American Civil War II Scenario Development Thread
- Thread starter Procifica
- Start date
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Procifica: Defensive bombard is only one roll, regardless of the RoF of the firing unit; the only relevant characteristics are the BF of the artillery piece and the defense value of the attacker. A BF=30 siege gun will be 3x better than a BF=10 field gun on defensive bombard, quite irrespective of the respective RoF values.
As I have stated before I think artillery should
have a role to play in ACW. (Otherwise one can remove
most of the different artillery units).
With that said, I agree with Procifica that artillery as a
weapon had not its days of triumph during the Civil War.
If you look from 1800-onward: Artillery had much more
importance during the Napoleon Wars than during the Civil War.
The Civil War was in a fact a war that was fought like most
people think of wars: Individual soldiers killing other
individual soldiers with their own weapons.
Then came WWI and WWII and artillery become the great
killer.
Still artillery have its limits in modern days.
During the Vietnam war, when an N.V.A. or Vietcong unit
was detected the Army would call for artillery support and then
move in with the infantry to find (often) that N.V.A. and
Vietcong had disappeared.....
The U.S. Marines attacked without artillery support thus causing high losses on the defenders.
Rocoteh
have a role to play in ACW. (Otherwise one can remove
most of the different artillery units).
With that said, I agree with Procifica that artillery as a
weapon had not its days of triumph during the Civil War.
If you look from 1800-onward: Artillery had much more
importance during the Napoleon Wars than during the Civil War.
The Civil War was in a fact a war that was fought like most
people think of wars: Individual soldiers killing other
individual soldiers with their own weapons.
Then came WWI and WWII and artillery become the great
killer.
Still artillery have its limits in modern days.
During the Vietnam war, when an N.V.A. or Vietcong unit
was detected the Army would call for artillery support and then
move in with the infantry to find (often) that N.V.A. and
Vietcong had disappeared.....
The U.S. Marines attacked without artillery support thus causing high losses on the defenders.
Rocoteh
jatutt
Chieftain
Procifica,
I understand you want cavalry to be at a movement of only 3 however isn't it realistic that cavalry could move twice as fast as foot soldiers. I think haveing movement as a 4 would more likely reflect the ability of cavarly to elude capture when raiding into enemy territory.
I am sure you have your reasons for keeping it at 3 but I have not read them yet.
BTW, what cities do you have in KY?
jatutt
I understand you want cavalry to be at a movement of only 3 however isn't it realistic that cavalry could move twice as fast as foot soldiers. I think haveing movement as a 4 would more likely reflect the ability of cavarly to elude capture when raiding into enemy territory.
I am sure you have your reasons for keeping it at 3 but I have not read them yet.
BTW, what cities do you have in KY?
jatutt
Misfit_travel
Emperor
Procifica:
You already know my opinions regarding Conquests vs. any of the earlier releases.....
BTW, in reviewing your new UNIT TABLE I noticed that your missing amphibious units. In v3.8 and v3.9x of ACW most of the front line infantry were given amphibious ability. I suspect this should be removed and a specific unit type created (especially since we discussed adding the Amphibious Infantry tech to era 3).
You might want to add a placeholder for that unit type in your order of battle.
Also, on the new ACW2 map do you have any one terrain square islands? In ACW we had Dry Tortugas and Fort Pickens. These are unassaultable by the CSA without amphibous capable units. This may be a consideration to be factored in on your map design.
Regards,
Misfit
You already know my opinions regarding Conquests vs. any of the earlier releases.....
BTW, in reviewing your new UNIT TABLE I noticed that your missing amphibious units. In v3.8 and v3.9x of ACW most of the front line infantry were given amphibious ability. I suspect this should be removed and a specific unit type created (especially since we discussed adding the Amphibious Infantry tech to era 3).
You might want to add a placeholder for that unit type in your order of battle.
Also, on the new ACW2 map do you have any one terrain square islands? In ACW we had Dry Tortugas and Fort Pickens. These are unassaultable by the CSA without amphibous capable units. This may be a consideration to be factored in on your map design.
Regards,
Misfit
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Hmmmm....I didn't think about that problem.
Fort Pickens I don't believe was in ACW (only ACW2, and its a fort).
Though Dry Tortugas is a problem. And there could more similar style islands when I'm done (not sure yet). Though amphibious assaults were very rare in the American Civil War (want to stress, very rare, most landings took place at least a few miles away from direct hostile owned territory).
