techumseh
Deity
Hello?
American Civil War - JPetroski vs Techumseh
- Thread starter techumseh
- Start date
techumseh
Deity
Columbia S.C. captured. 1 rebel infantry, militia and a general destroyed.
BTW, my recollection is that the scenario ends on the Nov 1865 turn, not at the end of the December turn.
BTW, my recollection is that the scenario ends on the Nov 1865 turn, not at the end of the December turn.
techumseh
Deity
WILMINGTON CAPTURED A 2nd TIME!
Large garrison surrenders. Heavy Union casualties, including several warships.
General Stuart captured, his force destroyed.
"On To Richmond!" - General Rosecrans.
Large garrison surrenders. Heavy Union casualties, including several warships.
General Stuart captured, his force destroyed.
"On To Richmond!" - General Rosecrans.
techumseh
Deity
One change I propose to make in v2 is that the Confederates move last. I think this next turn (Nov) is the last of the scenario. After that, I suggest you play your part of the following December turn, and we tally the score then.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,675
Petersburg has been a hot property this game.
techumseh
Deity
It's true. Petersburg is both key to the defense of Richmond and readily accessible by sea, so it's a very strategic spot.
techumseh
Deity
IRONCLADS BATTLE ON THE JAMES RIVER!
BOTH ARE SUNK.
I attacked your ironclad with one of my Monitors, which I lost. I then attacked with a warship out of Norfolk and finally sank your ironclad. I then landed another force at the same spot east of Petersburg and dug in. I also landed farther west on the peninsula and destroyed two militia units and cut off your force in the hills east of Norfolk. That concludes my participation in the scenario. You can play another turn, but it seems unlikely that you can recapture any objective cities at this point.
BOTH ARE SUNK.
I attacked your ironclad with one of my Monitors, which I lost. I then attacked with a warship out of Norfolk and finally sank your ironclad. I then landed another force at the same spot east of Petersburg and dug in. I also landed farther west on the peninsula and destroyed two militia units and cut off your force in the hills east of Norfolk. That concludes my participation in the scenario. You can play another turn, but it seems unlikely that you can recapture any objective cities at this point.
techumseh
Deity
Yup, it was fun. Good strategy on your part. It reminded me of what Napoleon (Rod Steiger) said about Wellington (Christopher Plummer) in the movie "Waterloo": "This Wellington wages war in a new way. He fights, sitting on his ass. Well, we'll have to move him off it." What are your thoughts?
(edit) by which I mean, your destruction of railways and large stacks of artillery in key ports, followed by well-timed counter-attacks.
(edit) by which I mean, your destruction of railways and large stacks of artillery in key ports, followed by well-timed counter-attacks.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,894
Ok so just a few thoughts:
1. It's a fun scenario where I think you have the terms, scale, movement, etc. down pat as we were able to finish it (is that a first on this website???) and honestly if it was the dead of winter and I wasn't so distracted, we could have finished it in 1/2 the time. That's a huge plus for a MP scenario so I wouldn't change much there.
2. We've discussed the railroad issue. Some solution to prevent what I did or at least an actual economic malus to doing it would make sense.
3. I noticed early on that forests have the same defensive value as regular flat ground. I'm not sure why this is but I guess because of how bloody the battles in the wilderness were overall for everyone. Just bear in mind you can do a lot of creative stuff with lua to get a little more out of different situations. For example perhaps artillery really aren't that effective in forests as they are in the field.
4. From my perspective, the only units I really built at the start were artillery and honestly this was likely a mistake. I think the 7/6 3,3 infantry is the more difficult unit to kill than the 5/7 2,4 artillery. At least that was my experience when I'd attack your artillery vs. infantry. So, if I played this again, I would build Infantry Cv and exclusively Infantry Cv.
5. I can't remember if that unit had to be researched or not (CSA enlistments?) but if it did, then that was literally the only thing I'd bother researching for again. MAYBE the heavy artillery as it was useful here and there. Everything else really was a waste, but in any event, as soon as my research was done, I maxed taxes, sold off everything that wasn't nailed down, and incrementally rush-built as many units as I could. I find that in a MP game, if you aren't using incremental rush-build when it's enabled, you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage, but in my opinion, it's a strange and unrealistic gimmick that can be simply shut off for everyone easily with ToTPP. Shutting it off really would have cut the size of my army down dramatically though.
6. Basically, I didn't need much tech, I could get away with barely any city improvements, and I really didn't need a variety of units and actually wasted a lot of money going for more expensive cannons than simply the infantry that proved more versatile at least and placebo or not seemed more effective in combat too. I think if I had truly min-maxed it knowing all this it might have delayed you more as I probably could have built another 20-25% solid units (that are faster, can attack, etc. -- really kicking myself for not realizing this at first).
