How could they make a total war style campaign work?

[CaptainMcMuffin]

After my first battle in this game, I immediately loved it and started imagining how great a campaign would be but was trying to work out how they could make this work. The biggest issue I could think of would be random maps and the VP system, although most battles wouldn't last multiple days and so they might not be necessary, and if the AI would have difficulty.  But, if a random battle would be impossible maybe an old total war style would work with just provinces you move armies into with pre-made battle fields. I also think we could leave out the city building aspect and focus more on a smaller time period (personally I would love the seven years war although that would obviously require new units, tactics)  where the focus is on capturing strategic cities, points.Thinking about fighting an entire campaign made up of battles like this is amazing. So any opinions on whether or not a campaign would be feasible, and if so how do you think it could work? 

[David Fair]

The topography of the U.S. would lend itself very nicely to a campaign game.

The total area of the entire Eastern Theater of War in the ACW is only 200 miles by 80 miles.

The road net in the 1860's is simple, and the rail lines more so.

The battles occurred along three very predictable routes - Shenandoah Valley, Manassas to Richmond, or the route to Richmond via the sea and up one of two or three peninsulas (depending on your logistics perspective).

The locations of the battles were fought at predictable places along those routes determined by the qualities of the topography.

Why have random maps when the battles occurred in fairly predictable locations?

For example: Gettysburg could have been fought at Gettysburg or 14 miles away in Maryland.

Between the two points there is very little terrain of military relevance until you arrive at Antietam.

There were two battles fought at Manassas and another two battles fought at Fredericksburg.

This is not accidental.

On-line communities are great at creating battlefields if they have the battlefield creation tool and someone identifying the key terrain in the theater of operations.

IMO the province thing came about because of simplicity and a lack of understanding of militarily relevance of terrain.

Game designers are not necessarily (and usually not) military men or military historians.

Designers are generally gamers with a general overview of history and the desire to design and sell their own game.

There is a military reason that battles tend to be fought in the same places over time - this is not an accident.

I'd advocate an innovative approach to a campaign - not the same tired repetition of TW.

Also, it would be great to have a military campaign rather than a point-based game.

Why? If you look at the Eastern Theater there are very few key cities.

For the South:

Staunton, VA was a key supply collection point for the Shenandoah Valley and Richmond.

Richmond was key. Petersburg was also key for it's railway connections.

For the North:

Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, PA were logistically important.

Everything else was small towns with limited industrial capacity and distributed populations based on agricultural production.

Winchester, VA for example was not important industrially, but controlling the Shenandoah Valley was key to the survival of the South. Thus Winchester was a battlefield multiple times - but the key to the Shenandoah Valley was in holding the Potomac River crossings at Harpers Ferry, Shepherdstown, and the crossing at Hagerstown (the route Lee used to retreat after Gettysburg).

South Mountain also played a central role in both of the CSA incursions into the North - Gettysburg Campaign and the Antietam Campaign.

------------------------------

Note that the same campaign logic applies to the European Wars.

Plot the battles over time and you gain a very good understanding of why battles were fought where they were fought.

[CaptainMcMuffin]

The topography of the U.S. would lend itself very nicely to a campaign game.

The total area of the entire Eastern Theater of War in the ACW is only 200 miles by 80 miles.

The road net in the 1860's is simple, and the rail lines more so.

The battles occurred along three very predictable routes - Shenandoah Valley, Manassas to Richmond, or the route to Richmond via the sea and up one of two or three peninsulas (depending on your logistics perspective).

The locations of the battles were fought at predictable places along those routes determined by the qualities of the topography.

Why have random maps when the battles occurred in fairly predictable locations?

For example: Gettysburg could have been fought at Gettysburg or 14 miles away in Maryland.

Between the two points there is very little terrain of military relevance until you arrive at Antietam.

There were two battles fought at Manassas and another two battles fought at Fredericksburg.

This is not accidental.

On-line communities are great at creating battlefields if they have the battlefield creation tool and someone identifying the key terrain in the theater of operations.

IMO the province thing came about because of simplicity and a lack of understanding of militarily relevance of terrain.

Game designers are not necessarily (and usually not) military men or military historians.

Designers are generally gamers with a general overview of history and the desire to design and sell their own game.

There is a military reason that battles tend to be fought in the same places over time - this is not an accident.

I'd advocate an innovative approach to a campaign - not the same tired repetition of TW.

Also, it would be great to have a military campaign rather than a point-based game.

Why? If you look at the Eastern Theater there are very few key cities.

For the South:

Staunton, VA was a key supply collection point for the Shenandoah Valley and Richmond.

Richmond was key. Petersburg was also key for it's railway connections.

For the North:

Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, PA were logistically important.

Everything else was small towns with limited industrial capacity and distributed populations based on agricultural production.