Dry Tortugas probably will revert to a regular fortress in ACW2, since the Norfolk problem has been solved due to the new map. Most of the Confederate coastal cities are "inland". Chincoteague is staying though to assist the AI Union. While it is unrealistic for ships to go back to home port after being damaged, I don't see how this can really be modified realistically. I think the much faster naval movement will alleviate this problem some.
I guess the main reason why I suggested amphibious infantry for late 1864/early 1865 tech is because there were some coastal landings made by the Union during this time (Mobile and Wilmington are examples).
Rocoteh, did the US Marines exist during the American Civil War? If so we could set up a basic Marine type unit, and then let amphibious infantry be the upgrade.
Alternatively, we could make infantry divisions amphibious (large size formations, more likely to be able to force an assault).
With regard to Cavalry being 4 movement, I'm not sure it would be balanced. Your typical Cavalry, while faster in movement than regular Infantry, still had to rest their horses frequently (every couple hours), and horses also had to stop to eat frequently (Cavalry usually foraged off the land). I would be interested in hearing more feedback regarding this issue.
Kentucky currently has Columbus, Bowling Green, London, and Pikeville for the Confederacy, and Louisville, Owensboro, Paducah, Lexington, Covington/Newport, Ashland, Maysville, and Frankfort for the Union. Most of these were significant to the American Civil War, with Covington/Newport being of good size for the time period (combined over 30,000 population). Maysville was an important Ohio River crossing.
Rocoteh, what is your opinion regarding the defensive bombard/offensive bombard on Divisional units?
Fort Pickens I don't believe was in ACW (only ACW2, and its a fort).
Though Dry Tortugas is a problem. And there could more similar style islands when I'm done (not sure yet). Though amphibious assaults were very rare in the American Civil War (want to stress, very rare, most landings took place at least a few miles away from direct hostile owned territory).
Dry Tortugas probably will revert to a regular fortress in ACW2, since the Norfolk problem has been solved due to the new map. Most of the Confederate coastal cities are "inland". Chincoteague is staying though to assist the AI Union. While it is unrealistic for ships to go back to home port after being damaged, I don't see how this can really be modified realistically. I think the much faster naval movement will alleviate this problem some.
I guess the main reason why I suggested amphibious infantry for late 1864/early 1865 tech is because there were some coastal landings made by the Union during this time (Mobile and Wilmington are examples).
Rocoteh, did the US Marines exist during the American Civil War? If so we could set up a basic Marine type unit, and then let amphibious infantry be the upgrade.
Alternatively, we could make infantry divisions amphibious (large size formations, more likely to be able to force an assault).
With regard to Cavalry being 4 movement, I'm not sure it would be balanced. Your typical Cavalry, while faster in movement than regular Infantry, still had to rest their horses frequently (every couple hours), and horses also had to stop to eat frequently (Cavalry usually foraged off the land). I would be interested in hearing more feedback regarding this issue.
Kentucky currently has Columbus, Bowling Green, London, and Pikeville for the Confederacy, and Louisville, Owensboro, Paducah, Lexington, Covington/Newport, Ashland, Maysville, and Frankfort for the Union. Most of these were significant to the American Civil War, with Covington/Newport being of good size for the time period (combined over 30,000 population). Maysville was an important Ohio River crossing.
Rocoteh, what is your opinion regarding the defensive bombard/offensive bombard on Divisional units?
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Going out tonight, work will resume tomorrow morning on the rest of what's needed east of the Mississippi River cities wise, and the Artillery section of the units.
"Rocoteh, did the US Marines exist during the American Civil War? If so we could set up a basic Marine type unit, and then let amphibious infantry be the upgrade." Procifica
"From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli"
Yes it did.
Edit: To be serious: that it did exist during the war with Mexico
1848 is not = It did exist during The Civil War.
However, it did exist during the Civil War.
"Though amphibious assaults were very rare in the American Civil War (want to stress, very rare, most landings took place at least a few miles away from direct hostile owned territory." Procifica
That is was a meant! It represents a landing a few miles
away. Then marching to the target. Remember: 1 Turn = 1 Week.
"Rocoteh, what is your opinion regarding the defensive bombard/offensive bombard on Divisional units?" Procifica
I think defensive bomdard should be kept.
Offensive bombard can be removed since AI never use it.
Best Regards
Rocoteh
"From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli"
Yes it did.
Edit: To be serious: that it did exist during the war with Mexico
1848 is not = It did exist during The Civil War.
However, it did exist during the Civil War.
"Though amphibious assaults were very rare in the American Civil War (want to stress, very rare, most landings took place at least a few miles away from direct hostile owned territory." Procifica
That is was a meant! It represents a landing a few miles
away. Then marching to the target. Remember: 1 Turn = 1 Week.