I'd hesitate to make changes because it would totally alter the scenario, but some observations since you have more unit slots:
1. I believe there was quite a variety of artillery during the war and that it got better as the war went on.
2. I know there was a large variety of rifled muskets and I believe actual rifles that improved over the war.
3. I think skirmishers would be a useful addition. Something that doesn't necessarily kill or get killed in a combat but just weakens other units, which can be done with lua.
4. Economically, there has to be some sort of pressure on the south. What are some of the things that could have happened if they went completely broke? Might there be a major slave revolt? Something like that? Not sure if you want "what ifs" to happen in the scenario if things are progressing reasonably, but in the event some knucklehead does what I did and implodes their entire economy, should there be a catch?
That's just some stuff to start with. But again, it's a scenario that's been around a long time and has been popular for MP for a long time. Tweak it at your peril!
1. It's a fun scenario where I think you have the terms, scale, movement, etc. down pat as we were able to finish it (is that a first on this website???) and honestly if it was the dead of winter and I wasn't so distracted, we could have finished it in 1/2 the time. That's a huge plus for a MP scenario so I wouldn't change much there.
2. We've discussed the railroad issue. Some solution to prevent what I did or at least an actual economic malus to doing it would make sense.
3. I noticed early on that forests have the same defensive value as regular flat ground. I'm not sure why this is but I guess because of how bloody the battles in the wilderness were overall for everyone. Just bear in mind you can do a lot of creative stuff with lua to get a little more out of different situations. For example perhaps artillery really aren't that effective in forests as they are in the field.
4. From my perspective, the only units I really built at the start were artillery and honestly this was likely a mistake. I think the 7/6 3,3 infantry is the more difficult unit to kill than the 5/7 2,4 artillery. At least that was my experience when I'd attack your artillery vs. infantry. So, if I played this again, I would build Infantry Cv and exclusively Infantry Cv.
5. I can't remember if that unit had to be researched or not (CSA enlistments?) but if it did, then that was literally the only thing I'd bother researching for again. MAYBE the heavy artillery as it was useful here and there. Everything else really was a waste, but in any event, as soon as my research was done, I maxed taxes, sold off everything that wasn't nailed down, and incrementally rush-built as many units as I could. I find that in a MP game, if you aren't using incremental rush-build when it's enabled, you're putting yourself at a huge disadvantage, but in my opinion, it's a strange and unrealistic gimmick that can be simply shut off for everyone easily with ToTPP. Shutting it off really would have cut the size of my army down dramatically though.
6. Basically, I didn't need much tech, I could get away with barely any city improvements, and I really didn't need a variety of units and actually wasted a lot of money going for more expensive cannons than simply the infantry that proved more versatile at least and placebo or not seemed more effective in combat too. I think if I had truly min-maxed it knowing all this it might have delayed you more as I probably could have built another 20-25% solid units (that are faster, can attack, etc. -- really kicking myself for not realizing this at first).
I'd hesitate to make changes because it would totally alter the scenario, but some observations since you have more unit slots:
1. I believe there was quite a variety of artillery during the war and that it got better as the war went on.
2. I know there was a large variety of rifled muskets and I believe actual rifles that improved over the war.
3. I think skirmishers would be a useful addition. Something that doesn't necessarily kill or get killed in a combat but just weakens other units, which can be done with lua.
4. Economically, there has to be some sort of pressure on the south. What are some of the things that could have happened if they went completely broke? Might there be a major slave revolt? Something like that? Not sure if you want "what ifs" to happen in the scenario if things are progressing reasonably, but in the event some knucklehead does what I did and implodes their entire economy, should there be a catch?
That's just some stuff to start with. But again, it's a scenario that's been around a long time and has been popular for MP for a long time. Tweak it at your peril!
