For the "ultimate" Civil War General experience?

[James Cornelius]

Dear all,

 

These are just some musings I had. First, I want to commend the developers on this game, as it is by far the best Civil War game I have every played, and of course it just covers one battle!

 

But I had some thoughts regarding what I considered would make the ideal game, with this as its foundation. This might very well be beyond the resources of the developers (though certainly not their skill, as this game attests).

 

First, it would contain all the major battles of the war, exactly as Gettysburg is portrayed here. Division commanders would be included, and would function in a similar manner to corps commanders now, but would be "attached" to their brigades, i.e. would automatically follow the brigade(s) of their division. If brigades were divided, they would go with the larger formation, but it would give the player an incentive to keep the brigades of a division together. These would be the same as "custom" battles in the current game. Brigade, division, and corps commanders would all be possible to kill, wound, or capture.

 

But the big draw would be a completely rendered map of Virginia and Maryland, where the armies would move in a similar manner to the brigades now, but be broken up by corps. Thus, you'd be directing the individual corps of the armies which would typically be grouped close together, but could be dispatched elsewhere if desired. Cavalry would be needed to know where the opposing army was. Then, when the two armies met to have a battle, it would take place at whatever ground they were on and with the troops available at that time. Between battles, reinforcements (new recruits, etc) could be handled abstractly by simply showing up in a pool, but you could use the existing Outcome and Statistics screen to allocate the reinforcements, reassign units, and promote your leaders based upon their performance in battle. I think you would need a larger range than the current three-star ability scale (perhaps five or ten?) and separate the experience of the individual brigades from the experience/skill of the leaders. As a further abstract, while the player would be in control at all times, if battles went particularly poorly or well, Washington or Richmond might see fit to make changes to your army, including the army and corps commanders. Maybe your success will have additional troops sent from the west to aid you, or a semi-randomized chance might require a division or corps to be reassigned from you elsewhere and you will lose it for a period of time? Maybe you manage to annihilate the Army of the Potomac but Grant's army is summoned east? What if Johnston and Lee manage to link up in 1865?

 

Ideally, you would do this for the entire war (Western and Eastern theaters), but I think it would be better to keep it smaller because simply rendering the entirety of the terrain of Virginia and Maryland to the standards already set would be a monumental task.

 

But still, from what I've outlined I think it would give the player truly the "ultimate" experience as the commander of the Army of the Potomac or the Army of Northern Virginia. It could run the entire course of the war, 1861 to 1865 (with the ability to win or lose earlier based on what happens).

 

I'm sure this would be an undertaking of enormous magnitude, but one can dream!

[David Fair]

Seems like you are proposing linking the AGEOD engine to the UGG battlefield resolution engine.

 

This sounds more like a business development challenge than a massive engineering effort.  

 

My hunch is the interface could be completed in less than two months with 2 engineers.

 

The more difficult engineering effort would be creating the UGG battlefield map editor so the community could be leveraged to create the detailed battlefield maps that would allow the UGG engine to be used on other battlefields.

 

Your suggestion would require a different business vision and sales model than Game Labs is currently embracing.

[GShock]

Yup but the Divison Commanders are at hand reach.

[James Cornelius]

I'm not thinking of the AGEOD interface, though there are a handful of things they have there which would be useful. I am not advocating turn based at all, and I don't like the "stack" system of AGEOD. I am visualizing the same thing that UGG has now, just zoomed out to a level that all you have is the larger countryside and the units visible on the map are only broken down as far as corps-sized. Maybe the closest example I can think of regarding the degree of birds-eye view is akin to Supreme Commander, though obviously totally different in mechanics. Perhaps I am simply having difficulty articulating what I was suggesting.

 

However, I agree that the community would perhaps be the best available resource for the creation of additional battle maps.

[David Fair]

"AGEOD like" RTS Campaign engine (give/take the features you prefer)?

 

So something like the zoom in / zoom out of map quest for a wargame?

 

This would require vast resources - if this is what you are suggesting.

 

Seems like it would be easier to have a static campaign map with an interface to the UGG battlefield engine.

 

Not debating - just trying to figure out the technical challenges for what you are suggesting.

 

Note - if you just do Corps level campaign then you completely miss the actual role cavalry played during the ACW.  

 

IMO the fun of a Campaign is the challenge of obfuscating what you are doing to your opponent while discovering what they are trying to do to you.

