Engineers are Gimped!

[DarkHorse2]

Very disappointed with how engineers are implemented.

I suspect it is due to how the game treats a fortified resource represented as a completely different bitmap (via the editor).

But seriously, the hexes I am most interested in fortifying are those that contain a resource. (settlement, town, mine, etc...)

Not being able to fortify those hexes is just sad and really undermines the use and importance of the engineer.

[DarkHorse2]

This really came to light on reviewing how other games treated the subject.

For example, the following game-play hints for the Confederacy:
(note: surpisingly, I do not believe that Columbus is even represented in the game...)
(see - https://explorekyhistory.ky.gov/items/show/26 )
(see - https://emergingcivilwar.com/2020/11/06 ... -kentucky/ )

---

ConfederateStrategy.jpg (228.74 KiB) Viewed 412 times

[Tanaka]

Very disappointed with how engineers are implemented.

I suspect it is due to how the game treats a fortified resource represented as a completely different bitmap (via the editor).

But seriously, the hexes I am most interested in fortifying are those that contain a resource. (settlement, town, mine, etc...)

Not being able to fortify those hexes is just sad and really undermines the use and importance of the engineer.

Yep no fortified towns in this game...

Thanks for always explaining in detail. I assume this is why you chose to not let units in the forts themselves like in the other games? Because it would be more difficult to take the objective?

Partly. Having fort units rather than fortified towns also removes a bit of micro-management, as the forts can double as a (weak) garrison without a need for a separate unit.

[DarkHorse2]

The Fort (unit) is a double-edged sword as it is extremely weak and easy to be (ahistorically) destroyed, leaving the location easy to occupy by marauding marines.

Rather than having to destroy the Fort (unit), I would prefer a mechanism to allow a player to convert the Fort (unit) to a Fortification, so that when the owning player decides to garrison the hex with a land unit they do not lose all of the previous benefits of the Fort (unit).

[Tanaka]

The Fort (unit) is a double-edged sword as it is extremely weak and easy to be (ahistorically) destroyed, leaving the location easy to occupy by marauding marines.

Rather than having to destroy the Fort (unit), I would prefer a mechanism to allow a player to convert the Fort (unit) to a Fortification, so that when the owning player decides to garrison the hex with a land unit they do not lose all of the previous benefits of the Fort (unit).

Yes this has been brought up a lot and is a sore spot for many. You can disband the fort if you want.

[DarkHorse2]

I hate disbanding Forts as you only have a finite number of them and cannot build any more in the game - which is so bizarro and unlike nearly every other Civil War game out there....

Hell, Polk took Columbus, Kentucky and proceeded to fortify the cliffs in 1861. (although Beauregard later ordered it be abandoned...)

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2020/11/06 ... ky/#_ftn14

[Shellshock]

I moved on to AGEOD's Civil War 2 for my ACW fix. In that game not only can you enter forts but you can put more than one unit in them at a time.

Fort Monroe.jpg (48.01 KiB) Viewed 331 times

[BiteNibbleChomp]

This is intended. During this period it was rare for armies to fight within cities - instead they'd fortify an area outside the city to protect it (eg the defensive works around, but not in, Petersburg). The game reflects this by allowing engineers to build outside cities, but not inside them.

- BNC