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,675
Actually, I recall a PBEM game of a Colonial-era-based scenario (I don't remember exactly which one) where I was playing in some years ago, and an old SL member named Dario, playing France, declared victory by researching, "Industrialization," (a Future Tech replacement in this scenario) which the readme said, outright, was a victory condition, but two or three other players (I don't remember whom, now) griped, saying it wasn't brought up in advance (it wasn't mentioned, either way, so by default one would think it stands), and a couple of players were doing better than Dario, but he b-lined for the tech, and on and on. So it WAS finished, by it's own rules and design, and two or three players didn't want to accept that.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,894
Well, this is probably the first match that finished without any drama at least
Anyways, credit to Tech for creating a solid MP experience. It's a tough feat!
techumseh
Deity
Thanks for the comments, John. I think it was a good scenario for its day, but it's really showing its age. When I designed it, rail movement was unlimited, so I had to use roads for rails. But river movement was fixed at the same rate as roads, which was wildly unrealistic, so I had to substitute forest terrain for rivers. But to make the rivers connect with ocean, I had to use actual river terrain. but that required overlapping the 2 types of river terrain which gave a 225% defensive bonus on specific tiles. Thankfully, all that goes away with the Patch features. So I've already remade the map using real rivers only.
Regarding the massive rail destruction that we both engaged in, I think there's a good solution. Use railways for railways (novel concept!) and roads for railbeds. Allow the pillaging of railways, but not railbeds. Rail movement X6, railbed movement X1. So there would still be better mobility in rough terrain along destroyed rail lines, which is realistic. Also, I suggest that infantry units be able to repair rail lines by expending 6 MPs, using Lua. Less for engineers, slaves and contrabands.
I agree that we can use Lua to provide more realistic options for defensive terrain. For example, forest terrain might give a 25% defense bonus. Much depends on how we want to use leaders though (see below).
In this game neither of us used the whole tech tree, stopping part way to concentrate on maxing out our taxes. That's not ideal, since it leaves out lots of historical fun stuff, like the special units on both sides. We both avoided researching conscription, for good reason, since the downsides (draft riots and substantially poorer infantry) made it not worthwhile. That can be fixed in various ways, starting by getting rid of the difference in firepower between volunteer and conscript infantry and replacing it with small difference in the combat factors. If there's a way to escalate the cost of volunteer infantry as the game progresses (possibly tied to increasing combat losses) it would be a realistic way to force both sides to introduce conscription.
I agree about eliminating rush-building. Also selling improvements. I think it probably allowed you to avoid the worst economic effects of the blockade, yes? The blockade is a piece that needs a bit of work, I think the south should be compelled to build blockade runners to survive. We just need to make the payoffs worth the trouble. Clearly not there yet.
Naval units can now be limited in the number of attacks per turn. I think we could add the artillery module used in 1937, so that naval and heavy artillery can bombard, inflict partial losses with no loss to themselves unless the target is an equivalent artillery or naval unit. It takes a transport unit 8 months to travel from New York to New Orleans in the scenario, where it could actually have taken less than 1 month. I don't want to juice the MFs of the ships any more than they are, but some sort of strategic movement would be useful. Right now there are airports in Boston, New York and Key West, allowing minimal transfer of ground units to the Gulf of Mexico. Others could be added in southern ports (only the Union can use them though). Is there any way to increase their capacity beyond 1? As a means of naval transport, they are pretty anemic.
I also didn't build the Emancipation Proclamation wonder, since it's advantages were minimal and it would have given you guerrilla warfare. That needs a bit of a rethink too.
Regarding the massive rail destruction that we both engaged in, I think there's a good solution. Use railways for railways (novel concept!) and roads for railbeds. Allow the pillaging of railways, but not railbeds. Rail movement X6, railbed movement X1. So there would still be better mobility in rough terrain along destroyed rail lines, which is realistic. Also, I suggest that infantry units be able to repair rail lines by expending 6 MPs, using Lua. Less for engineers, slaves and contrabands.
I agree that we can use Lua to provide more realistic options for defensive terrain. For example, forest terrain might give a 25% defense bonus. Much depends on how we want to use leaders though (see below).
In this game neither of us used the whole tech tree, stopping part way to concentrate on maxing out our taxes. That's not ideal, since it leaves out lots of historical fun stuff, like the special units on both sides. We both avoided researching conscription, for good reason, since the downsides (draft riots and substantially poorer infantry) made it not worthwhile. That can be fixed in various ways, starting by getting rid of the difference in firepower between volunteer and conscript infantry and replacing it with small difference in the combat factors. If there's a way to escalate the cost of volunteer infantry as the game progresses (possibly tied to increasing combat losses) it would be a realistic way to force both sides to introduce conscription.
I agree about eliminating rush-building. Also selling improvements. I think it probably allowed you to avoid the worst economic effects of the blockade, yes? The blockade is a piece that needs a bit of work, I think the south should be compelled to build blockade runners to survive. We just need to make the payoffs worth the trouble. Clearly not there yet.
