Discussion thread for the SoW-Gettysburg Campaign

[Fish_au]

>>>O. O. Howard wrote: I would definitely say you don't build troops. That is kind of hokey. It is better just to have your OOB in the way it was during the given campaign. I would say divisions would probably be the most realistic level for campaign (rather than brigades).<<<

but a campaign shell like AGEOD's ACW that then sends you to SoW for the battles would be my ultimate wargame! AGEOD's ACW, which covers the whole war, is a brigade level system

specific scenarios would give you a seasonal campaign without having to worry about drafts or military-industrial investment or taxes or building troops.

maybe NSD could collaborate with AGEOD?

but realistically, a simple single-campaign shell would be the most feasible first step . . .

[norb]

I doubt we could collaborate. It's just that we would both have our own ideas about how things should be done. We want to do campaign mode our own way. We all put in our two cents and we see what comes out. I've got lots of ideas in hooking up some of the rpg aspects of the game. Just need time. If everyone here buys 1000 copies, maybe we could work full time for about 6 months I think this team could write a new game in 6 months.

[2nd Kentucky]

norb wrote:

I doubt we could collaborate. It's just that we would both have our own ideas about how things should be done. We want to do campaign mode our own way. We all put in our two cents and we see what comes out. I've got lots of ideas in hooking up some of the rpg aspects of the game. Just need time. If everyone here buys 1000 copies, maybe we could work full time for about 6 months I think this team could write a new game in 6 months.

Great, whats the price and when can I expect those?

[norb]

As soon as we can!!

[Armchair General]

norb wrote:

Just need time. If everyone here buys 1000 copies, maybe we could work full time for about 6 months I think this team could write a new game in 6 months.

Do you take checks?

[Davinci]

norb wrote:

The other spot is the sandbox setup that we really want to do more work. The test team has said that the AI just isn't paying enough attention to the VP sites. This is sort of a design issue in that I like to randomly have the AI choose one or more of the sites. But if the player chooses one and the AI chooses a different one, then it's a very boring battle But I'll look at that soon. It doesn't affect anything else, so it can be tweaked after code freeze. Code freeze is more for AI and scenario scripting.

I sincerely hope that you don’t program the AI to just concentrate on going after the Open Play VP sites, and keep the AI open to split their forces and offer more of a what if challenge.

Campaigns – or even Open Play – should allow for the AI to constantly try to control the map by blocking alternative roads, this will slow-down, or prevent the reinforcements to the player.

This is something that the current game doesn’t do to well, they never watch, or block the roads.

davinci

[norb]

That's a good idea. Currently the AI does not pay attention to blocking roads, but that would be a cool feature.

[Hancock the Superb]

I do like the idea of the AI blocking roads, too.

I have some suggestions for campagins:

No to Shenandoah 1862 - it would be amazingly difficult to implement possible scenarios, there are thousands of them!

However, much to everyone's groaning, yes, the 2nd Manassas Campaign would be definitly worthy of campaign mode, along with the Red River Campaign, Vicksburg, and for a great show, the Confederate counter-offensive in August-September 1862 in the west.

It would be cool to see that, with a huge map that a person controls. You could send suggestions to Price and his troops if you are playing as Bragg, though you cannot directly control them.

Lastly, playing in divisions would be way to big.

Just imagine, if I want to guard a secondary ford, I really don't want to guard it with a division, only a brigade!

In addition, maps don't need to be the size of Virginia, only the limited area to play. For example, in 2nd Manassas, only Northern Virginia (Richmond to Maryland) would need to be shown. Yes, that is a big map, but, with brigade sized units, and the changable size of maps, and the lack of the need for detail would make fairly large maps a possibility.

[Fish_au]

how do you handle the tactical terrain though. is randomly generated likely or is it at all possible to represent the actual terrain (seems a tall order for all of northern virginia say). TW has the same battle map for every strategic area but its only representative, not actual, and if you fight over that area multiple times you get bored with the tactical map & get to know all its ins and outs.

you could have sets of open, hilly, mountainous, riverine, etc tactical maps and each time you enter an area one is randomly chosen.

[Armchair General]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I do like the idea of the AI blocking roads, too.


However, much to everyone's groaning, yes, the 2nd Manassas Campaign would be definitly worthy of campaign mode, along with the Red River Campaign, Vicksburg, and for a great show, the Confederate counter-offensive in August-September 1862 in the west.

There were some 10,000 engagements in the Civil War, big and small. Stay away from either Manassas. There's the Fredericksburg Campaign, I like the idea of the Overland Campaign, and even the Peninsula Campaign because with a major campaign map you could try your luck at linking Burnside's Roanoke Expedition to the rest of the AoTP.