A few notes from the patch in testing...

[christof139]

Hello HS,

OK and thanx. So, I won't repatch the game, as that part of my question is unanswered.

Also, I am using the July, 1861 Mod by W. Amos, and I don't know if that may have anything to do with this bug.

Chris

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.

I like these ideas.

[christof139]

There are many problems with disease. One of them is that after the initial onset of disease, the troops that survive are not continually decimated in a major manner, but are continuously reduced in number in a minor manner, as some immunity may be built-up in the troops overtime etc. Also, troops returning from the sick lists would be continually returning to the unit. So, I just play without disease. Disease can make you sneeze, and I don't like sneezing. Achoo.  See what I mean?? [8|]
 
I will try the disease-on feature in the future when the weather warms up again.
 
It would be interesting to differentiate what type of disease is affecting a body of troops too, as there were many types as you know, dealing out permanent and oft times only temporary losses to the troop strength. However, generic disease is also OK as you have it, since I don't use it anyway now, but may try it in the future.
 
Very interesting.
 
About the not being able to purchase plantations after emancipation thing. In slave holding areas liberated during the war, the Union and local planters employed tens of thousnads of freedmen on the same plantations and even expanded some, to raise the same crops that were raised when the area was a slaveholding area. So, since plantations represent a combination of agricultural etc. industries, I wonder about the wisdom of stopping plantations from being built.
 
In Louisiana, when areas were on the verge of or being overrun by Union forces, many of the planters and their slaves and even freedmen moved to Texas where new palntations and farms and other industries were got up and going, and this occurred in other southern areas as well but to a much lesser degree.
 
A tough call to make concerning plantations and emancipation.
 
Chris
 
 
 
 
 

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: christof139
About the not being able to purchase plantations after emancipation thing. In slave holding areas liberated during the war, the Union and local planters employed tens of thousnads of freedmen on the same plantations and even expanded some, to raise the same crops that were raised when the area was a slaveholding area. So, since plantations represent a combination of agricultural etc. industries, I wonder about the wisdom of stopping plantations from being built.

To be clear, this change is related to _Confederate_ emancipation, not Union emancipation. If the CSA emancipation option is on and the CSA decides to do it, they won't be able to build new plantations. What you're describing mainly describes using existing plantations, not building new ones.

Regards,

- Erik

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: christof139

There are many problems with disease. One of them is that after the initial onset of disease, the troops that survive are not continually decimated in a major manner, but are continuously reduced in number in a minor manner, as some immunity may be built-up in the troops overtime etc. Also, troops returning from the sick lists would be continually returning to the unit. So, I just play without disease. Disease can make you sneeze, and I don't like sneezing. Achoo. See what I mean?? [8|]

I will try the disease-on feature in the future when the weather warms up again.

It would be interesting to differentiate what type of disease is affecting a body of troops too, as there were many types as you know, dealing out permanent and oft times only temporary losses to the troop strength. However, generic disease is also OK as you have it, since I don't use it anyway now, but may try it in the future.

Some of the criticisms of the disease model, I think, are a bit too literal-minded. (Not necessarily yours, but some I've seen elsewhere.) I view the disease model principally as a constraint to discourage the gamey tactic, so prevalent in most games, of allowing perpetual uber-stacks on the front lines. To me, that's its primary function and utility - and I very much like the fact that the designers here have attempted to add a constraint here. I don't especially care whether it models hyper-realistic rates of illness or immunity or medical care. The key question, for me, is does the model force the player to act more realistically in terms of troop dispersion? While the numbers perhaps could be tweaked a bit, I like the fact that the game imposes a penalty if you don't disperse your troops. And since hospitals can be built only in cities and cities often are remote to the front lines, it forces the player to adopt the practice of moving his forces into winter quarters, away from the front lines - which certainly was a necessary and common practice at the time. The overall effect, on balance, is to encourage more realistic behavior. And that's a good thing, in my view.

[Berkut]

What is this uber stack you are speaking of?

