Another Question About Odd Game Mechanics

[GamesaurusRex]

Apparently, generals will randomly take control of troops in a region,

EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT IN COMMAND OF THOSE TROOPS AND ARE SET ON DEFENSIVE POSTURE.

EXAMPLE: (Note, this was prior to formation of any Corps.)

The Union attacked a region that the Confederate had three separate stacks in. One stack garrisoning a town and two separate stacks outside the town "in the field". Each stack had it's own commanding general. (In fact, there are several generals commanding several divisions in the two stacks in the field.) The Union lost the first battle when they attacked on the first turn, but their force did not retreat and just remained on the field in the region.

On the following turn I decided to move one of the Confederate stacks out of the region, I left the garrison stack in the town set on defensive posture, and I ordered the third stack in the field to attack the Union force in the field by setting it to offensive posture with sustained attack. The interesting thing here is that the general in command of the town force was "NOT ACTIVATED" and thus could not be ordered to attack at all. However, when the turn was processed, the stack ordered to attack did attack, but the wrong general was in command. The "inactivated " general that was in command of the town garrison, who was set on defensive posture, was in command of the battle instead of the general that was in command of the stack in the field that was set on offensive and ordered to attack.

Is this a bug ? Is there some sort of rule that allows generals that are not in command of a stack, but are in the region, to take control of stacks they are not in and randomly attack the enemy ?

Is it possible that the highest seniority general is forced to take control of a battle in a region, regardless of which general is placed in command of each stack in the region or what posture each general in a region is set on ?

Note: The garrison general that was "inactive" and set on "defensive" was the highest seniority general in the region and apparently seized control of the battle, even though he was ordered to do nothing and sit quietly on defense in the town.

[OldSarge]

Initially, the commanding leader is determined first by rank (i.e. number of *'s) and then by seniority. The active status is not considered for purposes of determining command but is used during combat resolution..

The overall command can change during the course of a battle. For instance, when a nearby Corps MTSG and has a more senior leader or when the commanding leader's unit is withdrawen from battle (usually due to cohesion loss).

HTH

[GamesaurusRex]

So what you are saying is that the assignment of generals to specific command positions by the Player is irrelevant and will be overridden in combat by the game mechanics based upon their seniority ranking.

1)Why bother with command assignment mechanisms, if seniority takes priority ?

2)Why penalize the cancelling of Army command assignments, if the penalty can be circumvented by merely placing senior commanders in the same region to seize command ?

3)Why do senior commanders that are not even in the region where the battle occurs seize command of battles ?
(In two cases now I have observed senior commanders in adjacent regions listed on the battle report as the commander of the battle when they were not even in the region and not a linked corps commander.)

P.S. TO Old Sarge: Thanks for the reply... and what does "MTSG" mean ?

[GamesaurusRex]

While I'm on the subject of strange and exceptionally irrational game mechanics...

Why does the combat resolution routine include men and equipment THAT ARE NOT ENGAGED IN BATTLE in the beginning battle totals on the battle report when they are calculated ? It is clear to me that the losses generated and reported are calculated using these inflated figures because twice now I have observed the casualties exceed the total number of men IN THE UNITS that were involved.

This occurs every time there are stacks in a region that are NOT engaged in the battle. Furthermore, the stacks NOT ENGAGED have been strangely forced to retreat from the region when the other stack lost a battle... EVEN when the non-engaged stack was twice the size of the engaged force, entrenched to level 4, and fully rested and supplied ?

What is the rationale for causing the retreat of other forces in a region simply because one force in the region failed an attack ? Don't start with "a domino effect", because that makes absolutely no sense when the stack forced to retreat is much larger, entrenched, and pristine.

This looks like another logic bug to me.

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

So what you are saying is that the assignment of generals to specific command positions by the Player is irrelevant and will be overridden in combat by the game mechanics based upon their seniority ranking.

Not exactly. Simply that the highest leader, by rank or seniority, in a region is the commander. At least initially, you can always hope that a bad leader getskilled or wounded early.

1)Why bother with command assignment mechanisms, if seniority takes priority ?

