1.030 Patch in the works

[Erik Rutins]

This strategy is only possible if the other side doesn't garrison and fortify properly. You should have to fight for the ground you gain, by and large and from what I've seen that's how things work. Is this strategy mainly working for you against the AI or against human players?

[jimkehn]

Speaking of pinning an enemy force, how does one determine how much of a force it takes to pin an enemy force. Surely a one star confederate general with 2 brigades cannot pin Grants entire army that contains 36 brigades. What size force, percentagewise, does it take......like half the size of the defending force??

[Erik Rutins]

It's a 1:1, so two brigades can pin two brigades, etc. if I recall correctly.

[JAMiAM]

Regarding a pin, I believe it is checked for each separate moving force, with respect to the number of enemy:friendly brigades still left in the region. Thus, a two brigade pin could stick a 16 brigade corps, if that corps is the last force attempting to move out of the region. However, if the corps dropped off 2 or more brigades to deal with the pinners, then it could move out.

[jimkehn]

Interesting info.

[Adam Parker]

I'm finally very close to buying this one, working my way through a number of boardgame systems. There is just nothing in PC Land that is even close to being released (besides Ageod's First World War - and I do not want another EU clone) and nothing new in the Matrix catalogue looks close to being bug-free stable (than maybe SSG's Kharkov - but I have a Kharkov game already that works fine).

The ACW just hasn't yet been put fully comfortably on my plate though some great attempts have tried. Forge of Freedom's "container" concept is just too fiddly and Ageod's ACW just doesn't make full sense to me.

I had to buy Slitherine's Commander Napoleon game just to see what the controversy was about and found a game that kudos given, is stable but missing atmosphere.

So it's left to this offering by 2by3...

The chatter here has been very enthusiastic and the AAR's numerous and exciting (though I fear I may be taking on too much micromanagement having never been able to warm to W@WADW).

How is this patch holding up? You know I hate the "public beta" concept but feedback here seems to have died with its release. Is this game still fun to play? I see that Lee must now stay to protect dear Virginia and conquer the east.

Looking for some timely feedback before my credit card wallet closes!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Bo Rearguard]

I see that Lee must now stay to protect dear Virginia and conquer the east.

He doesn't have to stay in the east. You're just taking the calculated risk that he has a greater chance to come to harm if he has to fight elsewhere. [;)]

All in all it's a good game and an elegant design in my opinion. I sometimes wish it included New Mexico, the rest of Texas and the Indian Territory as the western edge of the map seems a bit constraining but I'm sure that decision simplified a lot of things too.

[tran505]

Well, Bobby Lee is welcome to try (and conquer the east). I expect to give him a warm reception.

- P

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard
All in all it's a good game and an elegant design in my opinion. I sometimes wish it included New Mexico, the rest of Texas and the Indian Territory as the western edge of the map seems a bit constraining but I'm sure that decision simplified a lot of things too.

And I wish they'd consider a scenario beginning at Ft Sumter. Granted there wasn't much maneuvering but there were planning decisions to be made. The game processes turns quickly. In my opinion, WBTS would gain a satisfying sense of completeness and grandeur.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Pford

And I wish they'd consider a scenario beginning at Ft Sumter. Granted there wasn't much maneuvering but there were planning decisions to be made.

When do the scens start?

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

ORIGINAL: Pford

And I wish they'd consider a scenario beginning at Ft Sumter. Granted there wasn't much maneuvering but there were planning decisions to be made.

When do the scens start?

July 61, March 62 and March 63.

[wargamer123]

I think the point here of focusing Lee in the East or a slight risk of losing him in battle is to allow the Union a more historical feel.

If you put Lee way out West in the Swamps of the MI and he dies well then you will likely lose earlier. Your gambling, a little

There is still 2 very high rated CSA generals that should with victories have AC potential by '63 that could be moved West or left in Virginia. Or split, you do not have only 1 numero uno

[Doc o War]

The Game starts in July 1861- That was decided by the designers - I believe- to start with the actual major ground war launching at Bull Run,  as most the military and political decision made in the period of April to June were about positioning the troops where they start and the taking of southern bases and arsenals.And the calling up and training of troops.  Both sides were treading cautiously and both sides actually assumed things would settle before major bloodshed erupted.  There were a few small skirmishes in June, but the Game launches in July 61 with the real war breaking out across the nation. You- as the commander of one of the sides- must do as the original guys did and deal with a real shooting war that no one actully thought would happen- but everyone seemed to suddenly want. Hit the ground runnning. You are handed the situation as it was in July 61.

I believe it is the best place to start- anything sooner would be shear conjecture and frankly- with what we know in the future it would probably upset the historic flow if some strategic forts and places were not abandoned by the the Union as they historically were. 

The real war started in July 61- it works better with the system here.

[tran505]

Question about Ironclad production --

Why will the Union NOT be able to produce ironclads and cruisers in Pennsylvania. I assume Philadelphia navy yard was a big-time ship production center.

Question2:

Why (even in pre .03) is the Union not able to produce ironclads for patroling the Mississippi River. The South can produce them in New Orleans and Memphis, while the North cannot produce them anywhere at all. The North had river-bound ironclads, that I assume were produced inland. And in light that major ship centers on the Atlantic are no longer capable of ironclad production -- why should the South be able to produce them in Memphis?

