few days ago I tried again. That was before Procifica announced anything btw.

If you have anything to say to me in this matter send me a pm.

I dont want a dispute:)

Waiting-time between turns (with 1.2 Ghz Celeron and 512
MB RAM) is zero when playing Conquests-version C3C3.9
and 3.91.

Rocoteh
 
Originally posted by Misfit_travel

SIDE NOTE: For those that are unaware, a barricade has Zone of Control and stops all enemy movement for the balance of the turn.

Does this mean that reg'lar fortresses lost ZOC in C3C - they definitively have in PTW!

It comes down to this; you can have artwork that makes it dead obvious what's a fortress and what's a fortress with barricade, but lose all terrain visualization, or you can use the other style, which will show you the terrain, but you can't easily tell a fortress from a fortress with barricade.

What's more important, telling the difference, or making it look pretty?

Telling the difference in my mind, but then I'd been almost equally happy playing ACW with the unit animations replaced with those cute little squares from a traditional table-top wargame (those only used to computer games may think of Korsun Pocket or Panzer General).

But I didn't think of the obscuring terrain bit - I certainly also want to know whether the fortress I'm attacking is on a hill or on open ground! Ideally we'd find artwork which both leaves terrain identifiable and makes the difference between Fortresses and Barricades obvious.
 
Originally posted by Procifica
Dreadknought, definitely something which might need further testing. Problem though again, is Artillery's role in the American Civil War is pretty low, and your proposal would make Artillery a possible dominant weapon (which it did not become until WWI).

Yes, I agree that it could make artillery too useful (dominant) and as such would be best applied to ww1- and later . It might be something fun to mess around with if I do a less accurate version for tougher ai games and I might re-visit the idea at that time.

Hope everyone is enjoying the holidays.

I will be on the road the next 2-3 days but might be online at some point.
 
Originally posted by The Last Conformist


Does this mean that reg'lar fortresses lost ZOC in C3C - they definitively have in PTW!

No, they still have ZOC, but the stopping movement thing means you can't move PAST a barricade on the same turn. This should provide to be very useful in ACW2's larger map surface (not quite so much in the ACW map). With a series of fortress / barricades, you can prevent movement of troops through specific territories. (Just the kind of thing you may want to prevent the human player initial game march to Richmond).



Telling the difference in my mind, but then I'd been almost equally happy playing ACW with the unit animations replaced with those cute little squares from a traditional table-top wargame (those only used to computer games may think of Korsun Pocket or Panzer General).

But I didn't think of the obscuring terrain bit - I certainly also want to know whether the fortress I'm attacking is on a hill or on open ground! Ideally we'd find artwork which both leaves terrain identifiable and makes the difference between Fortresses and Barricades obvious.

The obscuring terrain below is a problem for me as well. I tend to lean toward artwork which is dead obvious as to its intention as well. When I get back home (on the 27th) I'll redo the post 61 artwork to make it a little smaller, to see if that let's the underlying terrain show up better. I post a screen shot then.

misfit
 
Yoda Power, after I'm finished with ACW2, I will see if I can make a smaller map version, scale 130 X 100. Would that work on your computer?

As Rocoteh pointed out, you may wish to try the latest Conquests version, which runs much faster.
 
Procifica was nice enough to supply me with a list of "filler" cities from ACW which didn't have any significant role within the Civil War. In the interests of historical relevance and reduced turn times, the following cities are being considered for removal in ACW C3C v4.0.

Please review them and indicate if you have a problem with any / all of them being taken out. (Please also note that we hadn't planned on adding any cities either).

Marion (in Illinois)
Johnstown (Pennsylvania)
Ridgway (Pennsylvania)
Platsburg (New York)
Rutland (Vermont)
Salisbury (Maryland)
Atlantic City (New Jersey)
Wausau (Wisconsin)

Hattiesburg (Mississippi)
Fort Lauderdale (Florida)
Georgetown (South Carolina)
Asheville (North Carolina)
Clarksville (Tennessee)
Dallas (Texas)
Corpus Christi (Texas)
Fort Myers (Florida)

Regards
Misfit
 
Here is the proposed Wonder's List for v4.0. Please note that I was going to enable Great Leaders to rush building wonders and form CORPS units (even without the required technology). I was thinking that there is enough spread of wonders / improvements that adding the functionality back into the Great Leaders shouldn't unbalance the game.

GAME START:

Both:

Communication Hubs
- located several places to reduce corruption effects

Union:

Davenport Gunboat Yard
- build union gunboat every "x" turns
- compensate for lack of river building capability

Boston Naval Yard
- build union monitor every "x" turns
- create some AI naval builds to continue naval combat

Wall Street
- interest on cash balance

CSA:

Vicksburg Gunboat Yard
- build CSA gunboat every "x" turns
- compensate for lack of river building capability

New Orleans Naval Yard
- build CSA monitor every "x" turns
- create some AI naval builds to continue naval combat

Southern Slave Labour (Nashville)
- build slave every "x" turns
- simulate southern use of slave labour
- simulate importance of TN to CSA war effort

Richmond Iron Works
- increased production


In Game Wonders

Espionage Center (game start)
- build and use spys

Iron Works (game start)
- Union only
- increased production

Battlefield Medicine (TECH - Medicine)
- heal in enemy territory

Southern Valour (TECH - Long Term Volunteer)
- CSA only
- Training Center in every city on continent

Military Academy (TECH - Army Organization)
- build CORPS (basically ARMY type units)
- increased likelihood of producing Great Leaders

Emancipation Proclamation (TECH - Improved Propaganda)
- Union only
- 2 happy faces in every city on continent

Small Pox Blankets (TECH - Total War)
- double combat strength against indians

Du Pont Munitions Factory (TECH - Improved Production)
- 1/2 price upgrades

Foreign Intervention (TECH - Foreign Intervention)
- 2 free techs

Hidden Offshore Accounts (TECH - Capitalization)
- free maintenance on trade buildings


Other ideas (which I'm not so sure about)

Central Conscription Center (TECH - Conscription)
- small wonder
- produce draftee unit every "x" turns

National Newspaper (TECH - Propaganda)
- one happy face in each city on continent
or
- six happy faces in single city

Heroic Epic (game start)
- increased likelihood of producing Great Leaders

Let me know what you think.

Misfit
 
I think we better leave out the Heroic Epic equivalent. You tend to get quite large numbers of Elite units, so even with a 1/16 chance, you get MGLs quite frequently. (Procifica: Note that this is going to be even more pronounced in ACW2.) I think we should drop it from the Mil Acad too.

Surely it would be more logical for a National Newspaper to have global effects?

Southern Valour is one powerful wonder! I shall not be overly suprised if playtesting shows it to be unbalancing, but let's try it out.

Will the unit-spawning Wonders be Small or Great? Small would mean they can be rebuilt if captured (in which case I'd drop the city name and call them "Union Gunboat Yard" and so on), while a Great one would produce units for it's new owner. Or would it? If the unit in question is not available to the current owner, will it appear nonetheless? If yes, I think they should be Small Wonders, if no, rather Great ones, to underline the importance of these specific cities.
 
Top Bottom