Do you remember the scene in the movie 'Zulu' when the two leading officers have realized the Zulus are heading their way? They determine who was to be in charge by the date of their commission. The ACW was very similar where effective leaders found themselves under incompetent leadership.

2)Why penalize the cancelling of Army command assignments, if the penalty can be circumvented by merely placing senior commanders in the same region to seize command ?

Because it actually happend in the ACW? [;)]

Seriously, if you have organized your forces properly and assigned your good leaders to combat and your bad leaders to a supply depot far in the rear it isn't a common problem. As the war progresses your good officers overshadow the bad ones, provided they aren't killed off or wounded. [X(]

For example, playing as the USA, Fremont is a loser! Lyons is a far better leader but subordinate to Fremont, so I usually leave Fremont to play soldier in STL while Lyons goes off to clean up Missouri and earn his own senority and promotion. [8D]

3)Why do senior commanders that are not even in the region where the battle occurs seize command of battles ?
(In two cases now I have observed senior commanders in adjacent regions listed on the battle report as the commander of the battle when they were not even in the region and not a linked corps commander.)

Are they Army commanders? An Army is a special type of Corps and it can and will MTSG even before Corps are available.

P.S. TO Old Sarge: Thanks for the reply... and what does "MTSG" mean ?

MTSG = March to The Sound of Guns. It is from a standing order Nappie gave to his Corps commanders to march their troops to whereever they heard gunfire.

It is a mechanism where nearby Corps will come to the aid of a fellow Corps being attacked. It is a very effective and important part of combat. The CSA player can use this effectively to block the river crossings and make the USA pay a heavy price for advancing.

I realize this is probably frustrating for you, but the game is WAD. Give it a chance and you'll see. There are plenty of posts over on the AGEOD forums that go into painstaking detail over every nuance of the game mechanics.. Unfortunatly, I lost the quick links that I had to those threads so I can't post them but they do exist.

HTH

[GamesaurusRex]

You missed the point of the questions...

1) The "seniority takes precedence" rule negates the whole point of specific assignments. The way the game works, you must only place commanders by seniority with respect to battles. Assignments other than by seniority are useless, because they will be overridden by seniority. It makes the assignments of specific generals with specific bonuses pointless.

2)I did not suggest that no penalty should be applied when removing officers from Army command... I suggested there seems to be a "seniority exploit" that negates the very penalty you and I both agree should be in the game.

3) No, they were not Army commanders or Corps linked commanders... they were merely senior generals that were in towns that happened to be in the region where a battle "in the field" took place and they mysteriously seized control and interfered in the battle. In fact, in both cases, the senior generals were showing "inactive status" when the move was planned and they were intentionally left out of the battle stacks because they could not be set to aggressive stance and plotted to attack. The game mechanism that switched command assignments contrary to the way the battle was planned is absurd because it substituted an "inactive" general that could not be set to an aggressive stance or used to attack and caused heavy losses because of the "inactive" status it bore when the game mechanic switched generals.

This is clearly the result of a poor combat logic routine with unintended consequences in my opinion. Officers that are "inactive" should NOT be randomly substituted by an arbitrary game mechanic regardless of seniority. If the game "Player" cannot order a general that is unavailable to command, the game mechanics certainly should not be doing it either. This sort of arbitrary interference by the game in altering a Player's planned moves is simply absurd.

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex
1) The "seniority takes precedence" rule negates the whole point of specific assignments. The way the game works, you must only place commanders by seniority with respect to battles. Assignments other than by seniority are useless, because they will be overridden by seniority. It makes the assignments of specific generals with specific bonuses pointless.

Your division assignments are still valid and leaders assigned to those divisions will still participate and contribute to their unit's actions. You can verify this yourself by going through the combat results, or for the gory details look in the Battle log, and you should see your assigned leaders along with their respective units. Even if they are not the overall senior commander they still participate and can even earn seniority or promotions.

2)I did not suggest that no penalty should be applied when removing officers from Army command... I suggested there seems to be a "seniority exploit" that negates the very penalty you and I both agree should be in the game.

It isn't much of an exploit. The highest ranking or senior most leader in a region is the overall leader for combat purposes, even if that commander is unassigned. Again, your individual unit leaders still contribute to the performance of their own units and can often make the difference.

