American Civil War II Scenario Development Thread

If you are still haveing trouble with getting all the cities in you could take several cities in the far northeast and combine their size and name them for a state instead of individual cities. Not a great alternative but it might allow you to place all the more strategic cities that you really want.
 
Florida peninsula is now complete.

Cuba is now on the map (the very northern slice, including Havana). Two of the Bahamas are also in (with more to come).

British and Spanish Civs added, with Havana (Spanish), Freeport (British) and Nassau (British).
 
I'm thinking now that I probably won't hit the 512 limit, as I'm up to about 100 cities and most of the eastern coast is done now. The most dense areas of the map are now all complete.


Even Rhode Island is too big to just lump in as one city for an entire state. :) RI has 2 cities on this map, Providence and Newport.

There is no way it would make any sense for CT and especially MA (which had about a dozen of the top 100 cities in the USA in 1860).
 
Boston metro has been redone a bit and now features the following:

Boston (which includes Chelsea, Cambridge, and the later annexed areas of Charlestown, Roxbury, and Dorchester)

Lynn/Salem (including Danvers, Beverly, and Marblehead)

Gloucester (including Newburyport)

Lowell/Nashua

Lawrence/Haverhill (including Andover)

Taunton


NYC metro now includes:

New York (including Brooklyn and Hoboken, NJ)

Newark (including Jersey City)

Elizabeth

Paterson

New Brunswick
 
Pensacola and Mobile Bay areas are now done.

I've added Fort Pickens off the coast of Pensacola, though its a bit further south than it should be, since I needed it to be an island.


Fort Morgan and (I forget the other Fort name) are represented nicely at Mobile Bay, guarding the entrance to Mobile.

Next up is the New Orleans area...that will be hell.
 
Coast is now done all the way to Houston/Galveston area (including New Orleans, which was indeed hell). I'll post a couple screenshots later.
 
Procifica:

This should be very interesting when complete. The level of detail is quite impressive. I'm curious about the inclusion of other non-player civs and I wonder how much effect it will have on the naval side of things.

ACW always suffered from not having any effective way to stimulate naval builds from the AI.

The experiments I have run with ACW v4.0 alpha have been unable to generate a sufficient threat to get the AI to build naval units. Maybe ACW2 will have better success.

Something else that came up frequently was the request that the CSA fleet have some objective to shoot for in running the blockade, such as a reward (trade / production points / money) for successfully running the blockade.

Cheers,
Misfit
 
This looks like it's coming together nicely.

My only concern is that it may take forever to play. I need ~24h of effective playing time to beat ACW, which is comparable to an Epic game on a huge map. This will taken even longer, I'm fairly certain.

Perhaps consider an "objective" system, wherein King units are placed in key cities? We've discussed if dor regular ACW; I cannot recall if it was before or during you abscence.
 
The Last Conformist,

I invented the "objective" system idea March 4 in the
FIRST ACW-thread. Go to Completed Scenarios Page 3.

You will find the first ACW-thread there.
Look at page 9 Post 172 by Rocoteh March 4.

Procifica launched the first thread late February,
so the idea have been discussed with no result
now and then during 9 months.......

Best Regards

Rocoteh
 
Procifica:

You have probably already thought about this, but I'll mention it anyway.

With C3C, a new terrain type was added - marsh. It typically gives 1 food and no shields/commerce. Terraform bonus accomplish nothing (except to add 1 commerce for a road). It also has a definable value for disease (just like swamps). Marshland can be cleared by a worker action (which can be assigned to a tech). Marshes typically have fish and game resources.

The combination of swamps and marshes might add something visually to the map as well as providing for some additional tech possibilities. (ie draining swamp might be a starting worker ability, but clearing wetlands might be a later tech ability). You could also make one type PASSABLE (ie marsh) and the other IMPASSABLE to reflect the difficulty in traversing the terrain. Might add a little historical realism.

It might also make sense to create 2 classes of mountains; one passable and another impassable. Given the higher resolution scale of the ACW2 map it might be possible to capture more realistic mountain passes in order to act as chokepoints. (I seem to recall that there were only a limited number of ways to get through West Virginia and in the mountain passes north of Atlanta). This isn't possible to be represented on the map the scale of ACW, but might be possible with ACW2.

Regards
Misfit
 
I agree with Misfit that we should attempt the limit the movement of troop through certain areas. On the other had just the size of the map will mean that a trip from Virginia to Eastern KY will take have a year game time.

I have been putting a lot of thought into the rail system. Perhaps I have discovered a way it may work well.

The way I see it we want to be able to move troop realistic distances but not have a unit move from Richmond to New Orleans and still have all its movement left. If we put the railways from city to city but only have a road around the city that should work well. For instance if you are moving from Danville to Petersburg the railroad road adjacent to the cities would be a road square while the rest of the distance to the city would be a rail square this would cause a unit to get from one city to the next quickly but not allow you to go from vast parts of the map to another part.

In the NE where the cities are closer together you could allow the rails to exist from town to town to town then put in a road square.

Ad this to the fact that you would not allow construction of railroads in the scenario and it may give us the realistic transportation we want.

This doesn't sound like an eye opening idea so I won't be surprised if you had considered it already.
 
I agree with Misfit that we should attempt the limit the movement of troop through certain areas. On the other had just the size of the map will mean that a trip from Virginia to Eastern KY will take have a year game time.

I have been putting a lot of thought into the rail system. Perhaps I have discovered a way it may work well.

