Fort Henry Problem

[Mike Scholl]

Having been the one to point out that the siting of "Ft. Henry" in Kentucky on the map is a total crock..., I thought I ought to at least offer a solution as well. Why not COMBINE forts Henry and Donaldson into one installation and just move the Junction of the Cumberland and Tennessee a bit farther South so that it can be in Tennessee and still cover both? They were only about 10 miles apart anyway, and fell to the same army in the same campaign. Could this be made to work?

[Gil R.]

That's an interesting idea. It wouldn't be a bad thing for the South to have two forts in Cumberland River. But where Fort Henry currently is (Lower Tennessee River) is arguably more important, since if the South holds that province it keeps its rail-line intact.

We'll continue to think about this issue, but it isn't something that can delay release of the game, since any change that affects strategy so much as having a fort change provinces should be play-tested to make sure it doesn't make the game less challenging.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

That's an interesting idea. It wouldn't be a bad thing for the South to have two forts in Cumberland River. But where Fort Henry currently is (Lower Tennessee River) is arguably more important, since if the South holds that province it keeps its rail-line intact.

We'll continue to think about this issue, but it isn't something that can delay release of the game, since any change that affects strategy so much as having a fort change provinces should be play-tested to make sure it doesn't make the game less challenging.

Easily solved. Make the "Lower Tennessee" the portion of BOTH rivers that is in Kentucky. Start the "Upper Tennessee" at the Kentucky/Tennessee border; and do the same with the "Cumberland".
Then you can put Ft. Henry in Tennessee and control access to the "Upper Tennessee", and Ft. Donaldson can remain in Tennessee and control access to the "Cumberland". And no problems with the "neutrality" of Kentucky, while both forts could perform the duties they did in the actual war. Simple and elegant (and just as a bonus, accurate to boot)

[Gil R.]

The thing is, that would require redrawing the map (or, to be more specific, the provincial boundaries on the map). That's definitely not something we can do until after the game is released.

I promise that we will consider your suggestions further, but the initial release will have Ft. Henry begin as a CSA fort located in the Lower Tennessee River province but, for unit placement (= programming) reasons, necessarily positioned on the north side of the TN-KY boundary on the map.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The thing is, that would require redrawing the map (or, to be more specific, the provincial boundaries on the map). That's definitely not something we can do until after the game is released.

I promise that we will consider your suggestions further, but the initial release will have Ft. Henry begin as a CSA fort located in the Lower Tennessee River province but, for unit placement (= programming) reasons, necessarily positioned on the north side of the TN-KY boundary on the map.

That's dissappointing. I turn up an historic and geographic mistake in the game, and provide you with a correction for it; but you can't fix it before you sell it. I thought "ease of change" was one of the advantages of computer games? Must be going into release pretty quickly...

[Missouri_Rebel]

Ease of change. I don't think there is ever an ease of change Mike. I appreciate that the game will be released soon and have every bit of confidence that they will come up with a fix for the situation. Let's get the game in hand and have a little time under our belt instead of waiting for it. That is my opinion anyways.

[Gil R.]

Well, first, yes, we're going gold very soon. Unless one of our play-testers discovers a bug in the very near future, there's no reason to delay release further.

But as for this issue, there are really two issues: where the fort shows up on the map, and where it is located programmingwise. In terms of geographical location on the map, that might not be something we can change, because of those unit-placement programming issues I mentioned. So it might turn out that it's stuck looking like it's in Kentucky, even if we know better. As for the issue of where it is in terms of the political/military map, you have to think of riverine provinces as water with strips of land on both sides. Control of a riverine province therefore means not just having control of the water, but also of the land at water's edge going in an abstract distance. So if Fort Henry is right on the water, or even a mile or two from the water, it might be located in the state of Tennessee but it is in a zone that the Union can control without invading a land province in Tennessee. That's simply the logic of the game, and can't be changed. This means that the fort can be in the state of Tennessee but no longer under CSA control if the Union captures that province or Kentucky goes Union. The issue then becomes whether Fort Henry should be put in Pulaski, in which case it's no longer on the river at all, in game terms, or else put in Cumberland River province (which might be a possibility, though it then means that its original province no longer has a fort), or we should redraw the map so that river provinces end at different points (something difficult to do, since it involves both changing graphics and reprogramming). On top of that, you add the need to play-test before release. That's why we simply can't entertain this change now. Once the game is out we can consider the options, though.

[Grotius]

I can live with this for release, though I hope you do consider patching it somehow. I'm not sure I understand why "unit placement issues" woudl prevent moving the fort a few pixels one way or the other. But given the river-control behavior you describe, it doesn't strike me as a big deal.

Also, remember, Mike, the maps in the game deliberately draw on period maps, which are inaccurate in other ways too. (The shape of some states is wrong, for example.) That's a design decision that I think is kinda cool. I know the placement of a fort is more important than the shape of a state, but even so, the use of inaccurate period maps makes me a bit more willing to tolerate the Fort Henry inaccuracy for now -- though I still hope they patch it.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The thing is, that would require redrawing the map (or, to be more specific, the provincial boundaries on the map). That's definitely not something we can do until after the game is released. Actually it just involves changing the boundries of the River sections. Making everything in Kentucky part of the "Lower Tennessee", and everything in Tennessee part of the "Upper Tennessee" or the "Cumberland". Then put Fort Henry in Tennessee controling the "Upper Tennessee" and leave Fort Donaldson where it is controling the "Cumberland". That would be accurate and historic.

I promise that we will consider your suggestions further, but the initial release will have Ft. Henry begin as a CSA fort located in the Lower Tennessee River province but, for unit placement (= programming) reasons, necessarily positioned on the north side of the TN-KY boundary on the map. OK. You can only do what you can do. But whomever did the map research sure pulled a "boner" on this one.

[Gil R.]

Changing the map isn't something that could be easily or quickly done. But it's a moot point, since our graphics guy (Pixelpusher) mentioned in an e-mail the other day that he is off on a "junket" (Lord knows what that means), so it wouldn't even be possible to do anything with the map this week.

[Mr. Z]

Yes, redrawing province boundaries is not a simple task. However, I would like to emphasize that river provinces do cross state lines and are supposed to include a fair amount of land on either side of the river. So, while it may seem odd for Ft. Henry to be in a province that belongs to Kentucky, and from a political standpoint doesn't make any sense at all, it at least makes sense from the point of view of movement rules (which influence and are influenced by fort placement).

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

since our graphics guy (Pixelpusher) mentioned in an e-mail the other day that he is off on a "junket" (Lord knows what that means)

[pixelpusher]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Changing the map isn't something that could be easily or quickly done. But it's a moot point, since our graphics guy (Pixelpusher) mentioned in an e-mail the other day that he is off on a "junket" (Lord knows what that means), so it wouldn't even be possible to do anything with the map this week.

a) Changing the map is a big deal, and not to be undertaken lightly. It's not just the map art layer, it's all the logical stuff that goes with it. (the various borders, the shading, the text, etc.)

b) It's really a map-logic and gameplay issue, more than a graphics issue - so I'll go w/ what-ever mr.Z & eric deem the best course of action.

c) Junket = a very small chinese boat?

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher
Junket = a very small chinese boat?

As I recall from Hong Kong harbor: a very small, very smelly, Chinese boat.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: pixelpusher
Junket = a very small chinese boat?

As I recall from Hong Kong harbor: a very small, very smelly, Chinese boat.

NOPE. From the Congressional Record --- Junket is a pleasure trip for Public Employees paid for by the taxpayers....

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

Like I said, "Very Smelly"