Army of the Potomac strategy

[Twotribes]

The fight occurred in 1864 and included ALL the 3 armies with cavalry, artillery and several corps of 4 and a good number of 3 brigades. A lot of the brigades were above 3000 in strength as well as I had bought the two upgrades long before the Spring of 64 ( well the first one, didnt get the second until late 63)

Even with ALL the hospital coverage very few zealous dispositions occur in the east and usually are dropped by an outbreak or two.

I did of course use Quick battle, I prefer it in REALLY large battles ( though I wont make that mistake again) The problem being that as the attacker I didnt even get most of my brigades, and almost none of my artillery or cavalry were present in what was allowed. The Southern army was smaller then me and because ( I guess) the allowed brigades in a quick battle he had more brigades then I did even though I significantly out numbered him. Well significant in numbers of brigades, I think the armies were around 300 plus k for the union and around 220 to 250k for the south.

Because of the intial number of additional brigades the defender ( it seems) gets it was never very close. At the end I had maybe 4 brigades in the fight and he had 8 to 10. Also he rallied faster and more brigades then I did. There were a couple points were I was ahead in brigade count ( haveing 10 to 12 to his 8 to 10) but he always rallied several more brigades then I did.

[General Quarters]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The problem being that as the attacker I didnt even get most of my brigades, and almost none of my artillery or cavalry were present in what was allowed. The Southern army was smaller then me and because ( I guess) the allowed brigades in a quick battle he had more brigades then I did even though I significantly out numbered him. Well significant in numbers of brigades, I think the armies were around 300 plus k for the union and around 220 to 250k for the south.

Does this mean that, for large battles, since there are a limited number of QB squares, the larger army may not actually outnumber the smaller one in QB?

[hotdog433]

geez good to see that this post stayed on track you lot should just agree to disagree and remember it is a game that is meant to be enjoyed and it is made to entertain to a broad market not to the 10 or 15 people who post on the forum kicking and screamin that it is not what they want and it should play another way

[Mike Scholl]

Got a question, HOTDOG. If the game is so perfect just the way it is, why aren't you offline playing it instead of on the forums sniping at the comments of others?

[hotdog433]

at what point did i say it was perfect no game out there is perfect someone is always not going to enjoy a certain aspect of the game

[Twotribes]

I agree, BUT the point being made, would be the one about, since you like it, why are you sniping at people that provided reason for change. Reasonable and commen sense reasons, in my opinion. The game can be both balanced and it can be historical. And the designers have agreed to do just that. What exactly is the problem?

Why is it that those that want change and provided detailed reasoning why with hostorical information are "complainers" and are wasting everyone times, but those that attack the posts are just asking for us all to get along?

[General Quarters]

If you really want to know, Twotribes, it is the tone. I have participated in the forums of a number of history-based games. Players are always exchanging views about how the game represents or fails to represent some aspect of history. But they never say things such as 'it is fraudulent to call this game historical' and 'you don't know anything about history if you disagree with me,' both of which are near-quotes.

Good game developers, and the fans of their games, are always interested in factual corrections and hearing what other gamers would like to see in the game. Matrix and its gamers are certainly in this tradition.

At this forum, there has sometimes been a carping tone that makes the forum a less enjoyable place to be. If you would like examples, there are two just above, where the poster (maybe it was you) puts words in the other person's mouth -- "you think it's perfect" -- and suggests that "if you like the game, why are you at this forum" or words to that effect. The latter is clearly not a valid point -- liking a game is one reason for visiting its forum -- so it is not collegial and constructive to say it.

We should all bend over backward to make sure that our comments are helpful and to respect one another's differences. In making these comments, I am taking you at your word, that you really want to know why some of us are put off by some of the criticisms. It is not that they are criticisms, but the tone with which they are communicated.