A Divided Nation - Creation Thread

[civ2units]

I can choose a file for uploading (there is a button with the german word 'Durchsuchen' ) but I can´t upload it. There is no button.

I´ve attached two images of my map I would like to use:






I think the map is great enough for the scenario. I´ve played Nemo´s ACW, he also included Europe. For me this is too much and doesn´t focused the war only in America. My idea is to add the Canadians for trading partners for both sides. Also a native tribe will be settled in the great plains.

[Tiemuzhen]

Originally posted by civ2units
For the nations I will coose the following civs:

Confederate States
United States
Apache/Sioux

I´m thinking to include a civ who will represent those two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which weren´t in the Union and the Confederacy. Microprose used in their civilwar scenario a civ for these two states.

in the microprose scen Kentucky was just Kentucky. Missouri was split between Union (St. Louis, Jefferson City) and Confederacy (Springfield, Kansas City) which is pretty much how it really was.

as for natives, i'd include Cheyenne or Comanches rather than Apaches. Apaches are not plains Indians.

as you include Mexico, have you considdered including the 'Mexican Adventure' = French intervention in Mexico?

[civ2units]

Good ideas with the border states, Tiemuzhen

I´m currently reading many articles and stories about the civilwar, especially about the politican, economical and social situation before and during the war. I will see how the things will work in TOT.

No, I don´t include the Mexicans, because during the war they wasn´t important. Also this should be only a civilwar scenario with the main two civs, North and South.
The Canadians will be only trading partner and the Native indians only block the way westwards for the settlers. But they will be a playable nation.

I´ve changed them into the Sioux. Maybe I will create a event for the battle of Little Big Horn in 1876

[Boco]

Having just returned from Bermuda, I was thinking that St. George, Bermuda could serve as a CSA naval "base". Good trading partner, too.

[civ2units]

Sounds good with the CSA naval nase. I´ve included them to my civs. So the North and the South will have trading partners.

[civ2units]

What I´ve done until now:

- City improvements and wonders are ready.

- Units are to 90% ready.

- Terrain and resources are complete ready.

What I have to do:

- Writing the tech-tree. Cheyennes will become their own tech-tree.

- City placement

- Complete events

When these points are ready, I will post a playtest version of this scenario on the civ-wiki.

[civ2units]

Here are the unit stats of the Union troops (same goes for the Confederate Army):

Unit stats for the Union

I think this should works very well.

[Elensar]

Other than, as a Civil War specialist (I can't say expert), being extremely leery over a "light cavalry" unit (as distinct from a normal cavalry unit) in this era, looks fairly good.

A couple other things I'd change.

One: Make infantry better on the defense, cavalry worse on the attack (than it is now). Cavalry made good raiders (Helllllllo pillaging in Civ terms), not usually so good in a stand up fights. Similarly, tweak artillery to more historical stats (I'd make horse artillery a more mobile form of light artillery, and set both at, if Infantry is 5/5, 5/3 with higher firepower. Maybe 5/4. I'm leery about making it offensively effective, but I don't want to make it useless.) Sharpshooters similarly need to be changed to reflect this. Zouaves, I'm not sure there was any significant difference in performance between them and regular infantry. I've no idea about mounted infantry. The best example I can think of it on the Union side was a crack well armed brigade, so its atypical for that alone.

Note: Heavy artillery should be left as is, assuming you mean heavy artillery in the field (such as the siege train McClellan used at Yorktown).

Two: Marines, under no circumstances whatsoever, should be more effective than regular infantry.

This is not to bash the current record of the USMC. But the Corps in the Civil War A) played a minimal role and B) was absolutely tiny. Making Marines elite units is all kinds of crazy, however awesome it may be now.

I'm not sure what the purpose of a "Color sergeant" unit is (looking at the stats). Perhaps this will be revealed with playtesting.


