PBEM AAR - Long Live the Union!

[jchastain]

I suspected New York was key and I was right. High temper, low support. I've already seen that he's boosting a research area where I need help. The election isn't far off so I need to do what I can for him now.

[jchastain]

In Ohio his temper is low, but so is his support. He's a good republican, but a University is just so expensive. I want to help. I just don't see how I can.

[jchastain]

Curtin in Pennsylvania is fine. He's got plenty of support and a low temper. I don't want to waste money on a Naval College right now and still see no reason to worry about it.

[jchastain]

And then there is Rhode Island. It is New Jersey times two. I can't worry about it. Looks like Sprague gets his second disappointment (everyone did read the bio to see he was passed over for Maj General, right?)

[jchastain]

OK, the Manufacturing Center in New York is clearly the most significant need. Unfortunately, we can't afford it. It takes 100 labor and 100 iron and I don't have either of those in sufficient quantities.

[jchastain]

Looking at my income, iron should be fine but my labor production won't suffice to fill the request until after the election. I better do something.

[jchastain]

Just temporarily, I'll shift several cities from cash over to labor.

[jchastain]

And that's it for another turn. '62 has been quite a wild ride, but if things go as planned out west this turn, we'll be back on track and making good progress towards ending this little insurrection.

[chris0827]

I somewhat worried about the accuracy of the generals database. You get Joshua Chamberlain in oct of 1862 when he didn't command a brigade until june of 1864.

[Paper Tiger]

And Grant hasn't turned up yet

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I somewhat worried about the accuracy of the generals database. You get Joshua Chamberlain in oct of 1862 when he didn't command a brigade until june of 1864.

I know they did a good deal of research on the generals, but with over 1000 in the list I am also certain there are mistakes. It might be worth starting a thread dedicated to allowing people to report discrepencies they see. Though I assume most of the reports will come shortly after the game is released and people have access to the full list and all of the associated data.

[chris0827]

Grant should be available at the start of the nov 1861 scenario. He commanded a force of two brigades at the battle of Belmont on nov 7th, 1861

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Grant should be available at the start of the nov 1861 scenario. He commanded a force of two brigades at the battle of Belmont on nov 7th, 1861

I think the challenge with that is that if he were available at the start, everyone would immediately promote him to head the AoP. I'm not on the dev team, but I have to assume his timing is meant to coincide with him rising to a senior level command where every player will undoubtably place him.

[chris0827]

Without having the game it's hard to discuss promotion of generals. There should be some sort of limit on who you can promote. Possibly battlefield exp would enable a general to be promoted more quickly. As for Grant he was promoted to senior command quickly. He was an army commander by february of 1862.

[HMSWarspite]

The whole promotion and demotion thing bothers me a little. If Grant can't be in the game on time for play balance, that suggests thta promotion is too easy. I know some of the issue is historical leaders and players all seeing knowledge, but promoting a junior over a seniot ought to have a good chance of causing resignations, unless there is grounds (leads a force to a notable victory or something). Likewise, demotion ought to have an effect as someone mentioned earlier.

[chris0827]

We should probably start a new thread to discuss this. We're kind of interupting the AAR. Maybe a dev can give us a description of how promotion works.

[Paper Tiger]

I remember an old ACW game I played maybe 20 years ago where generals could only be promoted following being involved in a battle, and only by one jump at a time.
So 1 star Grant would need to be involved in a battle and survive before he could be promoted to 2 star grant and then again before he could be 3 star grant. There was always a higher chance that a 1 star general would be killed in action so you tended to go into battle with Grant as a Union player with your fingers firmly crossed.
Demoting a general I think should cost victory points, call it political fallout.

[Bungo_Pete]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I remember an old ACW game I played maybe 20 years ago where generals could only be promoted following being involved in a battle, and only by one jump at a time.
So 1 star Grant would need to be involved in a battle and survive before he could be promoted to 2 star grant and then again before he could be 3 star grant. There was always a higher chance that a 1 star general would be killed in action so you tended to go into battle with Grant as a Union player with your fingers firmly crossed.
Demoting a general I think should cost victory points, call it political fallout.

was that a boardgame? because if it is I have it somewhere in my garage,can't remember the name thou.Think it was by victory gsames.

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I somewhat worried about the accuracy of the generals database. You get Joshua Chamberlain in oct of 1862 when he didn't command a brigade until june of 1864.

I know they did a good deal of research on the generals, but with over 1000 in the list I am also certain there are mistakes. It might be worth starting a thread dedicated to allowing people to report discrepencies they see. Though I assume most of the reports will come shortly after the game is released and people have access to the full list and all of the associated data.

Chanberlain shouldn't appear as a General until after July '63 at the earliest. In '62 he was still learning how to march...

[AU Tiger_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I remember an old ACW game I played maybe 20 years ago where generals could only be promoted following being involved in a battle, and only by one jump at a time.
So 1 star Grant would need to be involved in a battle and survive before he could be promoted to 2 star grant and then again before he could be 3 star grant. There was always a higher chance that a 1 star general would be killed in action so you tended to go into battle with Grant as a Union player with your fingers firmly crossed.
Demoting a general I think should cost victory points, call it political fallout.

I like it.