3) No, they were not Army commanders or Corps linked commanders... they were merely senior generals that were in towns that happened to be in the region where a battle "in the field" took place and they mysteriously seized control and interfered in the battle. In fact, in both cases, the senior generals were showing "inactive status" when the move was planned and they were intentionally left out of the battle stacks because they could not be set to aggressive stance and plotted to attack. The game mechanism that switched command assignments contrary to the way the battle was planned is absurd because it substituted an "inactive" general that could not be set to an aggressive stance or used to attack and caused heavy losses because of the "inactive" status it bore when the game mechanic switched generals.

If they were the senior commanders in the region, then, it isn't mysterious why they took command. I usually don't leave unassigned leaders lying around. Instead, I attach them to the nearest HQ with a ranking officer so it avoids just this type of situation altogether.

Please remember that inactive doesn't mean unavailable, so a inactive leader is still eligible for selection. Also a turn consists of 15 days, each day there is an activation check and it is very likely that an inactive leader can be made active and even that active leaders mightl become inactive during the course of a turn..

This is clearly the result of a poor combat logic routine with unintended consequences in my opinion. Officers that are "inactive" should NOT be randomly substituted by an arbitrary game mechanic regardless of seniority. If the game "Player" cannot order a general that is unavailable to command, the game mechanics certainly should not be doing it either. This sort of arbitrary interference by the game in altering a Player's planned moves is simply absurd.

Inactive officers are not "randomly" selected to be the overall commander for a region. They are selected by virtue of being the senior most leader present in the region regardless of their present activation status. If you want to guarantee that a senior leader doesn't get selected for combat, you'll need to move him out of region. Again, inactive doesn't mean unavailable, it simply means the leader is not up to snuff at the time.

It isn't as glum as you may see it.

HTH

[GamesaurusRex]

I agree with you that using the "work arounds" you suggest can avoid some of the issues that we have discussed... however, there are two glaring problems with that view of the mechanics which you seem to fail to grasp.

1) Since the "work arounds" are, as you indicate, easy to use to avoid seniority issues, they will be used... and the seniority rule, if it was intended to have an affect on battles, will simply be avoided... so why bother with it ?

and much more glaring is the second problem, but let me quote what you stated and bold the part which points this out:

"Please remember that inactive doesn't mean unavailable, so an inactive leader is still eligible for selection. Also a turn consists of 15 days, each day there is an activation check and it is very likely that an inactive leader can be made active and even that active leaders might become inactive during the course of a turn.."

2) So the Player is not even sure if the commander he is selecting for an attack will be "activated" at the time of the attack ??? WHAT THE ???!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an "inactive" commander have a massive loss penalty if he is forced to command an attack by this mechanism ? If this is so, then this game mechanism, which randomly alters the activation state as many as fifteen times after a commander has been selected by the Player to lead an attack, is beyond ridiculous. You may just as well resolve the battles on a completely random roll without regard to command assignments, combat values, or unit ratings because you have reduced the outcome of battles to a purely random event. It is a poor combat resolution logic design.

When this mechanism is combined with the equally ridiculous chance that it will trigger the retreat of other stacks in the same region that ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE BATTLE... THUS CAUSING THEM TO ABANDON AND DESTROY MAJOR ENTRENCHMENT POSITIONS, which within the scale of the regions involved could be many, many, miles away... You have reduced this game to a toss of the dice. You need to change the name of the game from Civil War 2 to RISK.

[GamesaurusRex]

OMG ! More Civil War 2 insanity !

The Union just moved into in the region of Leesburg, VA with a small force under Butler because it was not occupied by the Confederates. At the same time Jackson moved into the Leesburg region with a full division and destroyed Butler's force... and Butler with 45 men remaining under him retreated into the adjacent region of Alexandria (which is heavily occupied by Union troops and heavily entrenched).

