observations from coming fury scenario

[spruce]

I play with randomised - hidden - and random generals start date. I play coming fury setup - not the balanced economy. Following observations =

1. After playing 9 months of intense battles - one of my generals is killed. This is still way too low ! I'm playing instant battles all the time. I mean - at this rate of warfare - only 5 generals will be kiled during the entire civil war. This is way too low !

2. The Union bashes into Memphis again with a big army - from the second turn on - turn after turn (isn't this a little too much in the july sceanrio). There are no forts to defend Memphis it seems - very annoying.

[Erik Rutins]

Hm, sounds like the quick battle commander casualty adjustment may not have made it into instant battles, though I thought they were resolved much the same way.

Memphis at this time didn't really have any forts to defend it, but perhaps we can tweak back the Union organization and supply a bit to make their initial army in that area less powerful. They basically start with forces equivalent to three divisions in the area, though one is in S Missouri. The AI is just putting the pieces together quickly and choosing a rapid advance strategy the Union historically did not do when it probably should have. The AI, as far as I know, does place a pretty high priority on the Mississippi, so it will tend to put some real effort into taking it. I usuallly try to reinforce the Memphis area ASAP.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hm, sounds like the quick battle commander casualty adjustment may not have made it into instant battles, though I thought they were resolved much the same way.

Memphis at this time didn't really have any forts to defend it, but perhaps we can tweak back the Union organization and supply a bit to make their initial army in that area less powerful. They basically start with forces equivalent to three divisions in the area, though one is in S Missouri. The AI is just putting the pieces together quickly and choosing a rapid advance strategy the Union historically did not do when it probably should have. The AI, as far as I know, does place a pretty high priority on the Mississippi, so it will tend to put some real effort into taking it. I usuallly try to reinforce the Memphis area ASAP.

1) In play instant battle all the time - and sometimes quick battle. I had one general that died (CSA) - Anderson - IIRC he was a brigade general. The amount of Union generals died were zero. None got wounded on neither side.

This is still very unrealistic low ! I don't want army and corp generals to drop like flies - but more dead division and brigade generals would be welcome.

And for sure more wounded guys cross the board.

2) Memphis is being hammered from the second turn on - each turn - I think it's logical that the Union starts hammering on Memphis - but that hammering should be delayed somewhat (one or 2 turns ?).

It's a game breaker for me - for sure only very experienced players will hold of this barrage of the Union. I think you shouldn't punish players for not choosing the magical combo in their first turn - seems way too harsh and it only damages your game reputation. I'm straightforward on this one ...

[Gil R.]

I don't think we can tell the AI to wait a bit before attacking Memphis, but we've been considering adding one half-finished fort there (to reflect the fact that work on forts in that area had already started in July, even if they weren't close to completion). This would 1) delay the taking of Memphis by at least one turn and 2) give the CSA a forts bonus for battles fought in that province. Do you think that would address your concerns?

Regarding this being a game-breaker, I should point out that the July scenario is a SCENARIO, and the game was designed for the November scenario, not to mention post-1861 scenarios that we'll be implementing.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I don't think we can tell the AI to wait a bit before attacking Memphis, but we've been considering adding one half-finished fort there (to reflect the fact that work on forts in that area had already started in July, even if they weren't close to completion). This would 1) delay the taking of Memphis by at least one turn and 2) give the CSA a forts bonus for battles fought in that province. Do you think that would address your concerns?

Regarding this being a game-breaker, I should point out that the July scenario is a SCENARIO, and the game was designed for the November scenario, not to mention post-1861 scenarios that we'll be implementing.

agreed with the fort - it would help and is historical imho.

about being a game breaker. Yes it's a different scenario. IIRC the july scenario was meant to reflect the build up in powers - or the coming storm. It didn't feel quite right that this storm was unleashed after the first turn immediately.