Naval units can now be limited in the number of attacks per turn. I think we could add the artillery module used in 1937, so that naval and heavy artillery can bombard, inflict partial losses with no loss to themselves unless the target is an equivalent artillery or naval unit. It takes a transport unit 8 months to travel from New York to New Orleans in the scenario, where it could actually have taken less than 1 month. I don't want to juice the MFs of the ships any more than they are, but some sort of strategic movement would be useful. Right now there are airports in Boston, New York and Key West, allowing minimal transfer of ground units to the Gulf of Mexico. Others could be added in southern ports (only the Union can use them though). Is there any way to increase their capacity beyond 1? As a means of naval transport, they are pretty anemic.
I also didn't build the Emancipation Proclamation wonder, since it's advantages were minimal and it would have given you guerrilla warfare. That needs a bit of a rethink too.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,894
Those all seem like good ideas. Just with the naval movement, I'd suggest going for a balance where there's a chance to intercept things still. Time is abstract to an extent in Civ but moving the distance to what it "should be" in a month also means the other side doesn't actually get a chance to intervene, so there's that to balance.
One more thing I forgot to mention - I would strongly urge you to consider utilizing lua code found in OTR and I think other scenarios by now that has naval invasions subject to automatic return fire from the defensive naval batteries. I didn't have an opportunity to use these once. Another option would be to make them ranged attack units if you'd prefer players to shoot things directly (pew pew is fun after all). What we did in OTR was basically if a transport tried to unload a unit / activate a unit on a sea tile within range of one of these guns, it was automatically attacked by it. To get around this, the Union would either have to neutralize the unit or land elsewhere.
Also, because you want to place these naval batteries outside of cities, if you're going to allow them to be neutralized, I would suggest that you repurpose the strategic bombing mechanic and tie these units to a city improvement so they can be rebuilt (when the city builds the improvement, the unit is created. When the unit is destroyed, the city improvement is removed). This would also enable the Confederates to beef up their coastline if they'd like by adding these to more cities.
If you're repurposing the map, you might consider if there are places where naval landings aren't practical. I don't know that you need a new terrain entirely for this, but you could mark the map with an asterix or what have you to indicate areas that landings are available if you don't want to use a terrain space for it.
Just some thoughts.
One more thing I forgot to mention - I would strongly urge you to consider utilizing lua code found in OTR and I think other scenarios by now that has naval invasions subject to automatic return fire from the defensive naval batteries. I didn't have an opportunity to use these once. Another option would be to make them ranged attack units if you'd prefer players to shoot things directly (pew pew is fun after all). What we did in OTR was basically if a transport tried to unload a unit / activate a unit on a sea tile within range of one of these guns, it was automatically attacked by it. To get around this, the Union would either have to neutralize the unit or land elsewhere.
Also, because you want to place these naval batteries outside of cities, if you're going to allow them to be neutralized, I would suggest that you repurpose the strategic bombing mechanic and tie these units to a city improvement so they can be rebuilt (when the city builds the improvement, the unit is created. When the unit is destroyed, the city improvement is removed). This would also enable the Confederates to beef up their coastline if they'd like by adding these to more cities.
If you're repurposing the map, you might consider if there are places where naval landings aren't practical. I don't know that you need a new terrain entirely for this, but you could mark the map with an asterix or what have you to indicate areas that landings are available if you don't want to use a terrain space for it.
Just some thoughts.
techumseh
Deity
What do you think of the combat system, where the main attack impetus comes from the leaders, but they provide no defense? It's asymmetrical, in the sense that almost all losses are sustained by defending units. I was thinking of using the leader system that Tootall used in Napoleon, but streamlining it if possible. Would if be possible to give an offensive or defensive combat bonus to units just for being stacked with a leader?
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 4,894
Well, I liked what you did with it given what moment in time the scenario was built. It made sense and we both utilized it. I agree though that there are certainly different and potentially better options now. Tootall's system is what I'd go for and it allows you to give different leaders different bonuses too. For example, J.E.B. Stuart would of course grant a bonus to cavalry, Lee might give everything a boost, etc. In Hinge of Fate I gave Guderian a big boost to Panzers, and Manstein more rounded boosts to everything. I know you can easily do this for offensive attacks. I'm not positive how to do it for defensive bonuses. Personally I think this system would be more interesting than the current one, though again, I think you did a great job with the tools you had available at the time you built this.
techumseh
Deity
There was one classic duel on old 'Poly between McMonkey and me: https://apolyton.net/forum/civiliza...9164-american-civil-war-mcmonkey-vs-techumsehWell, this is probably the first match that finished without any drama at least
I conducted a mobile, aggressive war against the North, and was handed a decisive defeat for my trouble.
Similar threads