"Rocoteh, what is your opinion regarding the defensive bombard/offensive bombard on Divisional units?" Procifica
I think defensive bomdard should be kept.
Offensive bombard can be removed since AI never use it.
Best Regards
Rocoteh
Misfit_travel
Emperor
I'm pretty sure this got added in v3.8 to act as a resupply base for the Union blockade around Mobile / New Orleans. (Else damaged Union shipping would have retreated to Dry Tortugas and never returned to the New Orleans area). It worked too because Union AI shipping continued to bombard in the area after turn 1.
I believe there are two considerations here; 1) Union naval stations so that the AI can retreat damaged naval units yet still remain in the original theatre of operations; 2) Assaulting the Union naval stations (as the human CSA player).
I'd like to suggest that having Union naval stations (like Fort Pickens) is going to be needed if you plan on having the AI put up any kind of naval campaign in ACW2. I would suggest that naval stations would be needed in Mobile / New Orleans, Galveston TX, and the Carolinas. If you don't put something in those areas, the Union navy will always retreat to the nearest home port and never go back anywhere near these areas again. Human players will figure this out pretty quickly and seek to apply minor damage to Union shipping to get them out of the area forever. They may not be historically accurate (in terms of their map importance) but it was the only playtesting way we could make the Union AI stand and fight in ACW. I believe playtesting in ACW showed, it is the only way to maintain the historical blockade of CSA ports.
In terms of making these areas assaultable without necessarily having amphibious infantry, you could make each of these naval stations two squares worth of land (one for the town, one of the assaulting troops to land on).
Or we could just continue to let certain infantry types have amphibious abilities.
Regards,
Misfit
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
I can make Fort Pickens a city again, same for Dry Tortugas. Problem with Union bases elsewhere, is they aren't historically accurate.
Should have known better about the marines. I guess question is, were they used in the Civil War?
I guess we can make Division-sized units amphibious.
Should have known better about the marines. I guess question is, were they used in the Civil War?
I guess we can make Division-sized units amphibious.
"Should have known better about the marines. I guess question is, where they used in the Civil War?" Procifica
You can not have every single aspect of The Civil War
in your head.
148 US Marines were killed in action during The Civil War.
131 US Marines were wounded in action during The Civil War.
I say that indicates that the strenght was max
a regiment, or what do you think?
Best Regards
Rocoteh
You can not have every single aspect of The Civil War
in your head.
148 US Marines were killed in action during The Civil War.
131 US Marines were wounded in action during The Civil War.
I say that indicates that the strenght was max
a regiment, or what do you think?
Best Regards
Rocoteh
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Based on overall casualties, I'm thinking one or two regiments max.
My comment about should have known better, the shores of Tripoli part of that song (1801).
So, amphibious infantry probably should be removed as a tech. The 1864-1865 era though needs at least a tech to replace it, its pretty barren.
My comment about should have known better, the shores of Tripoli part of that song (1801).
So, amphibious infantry probably should be removed as a tech. The 1864-1865 era though needs at least a tech to replace it, its pretty barren.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
This is proposed Artillery figures for ACW2. A bit lower than what most are used to in ACW, but these will reflect Artillery's reduced role.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
will there be a gatling gun unit in this time?
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
Its not currently on the tech tree, but its a possibility.
I suppose it could go in as a "what-if" sort of thing.
I suppose it could go in as a "what-if" sort of thing.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
has one even been made yet?
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
The ACW C3C tech tree is in that thread in Completed Scenarios. ACW2's tech tree wiill be similar, but will have a few additional techs.
I have it sketched out on paper.
I have it sketched out on paper.
Procifica
ACW Scenario Creator
I do need more techs in the last era (1864-1865), so I probably will include the Gatling Gun.
Any other significant advances made during the mid 1860's?
Any other significant advances made during the mid 1860's?
Misfit_travel
Emperor
There is an alternate history writer by the name of Harry Harrison. Many of his books are around the alternate history of the Civil War (ie if the CSA had won).
One of them has Custer using Gatling Guns against enemy troops. He used them like artillery pieces and obliterated the enemy positions as they attacked.
Might make for an interesting late game "future" tech. Probably as a heavy bombard type defensive fire artillery piece.
Misfit
One of them has Custer using Gatling Guns against enemy troops. He used them like artillery pieces and obliterated the enemy positions as they attacked.
Might make for an interesting late game "future" tech. Probably as a heavy bombard type defensive fire artillery piece.
Misfit
Similar threads
