An idea that may appease some players?

Strategic Command: American Civil War gives you the opportunity to battle for the future of the United States in this grand strategy game. Command the Confederacy in a desperate struggle for independence, or lead the Union armies in a march on Richmond.

Moderator: Fury Software

Post Reply
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

An idea that may appease some players?

Post by Tanaka »

Not sure if the game engine would allow it? A lot of players seem to want to be able to combine regiments, brigades, divisions, etc into bigger units.

How about being able to upgrade regiments into brigades and brigades into divisions and divisions into corps? You would pay the same cost as buying a brigade or division or corps. No combining or splitting but you could pay the cost for making bigger if you wanted to. The benefit of the extra cost for the same unit vs buying an extra unit is that you would keep the experience. Just an idea that popped into my head...
Last edited by Tanaka on Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Kila Hana

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by Platoonist »

The current system of independent brigades and regiments is fine by me. Frankly, I often wish I could break down the divisions and corps into smaller units....or simply purchase more regiments and brigades. A cheap garrison unit like in the WW2 SC titles would be nice to have.
Image
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 4858
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by Tanaka »

Platoonist wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:26 pm The current system of independent brigades and regiments is fine by me. Frankly, I often wish I could break down the divisions and corps into smaller units....or simply purchase more regiments and brigades. A cheap garrison unit like in the WW2 SC titles would be nice to have.
I am also fine with it and love the game just a thought. And yes splitting would be cool too but if you have splitting you must also have combining. Yes surprised you cannot purchase more regiments and brigades I wonder what the reasoning here is? I guess because you start out with so many?
Image
User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 2083
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Kila Hana

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by Platoonist »

Tanaka wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:38 pm
I am also fine with it and love the game just a thought. And yes splitting would be cool too but if you have splitting you must also have combining. Yes surprised you cannot purchase more regiments and brigades I wonder what the reasoning here is? I guess because you start out with so many?
Hold on to those regiments you get at start like gold if you are the Union. They're ideal anti-partisan hex-sitters. Regrettably, you can't purchase more unless you turn off hard build limits nor can you rebuild any which have been destroyed in combat. I have no idea on the designer's reasons for this.
Image
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by battlevonwar »

I'd also like 5 strength Garrison Units, those little guys entrenched with tech on a city or vital hex are a pain... They stop cavalry raids and they let you free up brigades/divisions/corps to do what they're supposed to do.

(A lot of the best stuff in the game is not seen, for instance Logistical Tech, most ignore what this really means)
Platoonist wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:55 pm
Tanaka wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:38 pm
I am also fine with it and love the game just a thought. And yes splitting would be cool too but if you have splitting you must also have combining. Yes surprised you cannot purchase more regiments and brigades I wonder what the reasoning here is? I guess because you start out with so many?
Hold on to those regiments you get at start like gold if you are the Union. They're ideal anti-partisan hex-sitters. Regrettably, you can't purchase more unless you turn off hard build limits nor can you rebuild any which have been destroyed in combat. I have no idea on the designer's reasons for this.
User avatar
BiteNibbleChomp
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:52 am
Location: Australia

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by BiteNibbleChomp »

Platoonist wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:55 pm Hold on to those regiments you get at start like gold if you are the Union. They're ideal anti-partisan hex-sitters. Regrettably, you can't purchase more unless you turn off hard build limits nor can you rebuild any which have been destroyed in combat. I have no idea on the designer's reasons for this.
The developer's reason for this is that the "ideal anti-partisan hex-sitter" and the go-to unit for stopping a cavalry raid isn't intended to be a regiment, but a brigade. Once divisions and corps come online in late 61, brigades quickly become near worthless on the frontline, and you should have enough of them to cover the rear areas sufficiently.

I have considered adding Regiments as a buildable unit a few times, but thinking it over I suspect it would create as many problems as it solves, if not more. Let's say I set the build limit at 6 per side, which is about the maximum amount a player can have in the game as it currently is, assuming none are destroyed. The issue is then that most regiments spawn into the game via events (and not necessarily on turn 1), so during the early part of the game there will be a period in which it is possible to purchase several regiments. If I keep the stats as they currently are, they'd be 100 MPP a pop, which is hardly anything.
I've seen in threads for WIE and W@W that strategies involving the early purchase of German tank and paratrooper units before certain events fire, on the basis that this allows more to be built than is normally allowed, have at times been quite popular, so it is not hard to see a similar strategy being used with ACW regiments. Played out to its logical extreme, it thus becomes possible to have 10 or 12 regiments on the board per side. Two main problems arise from that: 1/ This is going to push the balance further in favour of the Union, as they can more easily afford to do this than the Confederacy can (the regiments themselves are worthless, but they free up better units that the Confederacy now has to confront), and 2/ so many additional units will likely crowd up the map, which makes it harder to outflank enemy lines and go cavalry raiding (and cavalry raids are very much historical and an intended part of the game experience).

I like the idea of buildable regiments in principle, but until I have a solution to those problems, I don't see how adding them will really make the game better.

- BNC
Ryan O'Shea - Strategic Command Designer
https://www.youtube.com/@bitenibblechomp
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2211
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by Taxman66 »

Ideas:

Make them Date available based upon the last event that adds them (though I know, some are just proximity added).

Set the number available to build at game start to 0. Only when 1 is killed can it be rebuilt. Do not subtract from the buildable amount when the event driven units show up.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
User avatar
battlevonwar
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:17 am

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by battlevonwar »

Yeah, those brigades are pretty vital in the early stages of the game. They are the bread and butter until Divisions come in large numbers. Often my brigades with General + Tech 2 Inf can be great division and cavalry killers. I use them effectively in this role and hate to have them on anti-partisan duty.