Seems odd, and is definately a nit. But first time you are forced to take on a fleet of CS ironclads outside of Memphis with US Gunboats -- you will see what I mean.

- P

[Joel Billings]

The ratings of the Union gunboats goes up over time to account for the better gunboats on the river later on. What we show as true ironclads cannot go all the way up river to the Union States. The Confederates had a hard time building ships in general, and it is possible that if the Union player is unable to drive up the river from the Gulf, the CSA could produce ironclads on the river that would make it very difficult for the north to move gunboats down the river. If you have good info on where the ironclads were historically built, and/or where they should be build, I'd be very interested in seeing that info. As for Philly, we wanted to limit the number of ironclads that could be built at one time for the Union, and since we can't limit by area, only by state, we decided to just allow NY to build them. This puts the desired limit on ironclads. In the past the south has not been able to afford much of a navy, so it has not been an issue, but it is possible that things have changed with 1.030 due to the artillery limits on the CSA. It will no doubt take a lot of playing to get a true read on balance, although figuring out what works and what doesn't is half the fun in playing a game, isn't it?

[tran505]

Just a comment on ship construction restrictions --

Even under the current/original game version, I was wondering why the Union could not construct Ironclads on the Mississippi. First, the Federals had river-bound ironclads as well as the unarmored gunboats in real-life. Second, the South is able to construct them in the game in both Memphis and New Orleans. I am currently trashing the Federal Navy against the "challenging" AI with 4 CSA Ironclads and a couple gunboats, generally sinking 2 or 3 Federal gunboats with each encounter along the Mississippi, taking no damage in return. Why not allow Federal ironclad construction in Cairo or somewhere along the Ohio River? Surely the Union must have had capabilities equal to Memphis, where the CSA can construct them.

Under .03, it sounds like Federal Ironclads will only be built in New York. Wasn't the Philadelphia Naval Yard doing some serious construction back then? Again, they had to be at least as good as Memphis....

- P

[tran505]

Sorry for the duplicate posting -- either my head cold or my cold medicine is turning me into a brain-stem. I coulda sworn I didn't see my original posting...

Anyway, I still think it is a viable strategy for the CSA to control the Mississippi by pumping out Ironclads. Soon I will have 6 of the puppies plus supporting gunboats, and woe be it to the Union fleet that finds me.

Regarding the great Commonwealth of PA -- it HAD to be at least as good as Memphis! [;)]


Thanks guys...

- P

[Joel Billings]

The Union has never been able to build Ironclads on the river (1.030 did not change anything with that). Our understanding is that the "ironclads" that were built on the river are more like the gunboats with enhanced stats that we have in the game's later war years. As for the CSA, yes, it's likely they are able to build more gunboats on the river at one time then they could in the war. Given the production system, it's hard to put a global limit. If we could identify certain places where they were more capable to build ironclads and some where they were not and probably could not easily be built, we'd consider making a change. Currently, the only locations where they can be built are New Orleans (which is eaiser to capture in 1.030 given the rule changes), Little Rock, and Memphis.

If we end up feeling that the limitations on Union Ironclad production on the Atlantic is too much, we can always add back in another state. We chose New York as this gave us the "global" limit that we were looking for on Union gunboat production.

[Jutland13]

This strategy is only possible if the other side doesn't garrison and fortify properly. You should have to fight for the ground you gain, by and large and from what I've seen that's how things work. Is this strategy mainly working for you against the AI or against human players?

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development and Business Relations


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

"Si vis pacem, para bellum.



I think , by addressing the situation in Kentucky, it eliminates this issue to a large degree. When the Union was able to sweep through Kentucky, there were insufficient troops and time to prepare any detailed defense. This allowed the Union player to further their gains in the manner described. In my present PBEM game (using 1.030) this is not an issue, due to the couple of extra turns I now have to prepare. There was a compounding affect without this patch.

[Jutland13]

I received a very curious result, not sure if it has anything to do with the patch, but have never exerpienced it before. TJ Jackson was wounded at Fredericksburg (July 1862) for 11 months. Later (~2-3mos) in a battle at New Bern, involving Longstreet TJ Jackson showed up on the casualty list as KIA. I lost New Bern. So I replayed the turn. I still lost New Bern. I checked the leaders screen and it showed Jackson at Goldsborough in NC with Longstreet, but he was not on the map and not scheduled to return until April 1863!? When I check the leaders screen, it still shows him there, despite him not being on the map. He was at Fredericksburg with Longstreet and now seems to go wherever Longstreet goes. (Longstreet is at New Bern and the Leader Screen shows TJ Jackson there, but he is not on the map (I checked all the sub-commanders of Longstreet) + he is not scheduled, according to his wound to return before April 1863 . Given that I saw the result of him being killed in a battle he was not in, this only makes it more likely he will be lost at some point, if Longstreet is in combat. I do not believe in replaying turns to get the result you want, but losing Stonewall in this manner is a bit silly. Thoughts? I can only assume this is a error?