AND CAN YOU GUESS WHAT THE ABSURD SENIORITY RESPONSE DID to the Union when the defeated, destroyed, inactivated, wretchedly demoralized Butler arrived in the Alexandria region ?? Why, OF COURSE, the entire field Army in the Alexandria region immediately gave it's command over to the recently crushed General Butler and even though he was beset with "retreat status" (from the retreat result) and "inactive status" (from the retreat result against Jackson)... Butler immediately somehow orders the Union field force of Alexandria to throw itself in a suicidal attack at the Confederate forces entrenched in the Alexandria area !!! Never mind that Butler's "inactive status" means certain suicide for the 27000+ men that WERE SET FOR DEFENSE ONLY in the Alexandria region ! So... the result ? Over 8000+ Union troops are slaughtered for no rational reason, with less than 700 Confederate casualties. All because of an irrational "seniority" triggered combat results mechanism that makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, I'm the Confederate here... so I'm not just complaining about sour grapes (I'm perfectly happy to see 8000 Union troops destroyed) but I'm not happy with what happened to the Union here because this result IS ABSURD ON THE FACE OF IT !

This is clearly a case of unintended consequences being caused by a poorly coded combat results engine. Matrix has the basis here for a pretty good game, but a bug like this is fatal. Hopefully it can be addressed in the next patch. Otherwise, the game is not really playable.

[Pocus]

The seniority system is a rule and is working well 95% of the time. no doubt also that Butler lost some seniority because of his defeat, but not enough to not take over Alexandria garrison. So yes, sometime the rules remind us that this is a game and that rules are not perfectly modeling all the subtleties of warfare. In these cases of weird/senior moments in games (and not only our but the ones I play), I try to find a plausible explanation, to keep my suspension of disbelief. And this works, because in life too there are many oddities happening. So I would imagine that Butler pretended he was surprised by Jackson but said the Confederate general had few troops and without the ambush would have won over Jackson. And with some political intrigues he would manage to be granted all troops at Alexandria, so to chastise the impudent Jackson. The end result would be this stupid move from Butler against Jackson forces.

And don't tell me very stupid offensives never happened in wars. They are full of them in fact. Back to the engine, the seniority system has flaws, like being able to name a lousy commander in command of a ghost army, so he is satisfied (but he has no troops). But not this one, seniority is seniority. You take over troops over others generals, until you get enough defeats to be at the bottom of the seniority scale.

[GamesaurusRex]

(Just a note before you read the reply here: Butler did not trigger an attack on Jackson, he triggered an attack on the Rebel troops in the adjacent region in the Alexandria region where he retreated... a region that had large Union and Rebel forces entrenched in it... a region where neither side was set to attack.)




Hi Pocus ! I understand from the forum that you are THE BIG GUY on questions about this game. Thanks for the reply and I am glad to see you have taken notice of this thread (because Civil War 2 has the potential of being a great little game in a poorly served genre... but it needs a little patch love to save it from the dead pile.)

Before I sound too negative, let me state that despite some crude interface and turn display issues, Ageod's CW2 has the basic makings of an entertaining American Civil War simulation game here. It needs a few patch tweeks though, to save it from being rendered unplayable. This is primarily due to the malfunctioning "seniority test routine" in your combat resolution code. It causes what I am sure are unexpected consequences in the logic loops of your program.

Now, ignoring for the moment that an explanation of the seniority effects on combat and movement are entirely missing from the game's documentation (an inexcusable omission), I have to say I cannot agree that it is WAD, as you stated above. I'm on turn 27 of a Campaign Game with Wheat and in the last 3 turns there have been 4 major battles that have been just as irrationally resolved due to seniority intervention as the battle I described at Alexandria in the above post. THIS IS NOT WAD 95% of the time !

Assuming a player understands the seniority rule, his response can only be to make sure that senior officers not intended to be included in a battle are placed outside of the battle region. Unfortunately, that player action does nothing to prevent the intervention of senior officers situated in adjacent regions. If they are attacked on the same turn and forced to retreat into an adjacent region, they do suicidal damage because they are deactivated and, for some strange reason known only to the programmer, still in an "assault mode" (even after being totally crushed).

My suggestion:
Get rid of the code that causes stacks to switch commanders when a senior officer merely enters a region. Require the Players to specifically assign an officer to a command position and do not allow the game AI to change that assignment. At the very least, you should not allow commanders that have just been defeated and retreated to cause an attack on anything. Doing otherwise reduces Player planning in this game to "shooting Craps"... you may as well be playing RISK.

