SCENARIO: American Civil War Full-Release Version

Did you enjoy playing this scenario?

  • Yes, this is one of the best ever, please send it to Firaxis.

    Votes: 62 39.5%
  • Yes, this scenario is well-made.

    Votes: 26 16.6%
  • Yes, but improvements could be made.

    Votes: 11 7.0%
  • I cannot vote at this time.

    Votes: 47 29.9%
  • No, I didn't really like it.

    Votes: 11 7.0%

  • Total voters
    157
Hmmm, interesting list of Key Cities.

Here's my two personal lists:

Long Game (each side has 8 objective cities) (estimated time of completion: 100-200 turns):

Union- Washington DC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, Cairo, Santa Fe

Effect: This splits the Union into two pieces (and was one of the major Confederate plans of Robert E. Lee in 1862/63 as well, driving to Lake Erie) and gives the Confederates complete control over the Ohio River. Also, this gives the Confederacy control over the New Mexico Territory (another key objective in 1861/62).

Confederate- Nashville, Vicksburg, Richmond, New Orleans, Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, Atlanta

Effect: This splits the Confederacy in three pieces, which is what eventually happened. This also gives the Union control of the Confederate capital. Also, all major Confederate ports are taken (except Wilmington).

Note: Evansville is replacing Louisville because of my plans for the next major update (which will be on next post).

Short Game: (estimated time of completion: 50-100 turns)

Union- Washington DC, St. Louis, Cincinnati

Confederate- Nashville, Richmond, Knoxville

Effect: This gives each side limited objectives to take, not too deep into the other's territory.

Feel free to post any comments or recommend any changes to any of these lists.
 
Proposed Changes for Version 2.10PRE:

1) The Ohio River and the cities of Columbus, Cairo, Paducah, and New Madrid are going to be redone and placed more accurately. The Mississippi River between St. Louis and Memphis also is going to be redone.
2) Troop costs are going to be lowered a bit more. This is so units can be build faster in case one side suffers heavy losses. Union and Confederate reinforcements and new troop levies usually came pretty fast when needed. Some buildings also will be altered.

Estimated date of completion: April 11th to April 13rd...I'm unsure as of yet.
 
If anyone has any ideas on like city placement, troop placement, units, costs, techs, or ANYTHING else to do with this scenario, please post them.

I don't have sources for everything, and maybe someone has better ideas for something than I do.
 
I don't know how much I like the idea of Kentucky or other border states being separate civs. Would it be possible to split the population evenly between the number of Confederates and Yankees, or even have more Confederates, so that the city is paralyzed and can't build anything? It would also require the Union player to station troops there that it wouldn't otherwise so it could supress any rebellion
 
Well, at first I didn't want to make Kentucky a separate civ either. But all of my sources confirm that in June/July 1861, that Kentucky was a neutral state. None of the others were (there were Confederate and Union troops in Missouri, Union troops in Maryland).

The other thing which I can do in this regard is to make half the cities Union and half Confederate (the way it is currently), but not put any units in these cities. I'm redoing army placements to where there will be no Union/Confederate troops in Kentucky, now that I have accurate sources.

As for population, there is no way I can set citizen loyalities so to speak (a city is all Union or all Confederate).

So, let's take an unofficial vote:

Should I...

1) Make Kentucky a separate Civ which cannot build anything

or

2) Leave Kentucky the way it is now but remove the troops from its cities.
 
As for population, there is no way I can set citizen loyalities so to speak (a city is all Union or all Confederate).

I haven't made a scenario for Civ3, or even toyed with the editing process with it, but wouldn't it be possible to, for example, have Kentucky cities be Confederate, and make it pop 7 we'll say, then have the Union take it over and then add 4 or 5 pop points using workers?
 
I would have to load up a saved game for people to play if I did it that way. It'd be WAYYYY too complicated to get all the cities the way you're proposing, and still having accurate troop placement.