Winchester, VA for example was not important industrially, but controlling the Shenandoah Valley was key to the survival of the South. Thus Winchester was a battlefield multiple times - but the key to the Shenandoah Valley was in holding the Potomac River crossings at Harpers Ferry, Shepherdstown, and the crossing at Hagerstown (the route Lee used to retreat after Gettysburg).

South Mountain also played a central role in both of the CSA incursions into the North - Gettysburg Campaign and the Antietam Campaign.

------------------------------

Note that the same campaign logic applies to the European Wars.

Plot the battles over time and you gain a very good understanding of why battles were fought where they were fought.

Agree fully, the reason I mentioned the point system was mainly in regards to battles, not campaign. I'm just not sure if the AI would still work without areas of the battlefield being as asnged point values (I would prefer it not need to). For the campaign I would definitely enjoy a campaign focusing on military campaigns in a single war, and think that would work much better for this game than a classic total war campaign. I more mentioned total war as a point of reference for people for a campaign map. A campaign where strategic targets would actually be important would be great!

[N.C.rebel]

David you forgot Harpers Ferry, WV lol

[David Fair]

Hey N.C. Rebel,

Check the 2nd to the last paragraph starting with "Winchester..." Harpers Ferry was not forgotten.

In fact, it is first in the list for the Potomac River crossings because it was so essential to the Shenandoah Valley access.

P.S. My recollection is that you asked me about CSA ammunition consumption at Fredericksburg. I did some scratching around regarding the CSA artillery ammunition expenditure at Fredericksburg - it seems that the CSA guns expended about 35 rounds per gun on average. Some battery histories talk about almost 50 rounds per gun. Some guns that were not positioned as well (or attacked as heavily) fired less than 15 rounds per gun.

Alexander was my source for the average.

The battery histories were the source for the more detailed numbers.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

This would be a great idea.

 

I think instead of city building you would have to focus on Brigade recruitment with maybe a General Promotion scheme to lead Armies. Maybe borrow from AGEod's American Civil war unit building scheme. You would have to take into account Army Supply when out of home territory. Would have to drain food supplies from enemy area's as you march through kinda like Sherman's March. Units in low supply would lose morale or organization faster during battle than those in good supply perhaps. You also would have to take into account Navy units. Ocean going and River. Both played a huge part in the American Civil War. Secret Societies could also throw in another element that people would love. Espionage, Diplomacy, Trade, Assassination, Bushwackers, Railroads, Laws and Edicts, Recruitment on both homeland and enemy land. Both the Slave element and Native American could be taken into account.

[neogodhobo]

Love the idea as well, if we could come out with something decent. I say lets have a Total war, the battles lasting a couple days, im down with that even with a total war style campaign.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I think if this were to ever come to fruition it would be better to stay away from Total War and just create a new Campaign mechanism from scratch.

 

One idea that comes to mind is instead of having all your army march as one and enter the battle as one unit like they do in TW instead have them string out in line formation as they march long distances. Assign units Order of Battle 1,2,3,4,5,... So say just a couple brigades start the battle but as time progresses units arrive to support the army. Say you are at point A and you want to get to point B, 30 miles away. You could have a choice to march in single file down one road or railroad or your army would spread out and take multiple roads to point B instead of marching together to get there faster. This is how real armies would march and something lacking in ALL Totalwar games. Once you reach your destination you could have a choice to wait and gather troops in stealth and hope you are not discovered or launch a attack as soon as possible.

 

Also a focus on Blockade runner ships from Europe containing Weapons and Clothing could be a huge boost to unit recruitment. Capturing enemy trade ships and bringing them to port could boost your ability to wage war. The problem for the south was not the amount of recruits they could muster but outfitting them with working weapons and gear.

 

An emphasis could be not capturing and holding land. Instead destroying each sides ability to wage war. Burning of Cities, looting of goods, Destruction of Railroads. Escaping slaves as they were the South's only work force at the time could play huge roles.

 

As I said in the previous post, Secret Societies could undermine each sides ability to enact laws or edicts. Assassinate people of rank. Destroy factories or ports with bombs. Hold populations in state of fear. Recruitment in enemy lands. Create men of loyalty. All things that could be taken into consideration.

 

In the Western Theater it was more of a Bushwacker behind enemy line type ordeal. In states like Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, Iowa  though claimed to be Union states they had large populations sympathetic to the Rebel Cause. If units could reach these populations by traveling north with out getting caught they could then have recruits they could bring down south and turn into soldiers. Good source for recruits when populations in the Southern States are running dry. Also populations on the Frontier states came ready equipped with Guns and ammo. Being as it was a way of life for them to begin with.

[CmdrMctoast]

I like it all, lets not forget one of the main assets in the War was the capture and

release of slaves as they were deemed contraband of a Warring countries war machine.

Major ethical and political win here for Mr Lincoln in declaring the south a warring country and the slaves there major asset.

