the Nanny state

[JanSorensen]

Lucky,

WBTS takes only marginally longer to play then AWD in terms of PBEM. Each turn is about the same to play as a turn of AWD (assuming 2 players) and the number of turns isnt that much higher (25-28 for AWD and 48 for WBTS). The reaction movement you mention does _not_ mean an extra file to send due to the clever way its worked into the sequence of play.

In AWD you had to ponder very carefully the placement of each units and where to send supplies and how to use them. In WBTS have to carefully consider where to send each leader to maximize initiative. In AWD you had less units but each unit took more consideration. In WBTS you have more units which apart from leaders take less consideration each.

As you say though they do differ. I found AWD to be more like chess where WBTS is more like backgammon (it may even be Joel that said this). Personally, I liked AWD more but thats my personal taste as both are very excellent games.

[Lucky1]

Thanks for the clarification Jan. My intent was not to say one game was 'better' than the other. Rather, I was just emphasizing that they have different strengths and might appeal to different needs for complexity, for example. That said, tweaking IS often possible and my experience with AWD is that Matrix et cie have done their utmost to respond to reasonable (to implement) suggestions to improve gameplay.
 
Might it be possible for an explanation of how the reaction phase occurs in PBEM? (I am supposed to be doing homework for the next few weeks and have unistalled ALL my games, incl. WBS.) I think this would be of interest to prospective purchasers....
 
Thanks.
 
Sean

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: Lucky1

I have watched this post with a some interest because it illustrates the inherent differences in tastes among gamers. For some, the ability control a certain level detail (requiring a spreadsheet, it would seem) is nirvanha. Others find it tedious.

Yeah it's always interesting how great of a spectrum of different tastes there are. There are some that want to know the exact odds and algorithms used to determine their strategies and are probably the same ones that have fits when something random occurs such as routing units in Tiller's Battleground series or other games because they lose a degree of control. (Or when leaders don't gain initiative in WBTS)

For me, I like the realism and chaos and not having total control, but I also like to feel like my decisions have an impact and I leave my thumbprint on the battle. I feel like this game does a good job of balancing giving the player a good amount of control, while maintaining a realistic and historical gameplay.

If everything became automated and there were no decisions to be made by the player it would become quite boring for me. I don't want to watch the computer play, I want to make meaningful decisions.

Sorry for my OT ramblings... [:D]

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Perfect example of a raiding force failing to provide intel was when J.E.B. Stuart failed to provide the info Lee needed prior to Gettysburg.
The few wagons of supplies and munitions gained by the raiders, ( a good amount of booty any other time),was a very poor replacement for what Lee really needed.
The "Black Hats" of the Iron Brigade coming up,(1st Bde, 1st Division, 1st Corps of the Army of the Potomac) was a complete surprise, and one the Army of Northern Virginia did not need.

Meh, the Union did not know any better what was in store than the South, and their cav was not off raiding - in fact, it was their cav that first refused the ridge to the South.

If Stuart had been around, Gettysburg does not really change. The errors made there were not driven by a lack of information, since the Union force was well screened anyway. Perhaps Lee would have done much of the same things in a more decisive manner, but I don't see the result changing really.

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Lucky1


Might it be possible for an explanation of how the reaction phase occurs in PBEM? (I am supposed to be doing homework for the next few weeks and have unistalled ALL my games, incl. WBS.) I think this would be of interest to prospective purchasers....

Thanks.

Sean

Sean,

US turn:
- US reaction movement (if any CSA attacks)
- Combat (CSA attacks)
- US normal movement
- US production

CS turn:
- CS reaction movement (if any USA attacks)
- Combat (USA attacks)
- CS normal movement
- CS production.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Perfect example of a raiding force failing to provide intel was when J.E.B. Stuart failed to provide the info Lee needed prior to Gettysburg.
The few wagons of supplies and munitions gained by the raiders, ( a good amount of booty any other time),was a very poor replacement for what Lee really needed.
The "Black Hats" of the Iron Brigade coming up,(1st Bde, 1st Division, 1st Corps of the Army of the Potomac) was a complete surprise, and one the Army of Northern Virginia did not need.

Meh, the Union did not know any better what was in store than the South, and their cav was not off raiding - in fact, it was their cav that first refused the ridge to the South.

If Stuart had been around, Gettysburg does not really change. The errors made there were not driven by a lack of information, since the Union force was well screened anyway. Perhaps Lee would have done much of the same things in a more decisive manner, but I don't see the result changing really.

Geographically Buford's Union cavalry made their stand west north west of what developed into the entire battle, (the stand taking place at and just west of a line extending across Seminary Ridge, (not south of Gettysburg.)

