Unit to map scale and the need for stacking.

[havoc1371]

The map scale is approximately 10 miles a hex. But the game uses the same SC system of one unit per hex. This is workable with WW I and WW II games, but in a game where warfare was about marching to a key town or position and fighting a battle where almost 200k troops fit in that hex, you end up with the East looking like WW I between Washington DC and Richmond.

I would suggest the following to fix it: 1) Allow stacking of 3 units in a hex, but with the caveat that only the top unit in the hex is the "front unit" capable of attacking or defending. If it retreats, the next unit in the stack becomes the "front unit". 2) Allow units in a hex to "swap" at a cheaper action point rate than with a unit outside the hex, to represent the better command control and proximity. 3) only one unit in the hex can be designated to be in a town or fortification (other units my entrench as normal).

This will make concentrating forces advantageous, and provide a better "feel" of Civil War battlefield tactics. I also allows players to defend a key town or hex with forces that require a concerted effort by the attacker. Right now I consider this an "okay" effort in representing the Civil War; implementing these changes would, IMO, make it a great game.

Another note on the AI: Try to fix it's inability to properly deploy special units. I see marines deployed as regular regiments in the line, mountain units deployed in the plains, HQ's advancing without support, balloon units placed in the "front lines", etc.

[TangSooDo]

The map scale is approximately 10 miles a hex. But the game uses the same SC system of one unit per hex. This is workable with WW I and WW II games, but in a game where warfare was about marching to a key town or position and fighting a battle where almost 200k troops fit in that hex, you end up with the East looking like WW I between Washington DC and Richmond.

I would suggest the following to fix it: 1) Allow stacking of 3 units in a hex, but with the caveat that only the top unit in the hex is the "front unit" capable of attacking or defending. If it retreats, the next unit in the stack becomes the "front unit". 2) Allow units in a hex to "swap" at a cheaper action point rate than with a unit outside the hex, to represent the better command control and proximity. 3) only one unit in the hex can be designated to be in a town or fortification (other units my entrench as normal).

This will make concentrating forces advantageous, and provide a better "feel" of Civil War battlefield tactics. I also allows players to defend a key town or hex with forces that require a concerted effort by the attacker. Right now I consider this an "okay" effort in representing the Civil War; implementing these changes would, IMO, make it a great game.

Another note on the AI: Try to fix it's inability to properly deploy special units. I see marines deployed as regular regiments in the line, mountain units deployed in the plains, HQ's advancing without support, balloon units placed in the "front lines", etc.

Regarding the "WW1" effect, of course that's exactly what happened later in the war when Grant moved south, besieging Richmond and Petersburg, so it isn't too ahistorical. Many of the advances in military technology that characterized WW1 were pioneered in the American Civil War.

However, I do think a mechanism to concentrate force would be a good idea -- how about making regiments combinable to make brigades, brigades combinable to make divisions, divisions combinable to make corps and corps combinable to make armies?

Lastly, and with no regard to game play, how about a medley of Civil War music instead of the present offering, which I suspect nearly all of us turn off?

[havoc1371]

The map scale is approximately 10 miles a hex. But the game uses the same SC system of one unit per hex. This is workable with WW I and WW II games, but in a game where warfare was about marching to a key town or position and fighting a battle where almost 200k troops fit in that hex, you end up with the East looking like WW I between Washington DC and Richmond.

I would suggest the following to fix it: 1) Allow stacking of 3 units in a hex, but with the caveat that only the top unit in the hex is the "front unit" capable of attacking or defending. If it retreats, the next unit in the stack becomes the "front unit". 2) Allow units in a hex to "swap" at a cheaper action point rate than with a unit outside the hex, to represent the better command control and proximity. 3) only one unit in the hex can be designated to be in a town or fortification (other units my entrench as normal).

This will make concentrating forces advantageous, and provide a better "feel" of Civil War battlefield tactics. I also allows players to defend a key town or hex with forces that require a concerted effort by the attacker. Right now I consider this an "okay" effort in representing the Civil War; implementing these changes would, IMO, make it a great game.

Another note on the AI: Try to fix it's inability to properly deploy special units. I see marines deployed as regular regiments in the line, mountain units deployed in the plains, HQ's advancing without support, balloon units placed in the "front lines", etc.

Regarding the "WW1" effect, of course that's exactly what happened later in the war when Grant moved south, besieging Richmond and Petersburg, so it isn't too ahistorical. Many of the advances in military technology that characterized WW1 were pioneered in the American Civil War.

However, I do think a mechanism to concentrate force would be a good idea -- how about making regiments combinable to make brigades, brigades combinable to make divisions, divisions combinable to make corps and corps combinable to make armies?

Lastly, and with no regard to game play, how about a medley of Civil War music instead of the present offering, which I suspect nearly all of us turn off?

Good idea about being able to combine units, but the only problem is you're still left with divisions/corps occupying a battlefront more at home with WW 1 or 2. Additionally, the Union and Confederacy force structures were different. A Union corps was approximately equal to a Confederate division for the amount of soldiers.

[metabagel]

I like this stacking proposal. Could use an indicator of some sort or change the counter symbol to show that it's a stack. Right-click to see the units in the stack and change the active one. I would suggest no action points needed to change the active unit for the stack. In order to move a unit off of the stack, first make it active, then move it normally. Moving a unit onto a stack does not change the currently active unit. Ordering of inactive units in the stack could be done automatically by unit strength.

Just some suggestions on how this might be implemented by the developers.

[eightroomofelixir]

The only problem being if the current engine could handle a stacking mechanic. Next title in the series, maybe.