A House Divided 1861 - 1865 ToT scenario released

THIS SCENARIO HAS BEEN UPDATED TO V1.1 ON THE SCENARIO LEAGUE WEBSITE::

You can find the game zip files and screen shots at http://sleague.civfanatics.com/index.php/A_House_Divided_1861_-1865

Check out post #58 in this thread to review the latest changes.

GAME INTRODUCTION:

"
Washington D.C., (AP) -- April 1861

The force of events move very quickly upon the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency of the United States back in November 1860. South Carolina, which did not cast a single vote for him, acts first, calling for a convention to SECEDE from the Union. State by state, conventions are held, and the CONFEDERACY is formed. Within three months of his election, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas have seceded from the Union.

As president and Commander-in-chief the burden rests upon your shoulders to preserve the Union. Will you be able to successfully marshall the large resource at your command and break the southern rebellion. Can you restore the Union or will the South's fight for independence succeed?.
"

The scenario covers the entire American Civil War. The game lasts from from April 1861 to June 1865 with each turn representing one month.

There two main protagonists are the Union and the Confederates. The scenario also includes the Border States, England and France but are meant to be played. The game has been designed to play ONLY as the Union.

There are a number of house rules and game concepts, all designed to enhance the scenario experience, that the player should familiarize themselves with before beginning to play. As such, please read the scenario's ReadMe PDF file first.

The scenario has been designed and tested on a 64-bit PC computer and should therefore work on both 32 and 64-bit platforms.

If you have a 64-bit computer you will need to run MastermindX's "Civ2XP64Patcher.exe" patch after starting the Test of Time program but before loading the scenario. I have included the patch and instructions on how to use it in the zip files. If you prefer, you can also download the patch from the CivFanatics forum http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193215.

I hope you enjoy the game as much as I liked designing it.

"merciless" ????

is more like it!!!


Your scen looks really excellent. Still checking it out the details.

AGRICOLA said:

"merciless" ????

is more like it!!!

Click to expand...

It's always good to hear from you Agricola. As you know my comments were meant out of the greatest respect for your play testing skills.

I look forward to any feedback you are willing to provide.

I nearly died laughing when I read it. Thanks for the second nicest compliment ever and a most accurate description of my playtest style.

I think that a scen that is the result of months of hard work by a designer deserves equal effort from a playtester.

After a fairly thorough initial looksee, here are my trivial and not so trivial comments about AHD 1861-1865.

1. Could you please remove the pollution icon from the ICONS file to reduce the clutter on some city screens.

2. To me, about the most important features on a game map are roads and RR's because they are the key factors that determine unit movement and, consequently, strategy. IMHO, they should be highly visible and easily distinguishable. Unfortunately, this is not the case in AHD 1861-1865.

3. Please check the README for "Back Regiment" and change it to "Black Regiment". It's the kind of thing that spellcheck does not pick up.

4. As the README is silent on the subject of rehoming, am I correct in assuming that units can be rehomed to captured Confederate and Border State cities? Also, may one rehome Freight Trains?

5. I ran into some very misleading information for Naval Shells and Observation Balloons in the UNITS pulldown in CIVILOPEDIA. In neither case, does the PEDIA entry indicate that the unit is not buildable and that its prerequisite tech cannot be researched. Only a careful check of RULES shows that the prerequisite techs cannot be researched and, consequently, that neither unit is buildable. I can understand why this should be the case for Observation Balloons but consider it most unlikely for Naval Shells. The Union certainly had the industrial capacity to manufacture them. As it stands, the Union will have to fight the entire war with a pitiful total of 9 shells while the Confederacy will have 80-90 even though it had but a fraction of the Union's industry.

Pethaps you can eliminate the PEDIA misinformation by changing the Advanced Units Fields in RULES.


I'll start playing after I make a user friendly synopsis of any parts of MAJOR GAME CONCEPTS that significantly impact play.

This one looks like a real stinker.

