Another Puzzle of This Game Beta

[GamesaurusRex]

So what exactly is the point of fortress garrisons and gun batteries in the game ?
They are locked and never shoot at the enemy land forces and, despite the claim that they will shoot at passing ships, I have yet to see that happen even once.
They don't shoot at ships and troops that are unloading directly on them either. So what purpose do they serve in the game ? Are they merely window dressing ?

(EDIT: OK, now 27 turns into a second game and we have finally seen fortress guns shooting at passing ships that traverse 2 water regions under the guns... but the main problem of fortress emplaced guns ignoring troops landing directly on fortress regions is a problem).

[Captain_Orso]

They are locked, because the player would otherwise abuse them. Historically each state was responsible for maintaining the forts and their garrisons. If allowed the player could steal from one state to build up another, which in reality would not happen.

For the artillery in the forts to bombard ships, one of two things have to happen:
- Ships try to sail past the fort, for example try to sail a Confederate fleet from James Estuary into Hampton Roads, or the other way around.
- Enemy ships bombard the fort on purpose by sailing into or remaining in an adjacent region.
In both cases the fort and fleet will exchange fire.

Forts don't bombard invading forces because nobody would be foolish enough to debark forces under the guns of a fort. Forces invaded by landing out of the sight and/or range of the fort's guns and then attacking the fort from the land side. Since this is the only viable tactic it is understandable that the game only allows for this. Therefore, no firing on invading forces from inside a fort.

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: Captain_Orso

They are locked, because the player would otherwise abuse them. Historically each state was responsible for maintaining the forts and their garrisons. If allowed the player could steal from one state to build up another, which in reality would not happen.

For the artillery in the forts to bombard ships, one of two things have to happen:
- Ships try to sail past the fort, for example try to sail a Confederate fleet from James Estuary into Hampton Roads, or the other way around.
- Enemy ships bombard the fort on purpose by sailing into or remaining in an adjacent region.
In both cases the fort and fleet will exchange fire.

Forts don't bombard invading forces because nobody would be foolish enough to debark forces under the guns of a fort. Forces invaded by landing out of the sight and/or range of the fort's guns and then attacking the fort from the land side. Since this is the only viable tactic it is understandable that the game only allows for this. Therefore, no firing on invading forces from inside a fort.

I'm ROFLMAO at this ridiculous nonsense !

The guns take literally a year to move a region or two... Move them ? Really ? With their movement rate, not likely.
(and if fortress guns were historically not moved, then make the fort guns immoveable! Fix it ! )

As for the rest, THE FORTS DO NOT FIRE ON SHIPS OR TROOPS LANDING DIRECTLY ON THE FORTS RIGHT UNDER THE GUN'S NOSES !
(That is the problem. There, I capitalized that and bolded it so maybe Pocus can see it.)
Attack from the land? Why?... when the poor game code allows you to just land on it without being shot!
This is clearly bad code logic, nothing else. Fix it !

The town garrison code has more flaws too. For example, this last turn, I have a city that has two stacks in it. One stack is entrenched "in the region" and one stack in the city (the "locked" garrison in the city). The Union attacked the region and forced the "region" troops to retreat from the city to an adjacent region. Did the fact that the region force was forced to retreat unlock the garrison ? NO ! (Because technically the city was not attacked according to the game code.) But conceptually, the regional force was defending the city, but the game mechanics don't recognize this.

To add humorous salt to the wound, the game spawned an additional garrison in the city that was termed "Depot Garrison" (which was also "locked"... of course, LOL !) This is the more absurdly funny part of the cluster-code, because presumably the spawning was caused by the city sensing an attack... and the "Depot" garrison's sole purpose for existing at the point of the retreat of the regional defense would have been to blow up the depot before it fell into the hands of the enemy on the next turn. But can it do that? NO! Because it is also locked ! Even though garrisons are supposed to become unlocked after being attacked.

This is the sort of poorly tested coding that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But Hey ! It is consistent with the rest of the poorly thought out, ahistorical, and apparently unplay-tested coding that plagues this game.
Like Southern ironclads operational before 1862... maybe one, but four ?
Fortress guns that don't shoot at the enemy unless they pass through two regions.
Retreating Senior Generals that magically seize control of troops in regions they retreat into causing them to abandon entrenched positions or to launch suicidal attacks into enemy entrenched positions.

(OK, maybe I'm being harsh on these fleas on this otherwise entertaining dog... but I'm emphasising the dog needs a flea dip.)

I really hope Pocus can motivate a patch.

[Poopyhead]

A transport could load and then move an unlocked coastal gun quite some distance in one turn.

Units in a structure don't force enemy units moving into their region to auto-attack like a force defending in the region would. That is true for all structures, not just coastal forts and no matter where they are located. So the behavior you note is the rule, not the exception.

As to the auto-garrison unit being generated by the game mechanic for an enemy force entering the region, you correctly described the reasoning for this to yourself.

Your post does indeed refer to material that is poorly thought out.

[GamesaurusRex]

What part of "make the fortress guns immoveable" is confusing ?

As for the fortresses not firing on troops that land directly on the fort, I would suggest Ageod patch the game to qualify the landing region of the troops being transported as the "second region passed through by the fleet" in order to trigger the guns to do their job.

As for the game generating a garrison force and then locking it down so that it cannot be used... are you familiar with the term "window dressing" ? It might be appropriate to limit the movement of the garrison to it's location, but to lock out all it's other functions (like allowing a "Depot Garrison" to blow up the depot) should not be locked.

[Franciscus]

Hello, Gray_Lensman

Always liked your avatars

[GamesaurusRex]

Franciscus:

I received a PM from somebody yesterday asking me if I was someone called Gray Lensman... the answer is no. I didn't reply to them because I make it a practice to not open or even address people that are not on my security clearance list in my email system or on game sites. It avoids issues. However, since you have also asked this question and I have no problem answering on this public forum, I will tell you that I am just another wargamer that owns and plays games like Civil War 2, GG War In The Pacific:AE, GG War In The East, and many other non-Matrix sourced games.

[comte]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

Franciscus:

I received a PM from somebody yesterday asking me if I was someone called Gray Lensman... the answer is no. I didn't reply to them because I make it a practice to not open or even address people that are not on my security clearance list in my email system or on game sites. It avoids issues. However, since you have also asked this question and I have no problem answering on this public forum, I will tell you that I am just another wargamer that owns and plays games like Civil War 2, GG War In The Pacific:AE, GG War In The East, and many other non-Matrix sourced games.

I saw your avatar while browsing the forums. It is an old avatar that Gray Lensman used to use. I sent you a private message. I go by a different handle on the AGEOD forums. I understand the need for security. I was hoping you were Gray. I wanted to catch up with an old friend I hadn't talked to in years. Helped Gray out with some beta work. Gray did alot of work on Civil War 1 for AGEOD. He also painstakingly fixed all the rail road map errors in his spare time and was always striving to make Civil War as historically accurate as possible. I saw your Avatar while reading the WITE forums. Sorry for the trouble and the mistaken identity.

[GamesaurusRex]

Too bad Gray Lensman didn't get the chance to look at the commander seniority coding, the ironclad launch dates, and the fortress gun firing issues. These fleas plague an otherwise charming dog.

[altipueri]

Blimey, talk about a dog with a bone.