The way I see it we want to be able to move troop realistic distances but not have a unit move from Richmond to New Orleans and still have all its movement left. If we put the railways from city to city but only have a road around the city that should work well. For instance if you are moving from Danville to Petersburg the railroad road adjacent to the cities would be a road square while the rest of the distance to the city would be a rail square this would cause a unit to get from one city to the next quickly but not allow you to go from vast parts of the map to another part.

In the NE where the cities are closer together you could allow the rails to exist from town to town to town then put in a road square.

Ad this to the fact that you would not allow construction of railroads in the scenario and it may give us the realistic transportation we want.

This doesn't sound like an eye opening idea so I won't be surprised if you had considered it already.
 
Rocoteh: I was unaware that the "objective" system had been suggested back in the first thread, which I must confess I've never read in its entirety (the 2nd thread was pretty daunting already when I came aboard!). I still think it's worth trying out.
 
Wow, alot of activity here, that's good.

Quote from Jatutt:

The way I see it we want to be able to move troop realistic distances but not have a unit move from Richmond to New Orleans and still have all its movement left. If we put the railways from city to city but only have a road around the city that should work well. For instance if you are moving from Danville to Petersburg the railroad road adjacent to the cities would be a road square while the rest of the distance to the city would be a rail square this would cause a unit to get from one city to the next quickly but not allow you to go from vast parts of the map to another part.

In the NE where the cities are closer together you could allow the rails to exist from town to town to town then put in a road square.

Ad this to the fact that you would not allow construction of railroads in the scenario and it may give us the realistic transportation we want.


This is quite similar to what I have in mind, almost exactly in fact.


Quote from Misfit: Something else that came up frequently was the request that the CSA fleet have some objective to shoot for in running the blockade, such as a reward (trade / production points / money) for successfully running the blockade.


Open to suggestions here on how this could be implemented. I was planning on putting a few unique resources at the other civs (such as sugar at Havana).


Quote from TLC: My only concern is that it may take forever to play. I need ~24h of effective playing time to beat ACW, which is comparable to an Epic game on a huge map. This will taken even longer, I'm fairly certain.

Perhaps consider an "objective" system, wherein King units are placed in key cities? We've discussed if dor regular ACW; I cannot recall if it was before or during you abscence.


For Conquests, I was considering the Victory Point system as a variation for the scenario, similar to what Rocoteh came up with for Short Game versions using Kings.

As for length of time, I'm hoping the new-style railroads will help allievate that problem. If all works well, I might even be able to increase the movement speed of Infantry to 2 and Cavalry to 4 (only certain terrain would stay 1 movement point).


Quote from Misfit: It might also make sense to create 2 classes of mountains; one passable and another impassable. Given the higher resolution scale of the ACW2 map it might be possible to capture more realistic mountain passes in order to act as chokepoints. (I seem to recall that there were only a limited number of ways to get through West Virginia and in the mountain passes north of Atlanta). This isn't possible to be represented on the map the scale of ACW, but might be possible with ACW2.


Can terrain actually be added in C3C? If so, I'd love to have passible/impassible mountains. I already was considering flagging mountains as impassible for C3C. Wan't aware of the marsh terrain, but I can use it instead of the jungle for swampy terrain.



I want to add that with more realistic naval movements, AND more rivers being made navigable, that taking out-of-the-way cities should take less time than before. I'm planning on making the following rivers at least partially navigable:


Hudson
Erie Canal (? have to do some research here)
Delaware
Potomac
Rappahannock
James
Mississippi
Tennessee
Cumberland
Arkansas (small amount)
Red
Missouri
Ohio
 
With the new railroads, I'm also considering setting roads to 1/2 movement point, and making them more extensive based on main roads from 1860. This would though not allow me to bump Infantry/Cavalry to 2/4 movement.
 
This is what I'm thinking for the new railroads:

In the northeast, it would be pretty much Civ3 railroads connecting cities, except for the biggest (which would be left with either roads or nothing). For the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, major railroad junctions and minor cities would be road, major cities would have nothing. For the South, most cities would be nothing, with rail junctions being road. This is meant to slow down long-distance travel to a reasonable pace, while emphasing the time it took to transfer in large cities and at junctions. With the scale of the map, this should be easier to implement than the failed attempts in ACW.


Note: If roads are made 1/2 movement, then they will be put in at all places where above lists as nothing.
 
Procifica what is the time scale of the scen? As i think that using thr roads to represent the existing rail lines by making the road move cost to represent how far a rail move could be accomplished in the time frame of the scen. Then make special corridors of no move rail to represent some of the union advantage in rolling stock over the Confederacy, for strategic moves, say from Indiana to New york as an example. Also make road construction hellaciously long to do, because the Union did extend the rail lines during the conflict. It was only when Sherman left on his famous march did Union armies not use the rail net.


Cheers Thorgrimm
 
1 week=1 turn has been the consensus.


Only problem with your suggestion is it completely screws up Cavalry's movement (it shouldn't be able to move double on railroads, compared to infantry).

Road construction already is hellaciously long to do. :)
 
Yeah cav would be a problem as they have the same rail move as inf. It is a shame that you can't specify road moves for different types of units aka 1,2 or 3 moves type of units.


Cheers Thorgrimm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timerover51
Modding Storm Over the Pacific
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
timerover51
timerover51
Predator145
AI changing strategy Flag?
Replies
7
Views
618
Predator145
Predator145
C
Mod for reducing unit spam
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
timerover51
timerover51
Quintillus
Sticky Re-Org
Replies
2
Views
252
Quintillus
Quintillus
timerover51
Hard Military Data for Modders
Replies
12
Views
429
timerover51
timerover51
Top Bottom