Raiding with Cavalry is 'ineffective in game' aside drawing a guy to spend a HUGE amount of money to rail in a full brigade to counter it. The city he takes doesn't lose it's production... And Cavalry is Massively expensive. The only time it would be effective if their were objective cities in the pathway for The Cavalry to take but even then losing a potentially 300-400 MPP fully upgraded Cavalry Division is not in my best interest to gain what? It favors the North slightly as the South can't really afford to rail around the the South doesn't get the Ohio and Pennsylvania events that spawn in an army to defend the region.

Marines are sort of like Naval Cavalry and yet these are highly effective for several reasons. If they manage to take their objective it would take you railing 200 MPPs in value for the South an effective counter force. Waiting Several Turns and that's often not possible. Plus the Union would get a Port, block trade, and then can leave at their leisure, given that the location can be taken.

Meanwhile the Souths Cavalry raids are only effective if they encircle something.

P.S. It's not till late game when tech makes Divisions and Corps Monsters that they 1 strike a Brigade does the dynamics change. Perhaps a 2 or 3 strength garrison unit in limited number would be nice(you could make speed bumps this way and perhaps have it where they cannot defend against a FOG encounter just block movement?). As partisans that spawn in almost more powerful than a brigade. I really don't like that feature it's irritating.
BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Mon Aug 01, 2022 8:22 am
Platoonist wrote: Sun Jul 31, 2022 8:55 pm Hold on to those regiments you get at start like gold if you are the Union. They're ideal anti-partisan hex-sitters. Regrettably, you can't purchase more unless you turn off hard build limits nor can you rebuild any which have been destroyed in combat. I have no idea on the designer's reasons for this.
The developer's reason for this is that the "ideal anti-partisan hex-sitter" and the go-to unit for stopping a cavalry raid isn't intended to be a regiment, but a brigade. Once divisions and corps come online in late 61, brigades quickly become near worthless on the frontline, and you should have enough of them to cover the rear areas sufficiently.

I have considered adding Regiments as a buildable unit a few times, but thinking it over I suspect it would create as many problems as it solves, if not more. Let's say I set the build limit at 6 per side, which is about the maximum amount a player can have in the game as it currently is, assuming none are destroyed. The issue is then that most regiments spawn into the game via events (and not necessarily on turn 1), so during the early part of the game there will be a period in which it is possible to purchase several regiments. If I keep the stats as they currently are, they'd be 100 MPP a pop, which is hardly anything.
I've seen in threads for WIE and W@W that strategies involving the early purchase of German tank and paratrooper units before certain events fire, on the basis that this allows more to be built than is normally allowed, have at times been quite popular, so it is not hard to see a similar strategy being used with ACW regiments. Played out to its logical extreme, it thus becomes possible to have 10 or 12 regiments on the board per side. Two main problems arise from that: 1/ This is going to push the balance further in favour of the Union, as they can more easily afford to do this than the Confederacy can (the regiments themselves are worthless, but they free up better units that the Confederacy now has to confront), and 2/ so many additional units will likely crowd up the map, which makes it harder to outflank enemy lines and go cavalry raiding (and cavalry raids are very much historical and an intended part of the game experience).

I like the idea of buildable regiments in principle, but until I have a solution to those problems, I don't see how adding them will really make the game better.

- BNC
Bobo2025
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 4:30 pm

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by Bobo2025 »

I agree this is a dicey area given the ways it can be abused. I think a lot of the need for this are driven by 3 areas that, if properly controlled, could make these issues lesser:

1. Lower the power of the marines
2. Remove on map partisans by default not just by mod. These are 100% ahistorical.
3. Reduce the power/number of Native cavalry units.
User avatar
OldCrowBalthazor
Posts: 2065
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
Location: Republic of Cascadia

Re: An idea that may appease some players?

Post by OldCrowBalthazor »

Bobo2025 wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 4:57 pm I agree this is a dicey area given the ways it can be abused. I think a lot of the need for this are driven by 3 areas that, if properly controlled, could make these issues lesser:

1. Lower the power of the marines
2. Remove on map partisans by default not just by mod. These are 100% ahistorical.
3. Reduce the power/number of Native cavalry units.
1. I kind of agree with this notion, but by how much?

2. I don't agree with this. First, there are not that many P hexes to cover-concerning on map Partisans. It may seem ahistorical that they could of been raised. The point was the Union actively had to garrison their rear areas, particularly West Virginia, so there weren't large bands of Partisans forming. If the Union didn't actively try to suppress pro-Confederate elements in these hotspots by neglect or design, I could see militia/partisan forces forming. Like I said, there are only a few areas where there real possible problems if the Union didn't keep a lid on the boiling pot.

3)This is a tricky one but I prefer the way it is atm. The main reason being that if the CSA spends its limited MMPs on buying all those Ind Cav brigades, then they will suffer deficits elsewhere. Also, the population of the 5 Nations wasn't entirely Native American. There were both enslaved and free blacks in the region plus a significant population of whites. Anyways, without getting deeper into this complex subject concerning the Five Nations, I think that the Confederacy, if they had chose to do so, could of supported with arms and resources larger forces out of this region. But again...its expensive to do so and the gain from pursuing this Trans-Mississippi strategy may not pay off like the CSA side would hope.

These are my opinions of course. 🤠
My YouTube Channel: Balthazor's Strategic Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana

SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command: American Civil War”