 

I'll take a look at Supreme Commander to see if I can grok your suggestion.  

 

Thanks...

[James Cornelius]

True about the corps level vs cavalry, but allowances could be made. For example, even in the current game Buford's Division is treated as though it were an independent corps.

 

I'll see if I can explain a bit better. I want to preface this by saying that I recognize this would take vast resources, but I wanted to throw it out there as "food for thought". But if it were possible, I think it would make this the ultimate Civil War "sandbox" game.

 

So picture this: you are looking at a very detailed/rendered map with Richmond and its environs in the bottom, and the Pennsylvania/Maryland border at the top - the eastern theater of the Civil War, at least as it was in relation to the AotP and the ANV. Let's say you are playing as the Union. It is 1863 (or ideally 1861, 62, 64, etc for alternate start dates). You have a birds-eye view of that map, and centered around Washington you have several divisions or corps made up of their subordinate units, but all you can see is a "block" of troops that represents the combined columns of the subordinate brigades. Likewise, you have brigades or divisions of cavalry nearby. There are victory points assigned to major cities, rail/road hubs, and so forth. Unlike a battle where you want good ground, here you are concerned with the strategic value of these points. You can zoom in, but only to get a better look at the areas around your corps - are there hills, rivers, forests, etc. Is there a narrow gap you might conceivably have to force, and so on. Essentially, if you're the army commander or corps commander, is it good ground to have an army? You can then zoom back out to have the complete theater view again.

 

So, being the good commander of the Army of the Potomac that you are, you start moving your corps southward towards Richmond, using your cavalry divisions to scout and screen. You might wisely leave a large garrison behind in DC....just in case.

 

You give them orders the same way you would the brigades in the current UGG engine, but with a small caveat - you have an army HQ which you attach to one of the corps. Any order given to the others corps and cavalry divisions must be carried by courier, so that if you separate them too much, there is a significant delay before they get the orders and change to what you have re-ordered. This would simulate the appropriate issues with coordinate a large army across large distances. So while detaching a corps to secure some important rail junction or city might be useful, you run the risk of it being too far away to help you, or worse yet, set upon by superior forces.

 

All this time, the AI controlled ANV is doing the same thing - it is trying to protect key areas like Richmond, while also seeking to take opportunities to invade the north and force you to follow. So as you are groping your way forward with your corps, the enemy is doing the same. You might find yourself at the gates of Richmond with the enemy dug in on good ground and you either have to figure out something else or launch an assault. Then, poof, you thank your lucky stars you left troops behind in Washington because a corps of Confederate infantry managed to get around you and is attempting to take Washington. Do you try to punch through to take Richmond, risking a bloody and inconclusive battle? Or do you rush back north to relieve the siege of Washington?

 

So inevitably, the armies or components thereof would meet. At this point, you can attempt to withdraw if you so choose, or fight. Then, the birds-eye view of the theater goes away and you enter the "normal" UGG interface and the battle commences with a map appropriate to the ground that the armies are on. Battle ensues. As the battle progresses, the same sorts of options are presented as currently comes between each day, but perhaps in a more limited way.

 

After the battle, you would have the opportunity to promote or reassign commanders based upon their performance in the battle. Commanders could be killed or captured. Division commanders would be present in some fashion (attached to a brigade in their division?). Reinforcements would also occasionally arrive to add new brigades to the army or reinforce existing brigades. You would control where these reinforcements go within the army, but not how they got there, how many you got, or what type they are (infantry, cavalry, artillery). There would be a degree of randomness to it, but it would also be affected by your performance. Furthermore, if you lose a battle too badly, or a string of battles, you might find yourself relieved of command.

 

The difference here from this to AGEOD is that AGEOD is an overall simulation of the war. I'm not trying to suggest that. Rather, I'm trying to suggest a way to completely model being the commander of one of two field armies in the east.

 

I hope this clarifies.

[GShock]

The comparison between AACW/CW2 and UGG can't stand but it's true that at least the battlefield promotions, army organization and a higher level of tactics (select objectives without letting the PC do it for the next day, decide how many corps you want to commit in the following battle, merge depleted units, for example... and there's a whole new world to discover if supply/ammo carts were implemented) is doable.

