How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1?

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

One of the things that gets lost is that the battles aren't necessarily a single battle.  Perhaps I'm way off on this, but I view them as a serious of engagements over the course of a month.  I don't have too much of a problem with reaction moves when battles are viewed in that context because troops are moved in to the area over the course of the month, but what I might like is for reaction moved troops to have a harder time actually being committed to the battle.  You may be able to get the troops near the battle but coordinating the move well and getting them to fight perhaps could be harder. 

I like the reaction move mechanic personally, but would certainly be open to tweaks.

edit [:D] similar points posted at the same time going in somewhat different directions. I like the idea of making the reaction moves slightly more dangerous either by allowing a counter-counter attack or something a bit closer to a WEGO mechanic during reaction, but I suppose those things change the underlying mechanics of the game too much. Just making it harder to recover after a reaction move might be interesting.

It is likely too early to start thinking about ways to fix it, if in fact there really is a problem.

But that has never stopped me before - me and my opponent talked for over an hour on Skype the other night about it, actually.

Some ideas, mostly half-baked:

• Make activation for reaction moving rare, and not to be counted on. Even for the South. If you get guys who can react in, great, but it should not be counted on when you set up your defense.
• Make MPs for reacting units that have not actually been activated VERY low, and don't let them use rail to do so.
• Limit the total number of units able to react in in some manner.
• Make "soak off" attacks much less painful. I did a soak off attack, and attacked 20k rebels with 10k union, just to pin them so they could not react - I lost 7k of the 10k attacking. Should there be some way to order a "Spoiling attack" where the units know not to over-commit? Kind of a infantry-raid that doesn't have much chance of success, but will disrupt the ability to react.

Those are just some ideas that were bandied about in case a solution was actually needed.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Berkut, I'll try to be nice, which is hard for me. Melo dude. If you have seggestions make them, If you don't like how the game is laided out get another one. Almost all the players except you find this to be inovative and flowing game. Sure no game is perfect, but this one fun, fun, game.

[8D]
Jon

I think some people certainly need to mellow out, but it isn't me, as I am not the one tossing around personal attacks and trying to make my posts be about me, rather than the game.

I do have issues to raise, and I raise them. If I don't like the game, I won't even raise any issues. Do not speak for me, and do not tell me what I think about the game - I find the system intriguing and worth examining, so statements like "most players...except you" are simply inaccurate. And since I have stated time and again that I *do* like the game, stating otherwise becomes something more than a mistake.

A game can be "fun, fun" and still ahve issues that can make it better. Attacking other posters has never once improved a game though.

[tedhealy]

All very interesting ideas that should merit at least some consideration I would think.  I like the idea of not being able to count on reaction moving 100% of the time for defense, and coming up with something to make soak off/feints/holding/pinning/or whatever you want to call them attacks handled a little differently.  I want the general to push forward on the enemy lines to hold them, not go full bore fix bayonets and charge into the teeth of the enemy sometimes.  Definitely have a chance of that limited engagement growing, but better generals should be able to pull off something like that to pin troops without having to risk huge casualties. 

I'd add to your list simply reducing the chance of reaction moved forces actually committing to the battle. 

I don't see how brainstorming some ideas on how you might improve the game hurts [;)]

[Massattack]

Berkut, I like your excellent suggestion about spoiling attacks. I too find the diversionary attacks can be very expensive in losses. Ageod's ACW has the ability to set units stances. I would love to see this adopted here. Something like an all-out attack, or a probing attack. All in all this is a great game, and hopefully customer feedback will help the developers tweak and adjust, if it is necessary. This game has just the right amount of micromanagement for me, never so much as to become a chore.

Regards

[PyleDriver]

Ted thats in the game, in my AAR with Joel I did that alot, sure you get hurt doing it, but it slows or blocks movement of troops to the main battle. If a smaller force goes agianst a large force, sure there bound to be spanked...

[8D]
Jon

[tedhealy]

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault.  Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties. 