Most historians agree that things would have been different had Lee been kept aware of the position of the Army of the Potomac, and a "shoe-hunting expedition" might not have evolved into the battle.

Buford served Meade better, than did Stuart for Lee, on this occasion.

[heroldje]

I couldn't disagree more berkut.  Lee stated on several occassions, on record, that he had no desire to do battle there.  Meade had no desire to do battle there.  He has a line picked out he wanted to form on, but the events precipitated so quickly he abandoned that idea.
 
Are you saying that if the battle had been fought at a different time and place the result would have been the same?

[Berkut]

I am saying neither commander wanted to do battle there, but neither of them had much choice, per se. Lee did not want to fight there, but his decision to do so anyway was based on his reluctance to leave the battlefield to the Union - he felt he could win, so he took the fight when it was offered. Stuart being around doesn't change those things, so the fight still happens. So the question we have to ask is, would Stuart being there had changed the tactical fight in a way that meant that Lee could have dislodged the Union? I don't see how.

Meade didn't want to fight there, but only because he had what he thought was a better spot picked out, which he was preparing. He was convinced, by Reynolds among others, that the ground at the developing battlefield near GB was good for the Union, and hence decided that he would make his stand there, instead - not becuase he was forced to, but because he decided that the GB ground was good enough for his purposes. Turns out he was correct.

Again, Stuart has nothing to do with this.

If Stuart was doing his job, then maybe Buford bumps into Stuart cavalry instead of Hills division - this isn't certain of course, but seems plausible. Does this matter? Does Lee immediately turn his army around and abandon that fight? I don't think so - Lee was looking for a fight, and had already rejected Longstreets suggestion to find good defensive terrain of his own to fight on (which was rather suspect in any case) - the Union army was there, and he would fight it there. *That* was the fundamental error of the Gettysburg campaign, not lack of intel.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Meh, the Union did not know any better what was in store than the South, and their cav was not off raiding - in fact, it was their cav that first refused the ridge to the South.

If Stuart had been around, Gettysburg does not really change. The errors made there were not driven by a lack of information, since the Union force was well screened anyway. Perhaps Lee would have done much of the same things in a more decisive manner, but I don't see the result changing really.

Geographically Buford's Union cavalry made their stand west north west of what developed into the entire battle, (the stand taking place at and just west of a line extending across Seminary Ridge, (not south of Gettysburg.)

Most historians agree that things would have been different had Lee been kept aware of the position of the Army of the Potomac, and a "shoe-hunting expedition" might not have evolved into the battle.

Buford served Meade better, than did Stuart for Lee, on this occasion.

No question that Stuart failed Lee, but I think the desire to hinge the outcome of the abttle on that failure is a bit of Lee apologism.

"Most historians" agree on a lot of things, and almost never on the things that people presume they agree on. I've read a rather lot about this battle, and would not agree that "most historians" pin its outcome on the lack of Stuart - he was one factor, but not the decisive one.

IMO, the decisive tactical factor was simply the terrain and interior Union lines. The decisive operational factor was Lee's insistence on fighting the Union army wherever it was found and his faith that if he could bring it to battle, under almost any circumstances, his boys could win. That resulted in him accepting a fight he should not have, and Stuart being there would not have changed that one bit - if anything, it would have made Lee even more over-confident in a poor tactical situation.

[tremy]

I agree with Berkut,that Stuarts absence was not the cause of defeat.
If you believe that splitting your cavalry into perhaps three groups and sending those groups 50-60 miles in different directions to reconnoitre, the game is spot on.
I brought the subject up,because I believe than in most circumstances and discounting raiding as a seperate option,commanders would want the Cavalry within 5-20 miles(the same region) so that they could report enemy movement and numbers within an hour or two,so that I might react.In which case the game is forcing the player to act in a way that does not make military sense

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: tremy
If you believe that splitting your cavalry into perhaps three groups and sending those groups 50-60 miles in different directions to reconnoitre, the game is spot on.
I brought the subject up,because I believe than in most circumstances and discounting raiding as a seperate option,commanders would want the Cavalry within 5-20 miles(the same region) so that they could report enemy movement and numbers within an hour or two,so that I might react.In which case the game is forcing the player to act in a way that does not make military sense

Ok, here's where you need to use a little more imagination in the context of the game structure and scale. A game has to be playable, so by asking the player to direct his scouting during his turn, you avoid having to have some kind of separate "cavalry phase" to resolve what happens when an enemy army moves in from/through a particular region. You already know that the player's cavalry was paying attention to that direction.