Congrats on releasing this Tootall. I was mighty impressed when I finally got round to giving your WW2 NW Europe scenario a try, and I'm sure I'll love this one as well. All I need now are more typical British temperatures that are conducive to playing computer games

On a pedantic note, you have used a British guardsman icon with his bearskin unceremoniously sliced off at the top for the British infantry unit. I've taken the liberty of updating your units file with this fixed, plus a couple of other changes (feel free to ignore BTW!), including:

- US dragoons (ie the professional US Army cavalry in the West; wore either the Hardy hat or a kepi; they were distinguished at the start of the war from newly-raised US cavalry by their use of orange rather than yellow facings)

AGRICOLA said:

After a fairly thorough initial looksee, here are my trivial and not so trivial comments about AHD 1861-1865.

Click to expand...

I'm taking notes but will wait till I get more of your feedback before making any changes. Nevertheless, here is my feedback to your inital comments.

AGRICOLA said:

1. Could you please remove the pollution icon from the ICONS file to reduce the clutter on some city screens.

Click to expand...

I thought about removing the pollution icons from the city screen but simply forgot to do so.

AGRICOLA said:

2. To me, about the most important features on a game map are roads and RR's ... IMHO, they should be highly visible and easily distinguishable.

Click to expand...

I went through a LOT of tests and changes with regards the terrain graphics before I came up with a mix I was reasonably satisfied with, though even now I'm still not 100% content. I'd be more than happy to revisit the road/railway graphics if you are able to propose a scenario or terrain file I could use instead.

AGRICOLA said:

3. Please check the README for "Back Regiment" and change it to "Black Regiment"...

Click to expand...

I must have reworked and proof read the ReadMe more than a dozen times, and yet there are still mistakes... thanks for catching it.

AGRICOLA said:

4. As the README is silent on the subject of rehoming, am I correct in assuming that units can be rehomed to captured Confederate and Border State cities? Also, may one rehome Freight Trains?

Click to expand...

It didn't occur to me to specify this but you are indeed correct in your assumption, i.e. the Union player is allowed to re-home his units in Southern or Border states. I'm not certain why you would want to re-home your freight units but there is no rule against it.

AGRICOLA said:

5. ... I can understand why this should be the case for Observation Balloons but consider it most unlikely for Naval Shells. The Union certainly had the industrial capacity to manufacture them.

Click to expand...

This was done very deliberately. I originally allowed the Union player to build 'Naval Shells' but determined in my playtesting that they were simply too powerful a weapon/advantage in the hands of even a moderately experienced player. With a large stock of shells they simply could decimate Confederate coastal defenses and I felt this gave the human player an unfair advantage. For the same reason, I wanted the Confederate AI player to have a dangerous deterrent that compelled the Union player to assault strategically located enclaves only after careful preparation.

Fairline said:

Congrats on releasing this Tootall.

Click to expand...

Hi Fairline,

I'm pleased to hear you found my Battle of France scenario enjoyable. I certainly tried to make it challenging. Where you able to successfully cross the Rhine and overrun the Fatherland ?

Fairline said:

On a pedantic note, you have used a British guardsman icon with his bearskin unceremoniously sliced off at the top for the British infantry unit. I've taken the liberty of updating your units file with this fixed, plus a couple of other changes (feel free to ignore BTW!),:

Click to expand...

I'm definitely NOT an expert in this field and will gladly take your advice and counsel on the matter. For clarification, when you say " I've taken the liberty of updating your units file with this fixed, plus a couple of other changes" are you referring to the two units you attached to the thread or did you make other changes to my unit file as a whole put haven't posted it?

tootall_2012 said:

I'm not certain why you would want to re-home your freight units but there is no rule against it.

Click to expand...

Ouch!!! This is going to hurt . I really should remember to keep my big mouth shut and not ask questions to which I'm probably not going to like the answers.

The reason for re-homing is very simple: GREED or, as I prefer to call it, "Enlightened Self-Interest".

For example, New York and Newark are more or less the same distance from London and both can build WOOL freights. When delivered to London, the payment received for the Newark freight is 142 gold whereas the payout for the New York freight is 242 gold. Consequently, the smart play is to route the Newark freight through New York and re-home it before shipment to London.