I have no problem seeing the concept of seniority affecting which officers should be assigned to which positions based upon a political seniority system and no problem with the concept of victory point penalties for ignoring that seniority, but the way it is currently deployed in the game is not entertaining, is not reflective of history, and is just a chaotic mess that adds nothing to the game but incredibly stupid combat results.

Another improvement that could probably be easily done in a patch would be to revise the combat value and dates of launching of the major ironclad ships already scripted in the game. The game has the South operating 5 ironclads in 1861, when in fact they only had one... and the others became operational in the first half of 1862. The combat values of each of the ships varied widely, as well as their speeds. I understand that a game design has to draw the line at some point as to detail, but this game already has the data structure to accommodate different combat values and launch dates... so why not? (I'd be happy to contribute some free research on the matter and post combat values and launch dates for ships, if you think a patch to do that would be possible.) I also understand that the theoretical ships both sides can build are generic in nature and were done so as a practical matter due to limitations of game development time and expense. Yes... you have to draw the line at some point... but Grognards can dream, can't we ?

[GamesaurusRex]

Pocus:

I woke up this morning and re-read your response and realized that you and I both had not fully understood what we had both posted. That is why I added the edit in parentheses at the beginning of the previous post to clarify what is occurring. It was then that I realized I had missed this part of your reply...
QUOTE:
"And don't tell me very stupid offensives never happened in wars. They are full of them in fact. Back to the engine, the seniority system has flaws, like being able to name a lousy commander in command of a ghost army, so he is satisfied (but he has no troops). But not this one, seniority is seniority. You take over troops over others generals, until you get enough defeats to be at the bottom of the seniority scale."

Stupidly led battles occurred as long as stupid Generals were put in command. Their stupidity did not however spill over in to the next State and cause it's total collapse in a single battle. With the way your seniority logic works now, this could conceivably trigger a domino effect from one side of the country to the other, as any retreated General merrily gets crushed and retreated through a series of regions.

This seniority mechanism is much too intrusive into Player planning and control. It's a shame really, because the seniority rule is like finding a turd in the box of chocolates you just bought... Do you think we are going to recommend to our Steam friends this brand of chocolates ?

[Symple]

GamesaurusRex - I actually totally disagree with your take on the seniority system. The seniority is based upon the success you achieve with a general. You control who in in command. You select which generals lead troops. So initial seniority issues are due to your deployment of generals. Later seniority issues are due to your assignment of generals to units and to battle. It is actually the leadership rules which make CW2 totally engaging and a very accurate recreation of the command problems (as well as successes) of the American Civil War. My guess is that you have simply not learned to play the game to its best effect.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Symple

GamesaurusRex - I actually totally disagree with your take on the seniority system. The seniority is based upon the success you achieve with a general. You control who in in command. You select which generals lead troops. So initial seniority issues are due to your deployment of generals. Later seniority issues are due to your assignment of generals to units and to battle. It is actually the leadership rules which make CW2 totally engaging and a very accurate recreation of the command problems (as well as successes) of the American Civil War. My guess is that you have simply not learned to play the game to its best effect.

Please go back and re-read the description of the battle posted above, where a Union general being defeated in a small battle in the adjacent Leesburg region caused a massive battle to be triggered in Alexandria region due to the retreat of the defeated Union general into Alexandria region.

The initial Union force that attempted to seize Leesburg was one small unit of 450 men... a probing move at best. When it ran into Jackson's division, it naturally lost the fight. Perfectly reasonable so far. BUT THIS IS WHERE the CW2 combat results logic goes haywire.

When the Union force was destroyed, the Union general (with his remaining 45 men) staggered in retreat into the adjacent region of Alexandria which was heavily occupied by both sides and heavily entrenched... AND THE MERE FACT THAT THIS BADLY MAULED GENERAL RETREATS ONTO THE DOORSTEP OF ALEXANDRIA, TRIGGERS THE UNION ARMY TO ABANDON IT'S MAJOR POSITION AND THROW ITSELF INTO A SUICIDAL ATTACK ON STRONGLY HELD AND ENTRENCHED CONFEDERATE POSITIONS, wiping out over a third of the entire Union Army in the region.