Most of the cities in Kentucky are size 1 (Bowling Green, Lexington, and Louisville are exceptions, only Louisville is above size 2). This makes doing something like this even harder.

Population sizes can't be changed, because they are based on actual 1860 census population figures, and other sources when I didn't have census figures to use (all cities of 9,500 population or higher (size 3 or higher) are based on the 1860 US census).

Unfortunately, the editor is VERY VERY rigid.

And, the other thing I'd like to point out, is during this time, most Kentuckians wished to remain neutral and not take part in the conflict. When Major General Polk ordered troops into Columbus, Kentucky on September 3rd, 1861, Kentucky no longer was "neutral" and that is when they had to take sides. Brigadier General Grant took Paducah on September 5th, 1861.

Missouri in contrast, had their own "civil war" of sorts going on since late April, 1861, and most citizens had to choose between Union and Confederate (many were forced by the respective fire-eaters of the state, these being Governor Jackson, Brigadier General Lyons, and Francis Blair Jr.). Union and Confederate troops were in the state by May (from Arkansas, Tennessee, and Illinois). Version 2.00PRE does a nice job of representing Missouri's forces, but it still isn't as accurate as I'd like it to be (researched a new source which has more detailed information for June/July 1861).

I hope this information helps.
 
Hello. I would just like to report that the scenario loads well. However, when I save a game my computer refuses to load it. Also, the date starts at 4000 BC, which seemed a bit inaccurate to me. I'll download the new version and try it out later. I would also like to say that I would dislike having Kentucky as a 'neutral' civ, as I feel having neutral civs in a scenario greatly detract from it.
 
Hmmm, this is the first time someone has reported a problem with a saved game...I'll look into it ASAP.

I can't set the dates with Civ3, I haven't gotten to doing that with PTW yet. The problem with doing this, is I make the scenario in the Civ3 editor, which means any changes then have to be converted to PTW. I don't want to make 2 copies of the scenario, and then put in changes to each one, that's double work for me. :) So, there isn't really much I can do with the dates, except put directions in the InstallPTW.txt on how to set up the dates manually.

Well, the "neutral" civ would be quickly taken over by the Union and Confederates, and hopefully be gone within 5 to 10 turns (since it will be lightly if at all defended). Its just more accurate this way. Its neutrality goes down the toilet once Union or Confederate forces enter its territory. :)
 
Loading saved game crashed for me too (at I think 30%, couldn't see the number change real well before it crashed), on PTW 1.14.

Has anyone else experienced such a problem?
 
I suggest you leave Kentucky as it is, but remove troops.
I think there is a great majority against having Kentucky
as an separate Civ.

By the way I am going to upgade from 256 MB RAM to
512 MB RAM today.

It will be interesting to see what impact on waiting time
between turns this will have.
No crash when loading saved game for me, so far.

Rocoteh
 
It will be interesting to see if the upgrade in RAM affects the 76% crash bug as well. :) Have you had any problems loading saved games, Rocoteh?

Yes, I'm seeing that Kentucky should be left half Union and Confederate. I suppose in some ways it would be easier this way (not having to declare war on Kentucky, AI may/may not declare war on Kentucky).

I wish I could fit Belmont, Missouri onto the map, but its WAY too close to Columbus, KY so it has to stay out (its across the Mississippi from it). Belmont had a large amount of Confederate troops at this time. I'll put their troops either at New Madrid or Cape Girardeau. :)

Also, I've added a new section to the Scenario Index, called Known Bugs.
 
Did the Union or Confederacy actually attack and occupy Kentucky?
 
"On 4 September, 1861 , Confederate General Polk,...
violated the neutrality of Kentucky in order to
occupy a strong defensive position at Columbus,Kentucky."