Similarly, Syracuse can produce COPPER freights and COPPER is demanded by London. When Syracuse builds such a freight, it can move directly to Boston for shipment to London or for no extra movement points pass through New York, be re-homed and then proceed on to Boston. Upon delivery, the freight from Syracuse will receive 308 gold while the one from New york will receive 500 gold.

You can find links to freight payouts in the Great Library. The best explanation is at:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/64729-Calculating-Caravan-and-Freight-Delivery-Payments?s=



Here's what my roads and RR's look like.

AGRICOLA said:

The reason for re-homing is very simple: GREED or, as I prefer to call it, "Enlightened Self-Interest".

Click to expand...

I should have know better then to ask a stupid question ! It's never even occurred to me in all my many years of playing civ 2 to re-home freight units. Whoa is me !! I always though in terms of the city that generated them, i.e. you could build 3 regular 'trade' caravans and one 'food' caravan. And of course, you could always use your trade caravans either to help build a wonder or a very expensive unit.

Now you see why I said you're merciless, because you exploit and take advantage of every possible feature that I'm certain most average players probably aren't even aware of (including me)!

I fear your road/railroad graphics are a little too bright and bold for my personal tastes. I prefer a more natural look though I will continue to search to see if I can't find some that have more contrast.

I'm just curious. There was no mention of the scenario "American Civil War", which I released about a year ago in your Readme, despite a number of similarities between the two scenarios. Did you not download this scenario, or was there nothing in it which influenced "A House Divided" in any way?

techumseh said:

I'm just curious. There was no mention of the scenario "American Civil War", which I released about a year ago in your Readme...

Click to expand...

Hi Techumseh,

I remember following this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=445969 between you and McMonkey last year. I must be a terrible investigator because I remember only finding save files in the thread. I tried to look for the full scenario files on your http://www.tecumseh.150m.com/ and the Scenario League websites but couldn't find them. So I assumed the scenario hadn't been officially released and you were only doing BETA testing. As you know, your OMG scenario was a source of inspiration for my BOF game and you can rest assured I would have gladly mentioned your work. I'm sorry I didn't have the opportunity to play it. If it had known about it and played it I might not even have bothered creating a new Civil War scenario. Unfortunately that wasn't the case. Can you tell me where I can find it?

Sometimes, you have your head so deep in the forest you don't see the trees around you because your thread has led me to realize I did commit a great omission in the credit section of my ReadMe. There were 2 Civilization scenarios I did play and which did influence me, in addition to the book by James McPherson, and they were 'A Divided Nation' by Civ2units and 'The American Civil War' by Captain Nemo and Alex Mor. I enjoyed them both and the only reason I decided to create my own version was in the case of 'The American Civil War' because I felt the size of the map wasn't large enough to fully represent the scale of the conflict and because the tiles didn't have the stackable attribute (which anyone familiar with my work to date know is my greatest pet peeve with regards Civilization). In the case of 'A Divided Nation' the scenario, which was only released in the testing phase and therefore still incomplete, only covered the Eastern part of the campaign. In any case, both scenarios helped me outline to a degree the features I wanted to implement in my game, and as such I would like to extend my thanks to the designers.

It was posted on this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=445294 Sorry you missed it.

I'm now into the second summer in your scenario. I'll let you know how things progress.

Hi Techumseh,

You just confirmed my hypothesis... I am a terrible investigator... I just downloaded it. WOW it is HUGE !!! Now I understand why it was taking so long between turns for you and McMonkey to play. Do you have to play in HOT seat mode or can it be played solo.

Right now I'm playing Stefan Hartel's 'Quest for Asia' using Fairline's graphics. Since I was pondering whether a Napoleonic or Alexander scenario should be my next project, I though I should at least try his scenario and see whether I can create a worthy successor.

Tootall 2012: I'm afraid the scenario has a serious problem. It's now summer 1863, and aside from naval shells sinking a few of my ships, the Confederates haven't made a single attack. I've just blocked them off while researching technologies for better units and building up my industrial base. It's completely static.