 

The game is brand new and it could implement many good things, starting with the BC and then up to the DC (Brigadier Commander is possibly even more important than the Division Commander in my opinion). I think until 2.0 mostly will be polishing, bug fixing and finetune/balancing. The rest could be done as DLC because with a base price of 12€, I suppose 90% of the players would prize Games-Labs with buying them if the development between 1.0 and 2.0 proves they are up for the task.

 

My aim is set on the long range, whatever is built here can be used for many other scenarios.

[David Fair]

Got it - thanks.  

 

PS - while I understand what you are proposing; but, I'm not a fan of the proposal because I'm pretty certain it would kill Game Labs as a company.  

 

Why?

 

First, I think VP driven strategy games are stale and artificial (been there done that).  Additionally, static VP's destroy the dynamics of a player's flexibility to discover new ways to "win" a battle or campaign.  Finally, the cycles to implement this architecture would be significant.

 

Second, as a new company, innovation is one of the key factors to staking your claim to advancing the company brand, value, and sales.  Your proposal makes Game Labs just another game company doing the same stale stuff as other companies.

 

Third, historically the two invasions by the ANV were not about grabbing ground or VP locations.  They were about making a political statement.  If you make the ACW a VP-based game you turn the history of the ACW on its head IMHO.  Specifically, there was no value to Gettysburg, or Antietam - yet that is where the battles were fought.  Harrisburg, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington all had VP value - yet Lee abandoned the opportunity to capture Harrisburg in favor of defeating the AoP in detail at Gettysburg.  There is a rational reason for his decision - the ACW was not about VP's.

 

Fourth, Lincoln, Lee, Grant, and Sherman understood that the war was about destroying the will and the resources of the enemy to continue the fight.  This meant destroying one of the opposing armies.  I'd much prefer to see a game that awarded political points for the campaign that would combine casualties, POW's, with geographic achievements that influence the political state of the war.  

 

The Peninsula Campaign is a great model to consider.  Union moral on the home front soared when McClellan was within 12 miles of Richmond.  There was a corresponding drop in CSA moral.  Note that there was nothing of value on the Yorktown Peninsula (Fort Monroe was already in Union hands) - the proximity to Richmond was enough to force the CSA on the offensive.  The Peninsula Campaign cost the CSA over 28,000 men while the Union suffered about 20,000 casualties.  Most of these casualties were inflicted during the Seven Days Campaign 20,000 CSA, 16,000 Union over a 7 day period.  

 

If McClellan had had the testosculociy to continue the fight on the Peninsula it is likely the CSA would never have been able to "go north" in the Eastern Theater.  Lee beat McClellan, but the ANV did not beat the AoP, in the Peninsula Campaign.

 

My conclusion is if Game Labs wants to thrive as a company then they need game innovation that will offer fast paced games that attract players to the experience the strategic reality of the ACW.  A military campaign with the goal to alter the political landscape and define victory in a historically representative context of the ACW and contribute an innovation that would be a breath of fresh air in the stale history game genre.

[James Cornelius]

I completely see and agree with your point. I only used VPs as a mechanism to force the player to assign value to certain areas and be driven to take action concerning them - in the current UGG system this is evident in the key points on the Gettysburg battlefield. I thought that was the direction that was preferred.

 

Since I am advocating a completely open-ended and sandbox experience, I think that not having anything like that is better because it gives the player full control on what to do. However, I am not informed enough about the game's AI to know whether or not it could function without "objectives".

 

But, as I said, I completely agree with your take on things. I only suggested VPs as a means to an end, but it sounds like as far as the final outcome, you and I are on the same page.

[David Fair]

Yes, it seems like we are all looking for a game that allows the players to find their own strategies to achieve victory.  

 

IMO it is unfortunate that the military history game designers got on the VP idea in the first place.  It makes the genre too driven in the direction of a "paint-by-numbers" approach to strategy.  VP's architectures drove me away from gaming as the strategy genre becomes nothing more than get point "A", now get point "B".  Congratulations!  You've gotten "A & B" now go get "C".

 

This reminds me of the squirrels in my back yard getting nuts and hiding them from each other.  Just awful stuff.

 

The intellectual challenge in strategy gaming is completely lost with VP's - imagine the appeal of chess with such a structure - nobody would play such a formulaic game.  The intellectual abyss is why games are adopted, played, then rapidly abandoned.

 

In my mind getting the right level of abstraction is key to a great game.  AGEOD B&G burdened players with too many details about the economy, etc... and the lack of actually fighting battles really trashed the game for most people.

 

We can do much, much, much better.