Don Lowry
 
Anonymous4401, from an earlier post on this page:

And, the other thing I'd like to point out, is during this time, most Kentuckians wished to remain neutral and not take part in the conflict. When Major General Polk ordered troops into Columbus, Kentucky on September 3rd, 1861, Kentucky no longer was "neutral" and that is when they had to take sides. Brigadier General Grant took Paducah on September 5th, 1861.

By November, 1861, the Union had control over Louisville, Paducah, Frankfort, Lexington, and other cities in northern Kentucky.

The Confederacy had control over Columbus, Bowling Green, London, Pikeville, and other cities in southern Kentucky.

This is the way it is currently set up, based on November, 1861. This was because I didn't have accurate sources or figures for the period June/July 1861 (or August through October for that matter, except the Paducah and Columbus occupations). Now, I have reasonably accurate figures for troop deployments in June/July 1861. Some areas I'm going to have to improvise on though and guestimate. (guess and estimate)

So, to answer your question, yes the Union and Confederacy did eventually occupy Kentucky (September-November 1861), but in June and July of 1861, it was "neutral" in the eyes of both Union and Confederacy, as well as in the eyes of most of its leaders (including the Confederate-leaning governor).

I hope this helps. :)

Edit: Brigadier General Pillow's troops were the ones who actually occupied Columbus on Sept. 3rd, Polk though was his commanding officer and immediate superior. Polk later gained permission from President Davis for the move, but at the time it had been opposed by the Secretary of War of the Confederacy, as well as A. S. Johnson (opposition to it was after the fact).

Edit #2: If anyone can supply some troop deployment figures for the Union armies in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri for the period June-July, 1861 (or even May would be useful), and the Confederate armies in Tennessee and Missouri for the same time period, this would be most helpful. :)
 
I have now gotten a second job, so my time working on this scenario is going to be even more limited than originally thought. :)

I've got all weekend though off, so I am hoping to get Version 2.10PRE done by then, and finish uploading screenshots on the front page of this thread.

I'm also setting up a dedicated forum for this scenario, I will post more details when its complete.

Kentucky is going to be split Union/Confederacy as per Version 2.00PRE, but troops will be removed from all cities. I hope this doesn't result in AI razes.
 
Go here for the new ACW dedicated forums at Cdgroups.org.

All scenario information as it is on the front page of this thread will continue to be updated as needed.

I hope that people will browse and use the dedicated forums, to prevent the 700+ posts problem that happened to the other ACW thread here. :) Note: You can still post in this thread though.

Edit: Again, I'm not abandoning the CivFanatics forum. The first page of this thread will be updated with every version update like it has been, and soon I'm going to have CSA screenshots up.
 
I will continue to post at CivFanatics, but will abstain from
Cdgroups. org.

Rocoteh
 
Again, I'd like to state that this thread still is going to be a central focus of the scenario. But, one thread isn't necessarily enough once I send it off to Firaxis. The previous thread in a month and a half had over 35 pages and 700+ posts!

This one already is on that same pace.

I was thinking a dedicated forum for the scenario might be a good thing, a place to attract more interest. I plan on posting the link into the first post of this thread.

I would like to point as an example, the mod DyP. They have a dedicated forum over there, and it is the most popular mod in Civ3. Why not the same for ACW?

Rocoteh, I respect your decision to leave...but I disagree with it.

This forum was the birthplace of ACW, and it still is important. I just don't want people who wish to discuss the scenario in the future to have to sift through HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of posts in ONE thread to find what they're looking for. Part of the reason why I did the first page the way I did, but then user comments are still going to have that same problem here.

Tet's mod has over 500 posts in that one thread...its impossible to find anything in it. :)

Rocoteh: I thank you for the hard work you've devoted to the scenario, and you'll be forever listed proudly as co-creator of the scenario. Without you, ACW wouldn't be what it is.

One more time I will stress: all updates will be posted here. Discussion is still encouraged here. CivFanatics will receive the first updates of any new updates to the scenario, because of the large member base.

This scenario is suffering a grave loss today.
 
Top Bottom