One possibility is that you've used forts for your stackable terrain, and given most units a 2 movement. AI units with 2 move fortify and don't move, but that doesn't explain why cavalry units and leaders with higher MF don't attack either. Perhaps some combination of higher MFs and 'attack' roles (0) for some units might fix this, but I suspect there may be some other reason.

I can see the other problem coming: railways. There are lots, and you can build more. This allows unlimited movement of unlimited numbers of units. This is not only ahistorical, but confers a massive advantage to the human (Union) player. Right now I'm following the strategy I learned (the hard way) from Agricola. Build up your industry and railways, and research directly towards the most effective offensive weapon, in this case Siege Mortars. Build dozens of them and systematicaly demolish the AI opponent, one city after another. In the absence of any Confederate offensive actions, this should be pretty easy to do. My suggestion is to reduce the extent of Union railways at the beginning, and don't allow more to be built. Increase the movement of roads to compensate if that makes sense.

Hi Techumseh,

It's difficult for me to comment at this point because you haven't played a full game and I don't have a clear picture of were you are.

I know from my own testing that the AI can be quite passive at the beginning. In the numerous games I played, there were many occasions were the AI simply seemed to refuse to attack perfectly legitimate targets. Yet again in my own testing as I moved progressively into Confederate territory and tried to capture more and more Confederate cities, particularly objective cities, I found the AI increasingly aggressive even to the point, on more than one occassion were it wiped out one or more of my attacking forces.

I can tell you that the AI will not pursue you into Union territory, except maybe the occassional Guerilla Band or Cavalry unit. You seem to indicate you are playing a wait and see strategy, i.e. building up your industry and technology before launching an all out attack. I personally haven't tried that approach so I can't say whether it will be successful or not. As I mentioned in the Read me you don't have that much time to capture all the objectives situated from Virginia to Louisiana, particularly if you haven't established a viable railroad network in the South to transport your growing number of troops.

I'm not certain what you mean with regards the Railways. Yes they are a lot but they are almost all in Union territory at the beginning and don't even connect to Confederate roads, except in Virginia. There aren't even any roads in Kentucky or any that lead directly into the Deep South.

Maybe I'm wrong and you are correct in your analysis but I rather wait for you to reach the end of game and tell me if your strategy was successful. Only once I get a full picture from you, and Agricola as well, can I determine what adjustment might be required based on both your feedback and comments.

After getting acquainted with the finer points of the scen, I've just finished the first turn. Life looks good for the Union.

I have a small bone to pick about the lack of information on the function of many city improvements. For example, 15 Union cities have Newspapers that cost a total of 45 gold per turn to support. Players have no idea of whether the Daily Bugle is really worth 3 gold/turn.

A long time ago, as a result of highly inventive naming of improvements by designers (IIRC, I've seen a shipyard in the Hoover Dam slot), I started using a 2-column Word document to compare vanilla Civ improvement names with those in scens (see attachment). Any possibility of adding something similar to your Readme?

P.S. The Bugle looks like a pretty good deal.

Perhaps I spoke too soon. I just received notice that I must capture 3 of 4 cities before the Presidental election in 12 turns or lose the war. That wasn't part of my plan.

Looks like Lincoln lost the election. Formulating Plan B.

AGRICOLA said:

A long time ago, as a result of highly inventive naming of improvements by designers (IIRC, I've seen a shipyard in the Hoover Dam slot), I started using a 2-column Word document to compare vanilla Civ improvement names with those in scens (see attachment). Any possibility of adding something similar to your Readme?

Click to expand...

Hi Agricola,

I don't think adding another appendix for the city improvements and wonders to the ReadMe is an unreasonable request. Though many of the improvements/wonders may have been renamed, none of the functionality or costs associated to the slots they occupy have changed.

As you may have already figured out from the rules file there are many improvements that are either unbuildable (Airports, Nuclear Plants, etc) or that were only created during the initial set up and can't be built or even rebuilt during the game (Aqueducts, Sewer systems). One improvement, Training Camps (i.e. Barracks), is only available through an event.