( Hard ethical subject to add to a game so rewarding of this in game may be appropriate )

The north would free slaves sending them north where the south would capture free Men and send them south to slavery.

Also I would love to see an experience / tehcnology point % gain or loss depending on units outcome in battle

( replenishement of troops and material, weapons capture, amount of battles seen, training time in bootcamps etc..)

maybe have experience point gains and monetary point gains to be spent souly on upgrading a percentage of the units load out of weopons and manpower.

A lot of what I have read also is of how Militia and Companies from different parts of New England would show up in say Boston

then have to do a force march all the way down to Rode island or New jersey to be shipped to New york it took days for this sometimes in order to fill out a hodge podge brigade that would then train together or in the earlier part of the war rushed into battle.

This is all representative of the civil war and should be a major part of a completel Civil War campaign game.

I also think that a major part of a full blown war campaign would be the addition of the Army Corp of Engineers,

to build up breastworks, bridges, railroad tressles and such and set areas of strength and try to foce battles there.

[CmdrMctoast]

I also agree not to make it like a Total war sceries and im sure the developers would not have the rights to that anyway.

[Herodotus]

I also agree not to make it like a Total war sceries and im sure the developers would not have the rights to that anyway.

True, but if like Empire's "The American Civil War" (not as detailed of course, as you'd miss too much on the real time battles) then copyright infringement isn't an issue. Several Civil War and Napoleonic games from the '90's and early noughties implemented this (mostly) successfully, but not completly so. Even "The Civil War", developed by the same team who made "Fields of Glory" (the closest I can get to "UG:G") had to make the real time battles simplistic, and awash with problems I might add, and it did not work. Spent the entire game auto-resolving battles. So really, it can only be one or the other unless you have a huge budget from a coffer-filled publisher.

 

[Pierre]

I don't want to play anything like total war.  If there's a campaign, it should put you in the shoes of a general leading an army with the conditions he is given, not managing an entire country.

[Midknight]

The concept is great, but for me it'd have to be real time.

How amazing would it be to move around armies in a continental map then zoom into a battle as it unfolds.

[CmdrMctoast]

True, but if like Empire's "The American Civil War" (not as detailed of course, as you'd miss too much on the real time battles) then copyright infringement isn't an issue. Several Civil War and Napoleonic games from the '90's and early noughties implemented this (mostly) successfully, but not completly so. Even "The Civil War", developed by the same team who made "Fields of Glory" (the closest I can get to "UG:G") had to make the real time battles simplistic, and awash with problems I might add, and it did not work. Spent the entire game auto-resolving battles. So really, it can only be one or the other unless you have a huge budget from a coffer-filled publisher.

 

I'm leaning towards the old Civil war Generals 2 gamestyle for unit upgrades and such with a real time startegy type battle engine that they have here, no need for economy management for a nation but strictly a wargame with some sort of management system for 2 warring armies.

[templarteppo]

These are great ideas but for some reason I feel that realtime campaign map in the style of the Paradox grand strategy titles would work best.   Just my opinion.  Also I believe that way back when this forum first was created, Darth and the developers said they would like to expand this series to amon other things include a campaign.

[David Fair]

My thoughts were specific to the Eastern Theater in a "Gettysburg Campaign".

It looks like some of the posts are addressing a campaign game for the entire ACW.

While either could be done, and done well, they are very different projects in scope and intent.

Thus the scale, mechanics, and features would be radically different contingent upon the scope of the project.

[GeorgeTheGreat]

They will probably do what The hegemony series made by Longbowgames does. They have a campaign map that runs in real-time but can be paused and have the campaign map be able to seamlessly zoom-into the battle map and vice versa. They will probably have the campaign look like a military strategic map with style of the union or confederacy. Im not sure if this is what there going for but It would be dam awesome for a game so fun and artistic. This game has the potential to be 100o times better then the overbuget fail games that the creative jerking circle makes. They end up being Total poor because they throw there money at the floor only to have a game with broken war... Ultimate Generals is going to be a AAAAAA+++ series its strategy, tactics, fun and art in the most Ultimate of ways. maps like these 
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/maps/hotchkiss/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scott-anaconda.jpg

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl

http://www.loc.gov/resource/g3701s.cw0019000/

http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/oct05/maps.html

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bonps.org%2Fwpr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2F5-Topo-map-1865-Confederate-eastern-flank.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bonps.org%2Ffeatures%2Fminnesota-regiments-at-nashville%2F&h=681&w=957&tbnid=3KibyeIZt3wTBM%3A&zoom=1&docid=IfxkIt9ZpYQ-AM&ei=dNbaU87GAuHO8AGn9ICwAQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CBAQMygIMAg4ZA&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=394&page=4&start=101&ndsp=37

http://www.austincc.edu/caddis/civilwar2

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/937497/posts