I don't mean to sound like an arrogant and insufferable know-it-all, but as someone more familar with the ACW than many people, I would venture to say most, I'm uncomfortable with things being wildly different than the real war.

Pity there's no way to make the AI use it properly, but I'd like to suggest giving artillery modest stats but the ability to carry "missiles". This would make having artillery highly useful, but artillery on its own would be butchered (as it should be).

Now there's a thought.

Supply train unit. Can carry missiles. Artillery would only be able to have say, two at a time (per unit), a supply train unit would be able to carry say, four. When killed, defender loses gold (have to replace those supplies) and attacker gains gold. Gold being renamed to (thousands of) dollars.

Okay, this is becoming a long post. But I suggest you don't try to get every tech and event in pre-testing (just so that we can see what we do with what's available.)

Hope to see it soon.

[typhoon]

Originally posted by Elensar
Pity there's no way to make the AI use it properly, but I'd like to suggest giving artillery modest stats but the ability to carry "missiles". This would make having artillery highly useful, but artillery on its own would be butchered (as it should be).

Now there's a thought.

Supply train unit. Can carry missiles. Artillery would only be able to have say, two at a time (per unit), a supply train unit would be able to carry say, four. When killed, defender loses gold (have to replace those supplies) and attacker gains gold. Gold being renamed to (thousands of) dollars.

I don't mean to sound like an arrogant and insufferable know-it-all, but as someone more familar with Civ 2 than many people, I would venture to say that you can't flag land units to carry missiles.

[Elensar]

As I recall, you can set it to carry air units, but they won't automatically travel with it. I believe its been used to have wizards carry "spells".

No arrogance detected in your post.

[Tiemuzhen]

Originally posted by Elensar
Other than, as a Civil War specialist (I can't say expert), being extremely leery over a "light cavalry" unit (as distinct from a normal cavalry unit) in this era, looks fairly good.

Cavalry in the Civil war is always a delicate matter. basically, there are only two different types, irregardless of naming conventions, but simply based on tactical role: "Cavalry" (dragoons) which fought on horseback but more often dismounted. they were armed with sabres and firearms. and mounted infantry (often still called cavalry), which only fought dismounted and had no sabres. of course there were also oddities like the 6th pennsylvania cav which had initally lances until '63.

[Elensar]

I'm not sure about cavalry (dragoons) fighting dismounted more, but as the war dragged on, yes.

Mounted infantry...is infantry with a higher movement rate, in my opinion. That's it. Much more expensive (horses and the rest make a cavalry regiment enormously more expensive than an infantry one, and you don't save that much here) so far as Civ goes I would say.

Freak units like the 6th Pennsylvania (freaks only as long for the lances, a crack unit and well disciplined after all ) might be worth representing for say, the People's General Civil War thing...but they were, so far as I know, unique, or nearly so.

So I cannot say its particularly "delicate" unless you want to find a way to make mounted infantry being mounted troops rather than mobile foot troops.

That's my impression, at least, others may disagree.

[civ2units]

Originally posted by Elensar
Other than, as a Civil War specialist (I can't say expert), being extremely leery over a "light cavalry" unit (as distinct from a normal cavalry unit) in this era, looks fairly good.

It´s good to see that you are a Civilwar specialist. It would be great, if you can help me making this scenario realistic.

A couple other things I'd change.

One: Make infantry better on the defense, cavalry worse on the attack (than it is now). Cavalry made good raiders (Helllllllo pillaging in Civ terms), not usually so good in a stand up fights. Similarly, tweak artillery to more historical stats (I'd make horse artillery a more mobile form of light artillery, and set both at, if Infantry is 5/5, 5/3 with higher firepower. Maybe 5/4. I'm leery about making it offensively effective, but I don't want to make it useless.) Sharpshooters similarly need to be changed to reflect this. Zouaves, I'm not sure there was any significant difference in performance between them and regular infantry. I've no idea about mounted infantry. The best example I can think of it on the Union side was a crack well armed brigade, so its atypical for that alone.