Because each area in this game encompasses hundreds and hundreds of square miles. This is an area based game, not hex.

So the "uber" stacks youa re talking about? They actually existed. While sometimes armies were broken up do to foraging/supply issues (Longstreets Corps being sent away in 1864, IIRC, for example) the idea that the game needs some mechanism to force the players to spread out is simply fallacious. Preumably, they ARE spread out, all within the area they occupy.

I don't ahve any real problem with the winter dispersion, but disease hits in the summer as well. I would REALLY like to see the historical evidence that suggests that Armies at the time were not concentrated at the scale the game represents.

[christof139]

Hi, Yes, disease does add an interesting and realistic facet to the game, and i wil probably try it in the future. If it is possible to lower the disease casualties by modding I can do that myself as i deem appropriate for game play. I don't know of any major campaign that was completely stopped from the affects of disease, although some units were totally incapacitated, and I saw some of the disease casualty numbers and they scared me.

I think it is a good game feature to have, and the main reason I am not using it is because I am still learning the game, but if disease is an uber-inhibiting thing, then I won't use it as it will skew the game and make it unrealistic.

I can hopefully mod it as I personally see fit, and I don't know if that can or cannot be done. I would make disease as a fairly simple deal, that simply reduces troop strength a bit and not totally decimate and incapacitate entire containers, maybe a brigade or two might become totally incapacitated, but not wiped out due to disease, and that did not happen in the ACW, what did happen was temporary incapacitation of units.

Disease is a hard thing to model in any simulation.

Chris

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: christof139
About the not being able to purchase plantations after emancipation thing. In slave holding areas liberated during the war, the Union and local planters employed tens of thousnads of freedmen on the same plantations and even expanded some, to raise the same crops that were raised when the area was a slaveholding area. So, since plantations represent a combination of agricultural etc. industries, I wonder about the wisdom of stopping plantations from being built.

To be clear, this change is related to _Confederate_ emancipation, not Union emancipation. If the CSA emancipation option is on and the CSA decides to do it, they won't be able to build new plantations. What you're describing mainly describes using existing plantations, not building new ones.

So the Confederacy can't build plantations without slaves -- but the Union can?

It seems rather odd to me. Is slavery really necessary for plantations? Surely the same amount of labour is available, more or less, whether it's slave or free. Most recently-freed slaves probably wouldn't have had a lot of better employment opportunities. If new plantations could have been built with slavery, probably they could have been built without it, too.

In fact I rather doubt that many new Southern plantations were built during the war, even with slavery. The economy was going downhill, it was difficult to get exports out of the country, and a lot of white men were in the army. Anyone investing in a new plantation would have needed money, slaves or workers, overseers, and a whole lot of optimism that the investment would pay off somehow.

[christof139]

Hi Erik,

Yes, I know and that is what I stated. However, new palntations/farms were indeed built in the South during the war as I explained, partcularily in Texas by fleeing Louisianians and Arkansans.

So, what happens in the game if new palntations/farms can't be built after Emancipation??

Does the South have to completely rely on exisiting plantations, or do you have something else in the works to portray the affect of this.

Many Southern Blacks remained with their owners and indeed previous owners during and after the war, so Emancipation would not necessarily have depleted the South's work force, and may have actually added to the production of food and other items. Many blacks were also employed in the war industry and were paid the same as their white counterparts, without Emancipation.

Many Blacks did consider themselves Southerners and contributed to the Southern war effort, including serving in the ranks and fighting, so Emancipation may have the opposite affect of what some people may envision. That is, Emancipation may very well indeed have increased the agricultural and industrial output of the South rather than have hindered them.

A very hard problem to decipher.

Chris, a Yankee in Detroit, MI

[christof139]

You would have to read in detail about the war in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas to know what I am talking about. New plantations/farms were indeed built and succesfully operated in texas as explained, and yes, not many when considering the entire South, but an amount that was significant when any and all resources were utilized to the extreme.

See my other post about the possible and unkown affects of Southern Emancipation.

It's a hard thing to decipher and predict as to what would or would not have actually happend.