Realistically, the type of scouting that's going on here often went on between battles. Once armies actually start to move to contact, having the cavalry with you adds combat power which sways which side will win the battle. Sending all your cavalry off scouting to find the enemy and then moving into the enemy territory without your cavalry can significantly affect the outcome of the battle. The defender's cavalry always gets to play a part, but the attacker has to conserve enough of his cavalry's movement to allow them to accompany his forces.

Note that since cavalry can both scout and screen in the same turn, it's fair to assume that some of your cavaly is staying with the army. Also, by keeping your cavalry with your attacking army as well as in the region you want to defend, you are allowing them to add to the adjusted combat values of your side and thus infuence the outcome of the battle, regardless of whether they cause any casualties. This reflects the role they play in the period when battle is imminent or ongoing.

As far as I can tell, all the bases are covered as far as historical cavalry effects, tactics and strategies for this scale.

Regards,

- Erik

[madgamer2]

your post begs the question what is it you want to do in this game? What is it you see is the focus od a ACW strategic level game? If you think there is to much micro managing don't even LOOK at the other 2 Civil war Strategic games. Play the game and enjoy it for what it is or put nit back on the shelf. Eric said it right. This is not a presidental simulation.

Madgamer

[madgamer2]

"Fluidity of most operations"? We are talking about the Civil waqr here? the American Civil War/ You are entitled to view but that statement to me does not fit the ACW but to each his own.

Madgamer

[tremy]

I will surrender before it gets too nasty.
Erik .I have used my imagination a great deal over 45 years of board and computer gaming.As you cannot understand my comments ,would you appreciate my making some personal comment about your ablities?
Madgamer.
1 I have not asked for less micro-management in any other sphere.
2 I continue to enjoy AGEODs excellent game and forum posts,so I'm afraid your too late to warn me off.
3. You say it is not a Presidential simulation,please note p11 manual.
"a strategic simulation,......... you take the role of President,cabinet and senior military leaders"
4. Yes fluid,as in water ,moving along the lines of least resistance.
5.Why should I not hope to improve a good simulation,after all with my years of gaming and over 3oo books on the Civil War,I just might have a valid comment and hopefully the time and courage to voice it.

[Erik Rutins]

Tremy,

ORIGINAL: tremy
I will surrender before it gets too nasty.
Erik .I have used my imagination a great deal over 45 years of board and computer gaming.As you cannot understand my comments ,would you appreciate my making some personal comment about your ablities?

That was in no way intended as a personal attack. I'm sorry if it came across that way, the internet is great at removing all tone and meaning from a post and allowing it to be interpreted differently from how it was meant. I assure you that I was not trying to come down on you, I was just pointing out that you have to think about what all the game rules represent in terms of actual activities. I still think that the game actually matches the realistic operations and I figured by discussing with you I could either figure out in what way it was not meeting your expectations or explain to you something you might be missing about how it worked.

3. You say it is not a Presidential simulation,please note p11 manual.
"a strategic simulation,......... you take the role of President,cabinet and senior military leaders"

Right, but since you're also playing the role of the senior military leaders, these decisions really do make sense. I guess my question to you is how would you really automate this without creating more problems for players? Right now I see it as a flexible system that gives players the choice on any given turn of what to focus their cavalry on. Leaving that to an automated system risks getting into situations where you lose an entire battle because the "AI" used your cavalry to raid when you wanted to scout, or scouted the region you weren't planning to attack, etc.

5.Why should I not hope to improve a good simulation,after all with my years of gaming and over 3oo books on the Civil War,I just might have a valid comment and hopefully the time and courage to voice it.

Well, I totally agree wiith this and I'm sorry if you feel that I was discouraging you. I don't understand some of your points from the context of the game not reflecting reality, but I am happy to discuss and always happy to consider proposals to improve any of our games.

Regards,

- Erik

[heroldje]

i dont think for a second the battle would have been fought where it was had stuarts cavalry been in place
 
does that mean the invasion would have been a success?  no.  i'm not apologizing for Lee, he lost the battle, pickets charge was a huge mistake, but the battle wouldn't have been fought there in the first place had it not been for lack of intelligence.  Meade was going to fight on the pipe creek line and changed his mind at the very last moment.  He ordered his army to concentrate on Gettysburg like 2 hours after ordering them to assemble on the pipe creek line, and only because of the personal appeal and situation already existing in Gettysburg.  Absolutely nothing about fighting there was predetermined as you suggest.
 
thats all i have for the subject, for one reason or another, its my experience its almost never worth the trouble debating on the internet

[tremy]