I will make a new stats for the main troops. I think the Zouaves were only coloured soldiers without any special skills. I didn´t find anything usefull about them until now.
Did the voluneer regiments play a main role during the war? I thought about to give especially the Southern states many of them via event. Of course, they are not so strong like their regular Infantry pendants.

Note: Heavy artillery should be left as is, assuming you mean heavy artillery in the field (such as the siege train McClellan used at Yorktown).

When I understand it right you mean I shouldn´t use the Heavy Artillery? Did the siege trains played a key role during the war so that it is really necessary to use them in the scenario?

Two: Marines, under no circumstances whatsoever, should be more effective than regular infantry.

This is not to bash the current record of the USMC. But the Corps in the Civil War A) played a minimal role and B) was absolutely tiny. Making Marines elite units is all kinds of crazy, however awesome it may be now.

I´m thinking of using them as a elite unit, very expensive and more stronger than the normal Infantry. Special skill: They can make amphibious assaults.

I'm not sure what the purpose of a "Color sergeant" unit is (looking at the stats). Perhaps this will be revealed with playtesting.

They should be like a scout with two fields visibility. But I don´t really know, if they are usefull.

I don't mean to sound like an arrogant and insufferable know-it-all, but as someone more familar with the ACW than many people, I would venture to say most, I'm uncomfortable with things being wildly different than the real war.

Thanks for your suggestions. That´s the reason why I post the units stats here in this forum. To know, what you think about it and give me usefull tipps.

Pity there's no way to make the AI use it properly, but I'd like to suggest giving artillery modest stats but the ability to carry "missiles". This would make having artillery highly useful, but artillery on its own would be butchered (as it should be).

Now there's a thought.

Supply train unit. Can carry missiles. Artillery would only be able to have say, two at a time (per unit), a supply train unit would be able to carry say, four. When killed, defender loses gold (have to replace those supplies) and attacker gains gold. Gold being renamed to (thousands of) dollars.

Okay, this is becoming a long post. But I suggest you don't try to get every tech and event in pre-testing (just so that we can see what we do with what's available.)

Hope to see it soon.

I also don´t think like Typhoon wrote above, that this could be realized in civ. But it´s an interesting thing to think about it.

[civ2units]

@Elensar and Tiemuzhen:

Should I only use one cavalry unit in this scenario?

For the dismounted Cavalry or mounted Infantry, they should have the same stats like the normal Infantry, only with two movements and more expensive because of the horses and so on, like Elensar wrote.

[Tiemuzhen]

i think two different cavalry units for the Union will suffice (maybe even just one). but then, i'm not exactly sure what exactly you had in mind with light cavalry.
for the CSA it looks different, because there was much more diversification amongst their units. there was a big difference between Quantrills raiders and the Indian auxiliary mounted rifles in the far west, and the "regular" cavalry of the Eastern Theatre, initally more cavalry but towards the end of the war increasingly mounted infantry. and in bewteen were Forrest and Morgan and their famous raiders. so the CSA needs at least 2-3 different cavalry units. it shoudl also be noted that teh Union cavalry early on was armed with sharps carbines, so they were not just fast infantry but also well-armed, often better than most infantry.

as for the inf, i pretty much agree on what Elensar has said, there is no reason at all to make the marines special other than giving them amph. asslt. elite inf should be in the form of sharpshooters. also zouaves were just infantry in fancy uniforms but of course there's no reason NOT to include them anyways...

artillery in civ 2 is pretty difficult, depends on what you want. if we go by guns, we have the common field pieces like the famous Napoleon gun, then later the parrot rifle. those were the typcial guns of the ACW. also there were those rail siege mortars, like the one in the original microprose scen. towards the end of the war, field pieces were used defensively in fortified positions. i'm not sure if and how you will deal with the siege of Richmond & Petersburg, or Vicksburg. by organization, there was also horse artillery, but had the same guns as the foot artillery.