Chris

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

What is this uber stack you are speaking of?

Because each area in this game encompasses hundreds and hundreds of square miles. This is an area based game, not hex.

So the "uber" stacks youa re talking about? They actually existed. While sometimes armies were broken up do to foraging/supply issues (Longstreets Corps being sent away in 1864, IIRC, for example) the idea that the game needs some mechanism to force the players to spread out is simply fallacious. Preumably, they ARE spread out, all within the area they occupy.

I don't ahve any real problem with the winter dispersion, but disease hits in the summer as well. I would REALLY like to see the historical evidence that suggests that Armies at the time were not concentrated at the scale the game represents.

In a perfect world, the game would have more provinces. But it doesn't. Hence, much of the maneuver that occurred in real life isn't possible at this scale. Without the disease model, the game would devolve to my perpetual stack on my front line versus your perpetual stack on your front line. I like the fact that the game forces more fluidity, even if it doesn't perfectly match the scale.

Fluidity = good. Stagnation = bad. Scale, I can live with. Again, an abstraction of the literal that, I think, produces a better result overall.

[Queeg]

Is it really all that essential that "Plantations" accurately model the plantation economy? I just view Mansions/Plantations as an abstraction of the need to invest in the local infrastructure in order to reap the benefits of increased local production. Mansions offer a high-cost, low-time option with limited payback. Plantations offer an lower-cost, longer-time investment with a larger payback. They are simply different paths to achieve the same thing. Is anything really gained by making it more complicated than that?

[christof139]

I also think as you do concerning Plantations, Mansions, and RR Stations as being representative of many smaller enterprises etc.

Christof139

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
So the Confederacy can't build plantations without slaves -- but the Union can?

Er, no. The Union can't build plantations. The Confederacy can. However, if the Confederacy chooses to emancipate, then it can no longer build new plantations. Existing ones continue to operate. As far as how many resources the Confederacy has to build anything, that depends on the game settings.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Is it really all that essential that "Plantations" accurately model the plantation economy? I just view Mansions/Plantations as an abstraction of the need to invest in the local infrastructure in order to reap the benefits of increased local production. Mansions offer a high-cost, low-time option with limited payback. Plantations offer an lower-cost, longer-time investment with a larger payback. They are simply different paths to achieve the same thing. Is anything really gained by making it more complicated than that?

That's correct. The main advantage gained from this change is that it adds a cost to Confederate emancipation. The Confederacy can build Mansions after that.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: christof139
So, what happens in the game if new palntations/farms can't be built after Emancipation??

The CSA would have to build Mansions to expand and use other buildings to increase its economy in the way plantations would otherwise. These are basically infrastructure buildings and after a CSA emancipation, it's future infrastructure would be different.

Regards,

- Erik

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.

I like these ideas.

In my mind, the fix for camps could be even simpler - don't make them exempt from building capacity. If they filled cities like other developments and required the construction of a mansion, then that would both slow construction and add to their cash cost (indirectly).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Er, no. The Union can't build plantations. The Confederacy can. However, if the Confederacy chooses to emancipate, then it can no longer build new plantations. Existing ones continue to operate. As far as how many resources the Confederacy has to build anything, that depends on the game settings.

Regards,
- Erik

Interesting possibility here Eric. If the South Emancipates, why not have all thier "plantations" convert to "mansions" as the former "slaves" leave to look for better opportunities. Put another penalty on an already farfetched notion.

[Queeg]

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.

I like these ideas.

In my mind, the fix for camps could be even simpler - don't make them exempt from building capacity. If they filled cities like other developments and required the construction of a mansion, then that would both slow construction and add to their cash cost (indirectly).

I'd be happy with that approach as well.

[General Quarters]

To avoid uberstacks, there are lots of ways besides disease you could do that -- limitations on supply into any single province, or declining effectiveness of armies above a certain size, or weakening command effectiveness, just for beginners. In my view, disease has to stand on its own merits and I am pleased to see it will be moderated and fine-tuned in this patch.