Liker Berkut (I think[:)]), I absolutely love this game, but I feel like there is a piece or two missing or not quite right.  Initiative nails getting civil war generals to attack darn near perfectly - the frustration of sometimes generals just not moving no matter what, but defense and reaction moves seem almost too sure. 

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I like this game, and want to see it get better. More than that, I want to get better at it, and asking questions and raising issues with the mechanics is the means by which both of those things happen.

With you on this, Berkut. We all want it to be perfect. This is the only wargame forum to which I've made more than desultory posts since Combat Mission was released. Let's admit it, Gary Grigsby and Matrix have come with a thrilling, atmospheric and ingenious rendition of the US Civil War. The ressemblance to WaW being only skin deep, imo. Kudos all around.

[Queeg]

Reading from the fence, trying to decide whether to purchase this one, I have to say that I find Berkut's posts to be very thoughtful and helpful. Every game has to make design choices and adopt some abstractions. Just looking at the map and comparing it to that in AACW, it looks to me like this game has less room for local maneuver, thus lending itself more to a strategic, campaign-level approach. That's absolutely fine, so long as the game mechanics are consistent with that approach. I understand Berkut to be suggesting that some of the mechanics - at least as currently implemented - may not be entirely consistent with a strategic-level game. Others may disagree, but I think Berkut has made his points thoughtfully and, for me at least, helpfully.

I'll probably buy soon. But I have a better idea of what I'm buying. That's good.

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

Reading from the fence, trying to decide whether to purchase this one, I have to say that I find Berkut's posts to be very thoughtful and helpful. Every game has to make design choices and adopt some abstractions. Just looking at the map and comparing it to that in AACW, it looks to me like this game has less room for local maneuver, thus lending itself more to a strategic, campaign-level approach. That's absolutely fine, so long as the game mechanics are consistent with that approach. I understand Berkut to be suggesting that some of the mechanics - at least as currently implemented - may not be entirely consistent with a strategic-level game. Others may disagree, but I think Berkut has made his points thoughtfully and, for me at least, helpfully.

I'll probably buy soon. But I have a better idea of what I'm buying. That's good.

I'm right with you. I'm strongly leaning toward this game right now instead of Harpoon 3: ANW, which seems to have some pretty serious problems.

And, it is Berkut's posting of his concerns that is helping me to consider buying it, not just the cheerleading by some others.

[ssclark]

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

Maybe more by like 1864 by the Union. Occupy Lee with the AoP in northern Virginia while ripping up the Shenandoah valley with Sheridan (I think it was).

Or, Grant pinning Lee in late '64, early '65 so that Sherman could rip out the CSA's guts in Georgia. No more repeats of Chickamauga (1863), where the timely arrival of Longstreet's corps from the ANV to Georgia swung the battle.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Well, I would say that if we can accept that prior to modern communications and logistics the stuff going on in reaction movement is feasible (multiple Corps moving across states in a period of days or weeks at the most and moving straight into battle), I don't think the idea of feints and spoiling attacks is all the tough to swallow, to be honest.

I can certainly see your point, but we are dealing with a particular system, and how to plausibly soften some of its effects.

[Joel Billings]

As with most game rules in a game of this scale, the main questions in my mind about the reaction rules are 1) Do they feel right and 2) How does it affect game balance, and how would changing it alter game balance.

I say feel right, because there's always a lot of abstraction in games, especially at the strategic scale, but those of us wanting to refight history want it to provide the right historical feel. This can be very subjective so there's likely going to be different opinions about how it feels to each player.

As for game balance, as I've said, I think the game is balanced slightly in favor of a good Union player against a good CSA player. However, since WBTS puts the burden of attack on the USA player, between two beginning players the balance may be more toward the CSA side. This is my best guess based on what I've experienced myself and in watching the testers. Since many rules were changed and tweaked right up until late in development, it's always possible that my best guess is incorrect. It's only now that the game is out and can get a larger sample of play, can we get a better sense of the balance. It was rather late in development that we added the +1 MP per area for units reacting without initiative (about 2-3 months before release, IIRC). I fully expect that changes may be required in order to get the balance right, and tweaks/changes in the reaction rules would certainly be an area we'd be looking at since I would agree that some of the long reactions that can occur sometimes don't quite feel right.

