I've got a question - how are you guys deciding where to put divisions (based on strategical judgement). Do they have some action radius after placement ? Do they block moving enemy armies within a certain radius ? Is it working with adjacancy of provinces - or with radius in miles/km ? Do you have to stay close to the capital to not upset the governor ?
I'm curious how this is handled in FOF[&:][:)]
Governors don't enter into it unless a governor specifically requests that a certain number of brigades be stationed in the state -- but then, they can be anywhere in the state.
There's no action radius, since divisions/corps/armies only fight an enemy force entering the province they're in.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Noticed that Murfreesboro is misspelled as Murfeesboro on the main map. Unless it's a variant spelling of course.
Thanks for asking. I've passed this question along to the person who would know.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Hey, look, before jchastain posts again: we both just posted at precisely 9:41:59.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
I know about the Trent Affair, but what specifically do you have in mind?
In general, I'd say that we did consider having a bunch of random "Event Cards," but these would have delayed release of the game. We might add some through patches (depending on how many other things of higher priority we add through patches).
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
I know about the Trent Affair, but what specifically do you have in mind?
In general, I'd say that we did consider having a bunch of random "Event Cards," but these would have delayed release of the game. We might add some through patches (depending on how many other things of higher priority we add through patches).
By that I mean a random occurance that increases or decreases relations with a foreign power. For those readers who don't know, the Trent Affair nearly started a war between Great Britain and the North over an overzealous Naval Captain who stopped, boarded, and took into custody, from a British mail packet, two Confederate commissioners to GB. Lincoln's masterful handling of the affair averted war. "One war at a time," he said.
I'm not on the dev team so I have none of the history, but my perspective on it is...
There are not "events" per se. Personally, I'm fine with that and I would lobby against adding them. With RANDOM events, either:
(1) they are very powerful - in which case it feels less like a strategy game. Who wants the winner or loser to be determined to any significant extent by which players gets luckiest with events, or
(2) they are not especially powerful and have very little impact in which case, why bother?
Where events make a lot of sense is where there are historical happenings that are really required for game balance that are otherwise not modelled in the game, but those are generally fixed (or loosely fixed) events rather than purely random one. So, in a WWII game if you don't model the entire political and diplomatic system, then you need an event to trigger the US entry into the war at or near the proper historical time since that is such a major occurance for game balance.
So, I'm not real big into random events.
The Trent Affair is an example of events of type 1 above. If it randomly occured, it would be a major handicap. Personally, I wouldn't want to win or lose the game simply because you did or did not roll a 1 on a six sided die and therefore none of my gaming decisions matter. In FoF, it is possible for the European powers to enter the game. And there is a random element to it. But it is also heavily influenced by the strategic decisions made by the players with the pathway to intervention being long enough that it is highly unlikely that it could occur through random events without someone making a stretgic gaffe. Personally, I think that's the way it should be. But again, that is just my own opinion.
By that I mean a random occurance that increases or decreases relations with a foreign power.
Sorry, I too thought you meant something akin to an "event card". Yes, the game does have random events that increase or decrease relations, though the likelihood of it occuring is driven by your strategic investment in diplomatic activity.
I wasn't advocating one way or the other, I was just curious. You are right, it is best not to have events like that, but can you implement a cheat code triggering that, and just send it to me?
I wasn't advocating one way or the other, I was just curious. You are right, it is best not to have events like that, but can you implement a cheat code triggering that, and just send it to me?
Funny you should mention that. In the game, you can upgrade weapons and equip your troops. During the beta, I was a big advocate for a cheat code that would give all your brigades M-16's. I thought it would be fun on occasion to just overrun the map just for fun. But it never happened. So you have to work at it if you want to walk through the streets of the enemy capital.
Anyone have any strategy questions? I've tried to walk through some of the "why" behind my moves, but let me know if anyone wants additional explanations or has questions about why I didn't do something...
Personally I am engrossed in trying to figure out what the H#ll is going on game mechanics-wise. If I had a manual to reference as this is unfolding, it would make a lot more sense. Both you and Gil have done a good job describing the whys and wherefores, but I am an engineer, and want to read the specs, if that makes sense?
I am going to copy this post to the general thread as nothing is given away.
Why does the game map show "Ft. Henry" in Kentucky? It's on the Tennessee Side of the river! Is the map designer a secret Union Agent?
I'll ask the person who would know, but in looking at the map it seems to me that that was the best place to put the fort because of the need to have enough space to show besieging units. Some of the locations of cities and forts (such as Wheeling, as we've established) are a bit off because of the necessities of having all of the units that might at some point be there visible. So it's probably a unit-placement issue.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Why does the game map show "Ft. Henry" in Kentucky? It's on the Tennessee Side of the river! Is the map designer a secret Union Agent?
I'll ask the person who would know, but in looking at the map it seems to me that that was the best place to put the fort because of the need to have enough space to show besieging units. Some of the locations of cities and forts (such as Wheeling, as we've established) are a bit off because of the necessities of having all of the units that might at some point be there visible. So it's probably a unit-placement issue.
But Ft Henry was specifically built in a less-than-perfect position in Tennessee to AVOID Kentucky "neutrality"---to stick it in Kentucky is to open a host of "political problems", isn't it?
From Gil's thread (with permission):
I also decide to demote Gen. ######, one of my 1-star generals. two-star generals command divisions, and I have far superior generals who are only 1-stars. ###### ratings are: "########". I've got generals with "#####" ratings being wasted as brigadier generals, so in demoting ####### I create an opening for a new 2-star general which I'll get to fill next turn. (Note that just as promoting a general makes the governor of his state improve in Attitude towards you, demoting a general lowers the governor's Attitude.
(edited for security reasons. Damn those Pinkertons!)
ME:
Does this decrease the capabilities of the general at all? In reality, the general would more than likely resign.
GIL:
No, there's no change if the ratings are known, and if some ratings are hidden they remain hidden.
I hear you on generals resigning in the real world, but it would be extra programming and doesn't necessarily improve the game. (But we can return to this when the game is out. Perhaps if there's a groundswell of support...)
ME:
I have agreed with ya'll on the vast majority of the decisions made by the programmers and designers, but here I have to diverge. Generals in that era were, with few exceptions, extremely jealous of their ranks and dates of promotion, and no doubt are today also, egos being what they are. Demotion should come at a cost, IMO.
Frankly, not to do so would be bizarre to me, and in a PBEM I would have to insist on a 'house' rule of no demotions, only transfers to another (less important) front, or "retirement", as was done on both sides of the war.
Maybe I am nit-picking here, but it is historically accurate. Opinions from other buffs?
The presence of that fort on the Kentucky side of the river creates no problems in gameplay. The only question is whether the Lower Tennessee River province in which it is located should begin the game as a CSA province rather than part of neutral Kentucky (in which case it goes whither Kentucky goes). I'll raise this with the people on the team who planned out the map.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
For anyone waiting around in suspense, I won't be taking my turn until later this afternoon.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