Good advice,heroldje.Thats why I post infrequently on forums.
Trouble is,with a really good game,I sometimes lose the abilty to stay out.
Erik. thankyou for your apology,it must be frustrating for you being involved with a game ,to read critical post,perhaps showing a lack of understanding.
I enjoy the game.
I like the ability to raid and scout for information on enemy forces when considering an attack.Also the abilty to screen from enemy observation.
My query relates only to my defence of a region.
I would have pickets out and vedettes ( cavalry in advance of the picket line)
With a reasonable amount of cavalry,the possibility of surprise attack would be very limited.
But reading the aar's and other posts,it is suggested that you will lose ,unless you send your cavalry to another region for information to negate the enemy surprise bonus.
That feels odd to me,as I thought generals tried to keep their cavalry within an hour or two when expecting attack and therefore suggested that it could be computed based on both sides cavalry forces at the point of contact.
Several posts had commented on the amount of time spent purely on moving scouts and I guessed it might be worth looking at some solutions
If this is not the case can I modify the surprise bonus?
My thanks for your time

[madgamer2]

45 yrs.?....huummm....must be at least as old as I am LOL. I find your point of view refreshing and I admire one who knows his mind and how to express his thoughts. There are to many times in my past where I did not really know exactly how I feel about a given game. For the life of me I can't figure out why I play these things as I tend to be a fence sitter and totally NON logical.
I hope nothing I said was taken as a personal negative comment...I have a problem with writing and the English language in general. I know what you mean by being a presidential "I AM THE HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT" kind of game.
One day when computer coding is much better it will be possible to play the way you desire. The only game series that came close to that sort of play was the talonsoft series where you could play say a Corp comander that is part of an army.
Years ago I did some miniature gaming being a part of the whole was a fun part of the game. We had a club when I was in college and we would set up a battle with chain of command and all that. We were dong a WWI fighter game and my "wing Man" turned chicken and started to run away but I shot him down myself before I got it. SO even though I will not be around when they develop computers to use artificial intelligence and learn how you play It would be fun indeed.
As far as fluid movement and such terms it is really just expressing yourself about a part of a game that I would call something else...or some such thing. I believe that every person who posts here helps the game and the forum get better except for a very few weird types which you are NOT one.
As for AACW my problem is with the way the game looks. I can't play longer than a few hours at a time as I get headaches LOL! The game suffers from a poorly designed interface but does present some new design themes. I have had a lot of problems with the supply rules in the later patchs also. It would be cool to have supply be a feature the player could set. I have a very long list of games I have a problem with because my brain just does not deal with such things very well (SIGH). This is one of the few that I can play and I really like it but will play AACW also.
Keep expressing your thoughts and ideas as we all can learn from each other.

Madgamer

[madgamer2]

I had a great disscussion with a 16 yr. old about the Battle of Gettysburg and he was saying that Lee made this mistake and that mistake and such. I pointed out to him that we here in 2008 have one big advantage that he or any commander never had.....hind sight.
There was a moment where Longstreet I believe was wanting to make a flank attack and Lee basically said he was on unknown ground, with no Cavalry, fighting a meeting engagement without knowledge of the enemy. It could be said neither General wanted to fight there but for different reasons.
You are right about debating over the internet. It is not the ideal place.

Madgamer

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: tremy

Good advice,heroldje.Thats why I post infrequently on forums.
Trouble is,with a really good game,I sometimes lose the abilty to stay out.
Erik. thankyou for your apology,it must be frustrating for you being involved with a game ,to read critical post,perhaps showing a lack of understanding.
I enjoy the game.
I like the ability to raid and scout for information on enemy forces when considering an attack.Also the abilty to screen from enemy observation.
My query relates only to my defence of a region.
I would have pickets out and vedettes ( cavalry in advance of the picket line)
With a reasonable amount of cavalry,the possibility of surprise attack would be very limited.
But reading the aar's and other posts,it is suggested that you will lose ,unless you send your cavalry to another region for information to negate the enemy surprise bonus.
That feels odd to me,as I thought generals tried to keep their cavalry within an hour or two when expecting attack and therefore suggested that it could be computed based on both sides cavalry forces at the point of contact.
Several posts had commented on the amount of time spent purely on moving scouts and I guessed it might be worth looking at some solutions
If this is not the case can I modify the surprise bonus?
My thanks for your time

To put it into context. I take me maybe 5 minutes (literally) each turn to scout and raid with my cavalry so its certainly not something thats extraordinarily timeconsuming and its a most informative part of your turn where you decided, based on scoutings, where to send reinforcements, so I certainly would hate to miss out on that part.

You have a point that it could have been modeled as passive defensive scouting against enemy movement - but it was modelled as active scouting. The advantage of that are that it makes the player actively decide if his cav is scouting OR raiding. So, yes, indeed, your method could have worked as well.

To my knowledge the surprise combat bonus is not modable.