I never take offense at comments about a game's design, or suggestions for possible improvement. I just ask that people recognize that some time has to be given for players to become familiar with some of the more common strategies used, and have a large enough sample of games played before good judgments can be made. I've seen this recognition from the various posters here so I'd like people to get away from the personal comments and just focus on what they're seeing in the game. We're open to making tweaks as they seem to be needed as proven through lots of game experience. I'm not convinced they are needed, but we're open to it.

Another thing that's may happen is we may see balance changes as bugs are fixed and other tweaks are made in patches that might impact game balance. Also, altering something so fundamental to the design as the reaction rules, even if only in what seems to be small ways might have a profound impact on game balance. Usually, these kinds of changes have to be made with compensating changes. For example, if I'm right and the game is balanced or slightly leaning toward the Union side, then reducing cavalry raids while also reducing reaction ranges could swing the balance strongly in the other direction if no compensating changes are made.

In conclusion, keep playing, keep learning, keep posting, and by all means feel free to suggest changes. When you suggest changes, you can always post a specific item, but it also helps if you can think in terms of a basket of changes that taken together seem to have the desired outcome on the game feel and game balance. I'm very interested in seeing the results of games played.

[JanSorensen]

I concur 100% with Joel. To experienced players my guess is that the Union is slightly favored. To players with less experience the game will favor the Conderation. I believe most of the concerns Berkut is posting are due to this. Yes, reaction movements seems too strong initially - no, imho it is not too strong once you gain some more experience with the game - infact, its very much needed to give the CSA a fighting chance. Its possible I am incorrect but thats my opinion based on having been involved with the game since early alpha nearly two years ago.

[Titanwarrior89]

Right on!

ORIGINAL: tran505

Couple of things.....

Although the appearance of a continuous line of fortifications from on end of the map to the other does suggest WW I, the game does not play that way IFF you understand the system. The early turns are critical to set yourself up for success (or failure) in '62. Taking Missouri and W. Virginia is automatic on turn 1, and taking Kentucky is not that much harder within the next turn or two. DRAFT on turn 1; delaying all builds for a turn will get you 50+ militia to train on turn one alone.

I have no doubt that there is all sort of "maneuvering" going on; except that at this scale it occurs within a single zone within a single month. If you want lower detail -- try AGEODS's product. This system works within its intended scope.

I liked the comment someone made that you need to "crack the egg and spill the yolk"". It really works that way. You will need to fight like hell in Tennessee, but things will get better once you punch through.

Yes if do not "do the right things" you may get bogged down. It has happened to me. But if you take the many easy "gimmies" that are available, you will have enough PP for a turn 1 draft and an early '62 draft, and you will be able to punch through with improved leaders AND enough soldiers to do the job.

Regards,

P

[PyleDriver]

I guess I should jump in also. I my game with JAMiAM, I still tossed and turned over my moves the last 2 nights, after 18 months of playing this game. I spoke with James last night, he's in the same boat. This game is like some weird spell...

[8D]
Jon

[Nibelung]

I'm wondering about a thing, perhaps vets can enlighten me. It seems very hard (harder than historical I mean) for the CSA to conduct any kind of offensive, like the one which bring them as high as Gettysburg. So, have you see serious games where the CSA ever launched a major attack?

As of now, my limited experience against the CSA AI shows me that I'm the sole doing attacks, always. The CSA only reacts (this does not mean they don't win battle [:'(] ).

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: herwin


That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Yes, you suppose spoiling/fixing attacks, on the grand tactical level, had to await the telephone, i.e. WW1. These kind of attacks in WBTS, according to a poster, are necessary to win yet ruinously expensive. Is there a dilemma here?

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: herwin


That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Yes, you suppose spoiling/fixing attacks, on the grand tactical level, had to await the telephone, i.e. WW1.

I don't think feints and distraction was at all beyond that capabilities of this time, at the strategic level. Why would they be?