This is utterly absurd on every level. It might be unimportant if it was a freak occurrence, however this sort of result has been generated in one way or another 3 times in the last 4 turns. Another ridiculous result occurred a turn before where a small Rebel force attempting to enter the same region as an entrenched Rebel position twice it's size caused the larger entrenched force (which was set on defense) to simply abandon their positions and the redoubt where they were stationed, when the small Rebel force ran into Union troops. All of this because a retreating general is somehow magically put in command of forces that are in other positions in the region after he retreats. Utter nonsense !

This rule doesn't make CW2 "totally engaging and ...very accurate". It makes it totally random and very irrelevant.

This puts CW2 in the same wargame simulation class as Milton Bradley's game of RISK and that is the review I will give it on Steam and elsewhere until these flaws are addressed in a patch.

[Symple]

It certainly does not bother me how your rate a game on any forum (which is actually kind of a funny threat in my view), what does bother me is that you allow an anomalous event to rush you to a judgment which is not warranted by the game design. I actually tried to recreate the situation which you report and could only do so when the small retreating unit was in the command control of the force in the adjacent region (ie - I read your comment and examined it in detail).

This is the intended behavior. Units which share command under an organizing army support each other. The other units joined by march to the sound of guns. This game mechanic is not blatantly obvious and takes experience to use to its best effect.

Had your probing force been independent, then the resulting catastrophe would not in fact have happened as the retreat would have put the unit in passive defense ending its further engagement in battle. So, solution to your 'Risk' playing behavior, so to speak.

This game has a sophistication which goes beyond merely moving units around and hoping for the best. I am not encouraging you to change your report or your reviews, but if you do, indeed, wish to play an excellent game of the American Civil War, this is the game to master.

[GamesaurusRex]

Again Symple... there were no Army or other command links between the troops... they were separate, unrelated units. It was just the command seniority in action.

As for my review, that is not a threat... it is simply my opinion from having played almost every wargame published since 1968, starting with Avalon Hill through present day computer games. With the seniority rule implemented as it is now, CW2 is RISK compared to what's out there.

[Symple]

Interesting situation, must have been due to seniority (as discussed above on this thread). Incidentally,as with most games, you can choose to use historical commanders, as I typically do, and suffer the command penalties or your can move the annoying Union commanders to some quiet spot where they do not cause harm. I actually enjoy the challenge of having Butler take New Orleans and McDowell take Northern Virginia.

I guess I really have nothing more on the issue you have been discussing.

We are of an age. I started the centennial year of the Battle of Gettysburg with the game titled the same as the centenary battle. One quickly revised and re-released once it was found too complex to sell. You have piqued my curiosity with your statement that CW2 does not compare with what is out there. I would be curious which game of the American Civil War at an operational/strategic level you would put forward. Since I shifted my gaming from board-maps and cardboard counters I have only found one game with the depth and complexity of some of the excellent strategic level board games, CW2. I have been in serious enjoyment of CW2 as the first computer game to best complex old board games.
What game am I missing which I ought to be playing instead?

[GamesaurusRex]

I suspect you are a Grognard, like myself. If you are, then you worked your way through the games of Avalon Hill, SPI, Game Design Workshop, Victory Games, West End Games, TSG, TSR Inc, SSI, FireAxis, TalonSoft, Activision Total War Series, CDV, Massive, Paradox, Matrix, and literally dozens of other publishers over the years. This path unavoidably makes you sensitive to where a game falls on the scale of tactical/strategic warfare simulation, ranging from "Shooting Craps" (with dice)in a game like RISK, to a game like Grigsby's War In The East or War In The Pacific:AE (both excellent games offered by Matrix). Reasoned comparison of the combat resolution mechanics forces me to conclude that CW2 is reduced to RISK by the effects of the seniority logic routine in the game. However, I have stated above that, aside from the perverted effects of the seniority logic, CW2 has the potential of being "a great little game in a poorly served genre".

You have asked me what specifically else is out there ? I will answer that by repeating here the conclusions of a conversation that took place yesterday between two of Matrix's customers (Wheat and myself) regarding the problem of what he and I both think is a fatally flawed seniority combat modifier in CW2.

The conclusions were:
1) That the triggered secondary seniority combat results effectively reduce the game to one of random events.

2) That CW2 was our first examination of an Ageod product and that based upon the flaws of this sample, we have little interest in purchasing other Ageod products.

3) (And this is the important one because it answers your question about alternatives.)
The solution or "Fix" to the CW2 problem is the upcoming available patch for Matrix's GG:War In The East game.

"How can this fix the CW2 problem ?"..., you ask ?

It's simple... when it comes out, we will return to a game worth spending our time on and not waste any more time playing CW2.

[Symple]

You do define my gaming experience as parallel correctly. However, I actually have never understood the term Grognard. I may be one. I do live for wargames.

So this is my take. There are three or four serious wargaming communities. Much of the disagreement in the forums about games comes from some player enjoying one style of design while other prefer a different style of design. While I do think GG's games are well executed, they simply do not engage me for several reasons. John Tiller has a very different take on games which many players enjoy, but I find unduly complicated for the return in time invested. Frank Hunter has a better take on the level of engagement which works for me. He always has a theory of the conflict which the player then gets to explore. I appreciate those who enjoy game I really cannot play with enjoyment, so I maybe understand your points. I do think it is important for gamers to find games which are their personal cup of tea. CW2 is such a cup of tea for me. I left out some of the funky, yet fun, game systems like Battlefront Games. Of course several gamers love all the game systems, kind of multifunctional players, not system specific. At any rate, my guess is our disagreement is more about game systems than game quality.

It is a bit sad that your one and only experience with AGEOD games was not to your liking as there is a whole world of enjoyment for me and many others with game systems which have mastered command and control as it interacts with forces engaged; and with games covering conflicts not normally covered by other game companies.

This is not the place to detail a non-GG fan's take on War In the East, but if your pretense is that precision of history is your major claim to Risk and non-Risk games, then your claim is without foundation as War In the East has some major warts, too. (I do not mean to make this sound dismissively judgmental, I only mean all games have historical flaws if you want to find them. And most games are fun to play if you understand they are a representation of historical simulations and not history.)

[Captain_Orso]

I believe something is quite amiss here.

My summery of the situation is as follows
At turn start:
-- Union forces:
---- Alexandria:
------ Outside the structure-location (city): >= 1 stacks in DP (Defensive Posture)
------ Inside the structure-location (city): >= 1 stacks in DP (Defensive Posture)
---- North of the Potomac River: Butler with a small force
Confederate forces:
---- Alexandria:
------ Outside the structure-location (city): >= 1 stacks in DP (Defensive Posture)
---- South of Leesburg: Jackson with a large(ish) force

Orders: Both Butler and Jackson are ordered to move to Leesburg.

During turn-execution Butler's and Jackson's stack meet in the Leesburg region and a battle ensues in which the unit(s) in Buttler's stack are destroyed/captured and Butler is wounded and lands in Alexandria.

Here's where things get strange. Apparently Butler arriving in Alexandria causes a battle between Union and Confederate stacks in the Alexandria region. Why is this strange? Because Butler, being wounded, even if at the time of his wounding if he still had any troops in his stack, goes to Alexandria alone. Now, I'm not sure if Butler--now that he is wounded--has his Posture changed, but regardless, he lands in Alexandria in his own stack. A leader without troops in his stack does not attack, whether wounded or not, even if in OP (Offensive Posture).

I have tested this. In a region with both Union and Confederate stacks--all in DP--I sent a Union leader with higher rank than all other Union leaders in the region that region into the region. Nothing happens.

So Butler landing inside Alexandria, even if in OP cannot cause a battle. Also, if the garrison unit in the battle report was inside the Alexandria, it can be in OP as much as it wants, it will never attack anything not assaulting the city. It will only be involved in battle if either the city is assaulted or it sorties-out.

So I don't see how the battle as described could have take place. It's a great mystery to me.