No real issues if it does, it would be nice to know one way or the other though.
Thx for the Emancipation info, I have a pretty good idea on what my triggers are going to be and hopefully can beat the AI to the punch. Things aren't going to well between the Union and Europe right now and France is sending 15 to 20+ guns plus a bunch of technology South every turn.
Still holding the line... Cheers.
Realism
Moderator: Gil R.
RE: Realism
Sounds like you need to beef up the blockade and the diplomacy spend. I think AI bonuses kick in at 1st Sergeant level - that's certainly the case for resources.
RE: Realism
JeanUSARMYGUARD,
Thank you for the kind words. We did an awful lot of testing to try to make sure that it would be very hard for the USA to win battles against the CSA in the early part of the war. One of our top priority design goals was to try to reproduce the pace of the war as best we could, and we felt that if a moderately experienced detailed combat player could go into Fredericksburg in the fall of '61, capture much of the CSA army, then march on to take Richmond, then in this case the game would not be very enjoyable to a majority of players. I realize that some of the factors -- such as the will-to-fight, the morale rules, the command and control rules, and the line of communication ("threat zone") rules -- do make the game frustrating for some players, especially newer players who are not used to all the details of the system. Players do like to have absolute control over their units, and the green units, who are admittedly hard to control, can be frustrating; still, there are ways to mitigate the "misinterpretation" of green units, such as by giving them orders to move to landmarks (terrain not adjacent to any similar type of terrain or to named terrain), or by giving them move orders with less than their full allotment of movement points, so that action left to adjust their position (even changing their facing can help immensely) if they misinterpret the original order. I sometimes worry that players will end up like Sherman after First Bull Run after players have their first experience commanding green units in battle. [:)]
The strategy for the USA player is, indeed, to work on increasing the quality of their units -- not just in terms of weapons, but also staff ratings, quality, general ratings, upgrades, brigade attributes, and so forth. It's also true that an important means by which the Union increases the quality of its troops -- especially its green troops -- is by fighting battles that it ends up losing.
Union commanders early in the war attempted many Napoleonic-style maneuvers: pincer attacks, turning and flanking maneuvers. They generally failed because the quality of the junior officers and divisional staffs wasn't sufficiently prodigious to allow these sorts of complicated maneuvers to be executed with proficiency. Units attempting to march on the flank often showed up piecemeal or in the wrong locations or at the wrong times. Our C&C rules attempt to simulate not only the early difficulty with which the Union had in coordinating even simple battlefield tactics, but they are also intended to model the improvement over time which the Union experienced that eventually allowed their commanders to execute these sorts of maneuvers with puissance.
I am surprised that you have difficulties creating and replacing brigades as the USA, however. There may be some important point of game mechanics you might be missing, as this is generally not a problem for the USA. Remember that brigades on the highest supply priority (and in rail supply) receive the most replacements. Foraging brigades, or brigades under amphibious supply, receive very few -- if any. Build lots of camps; don't be afraid to use muster and even conscription early in the war: those conscripts need time to get their quality built up.
RE: Realism
ORIGINAL: Randomizer
While I have not had a number of the issues related by JeanUSARMYGUARD, I have too noted some things that might point to a distinct Confederate bias. Playing Advanced Rules, no advantages to either side and First Sgt difficulty, I have managed to win a majority of DC's so far but sometimes...
It's only a bias in the sense that we really wanted to preserve the historical pace of the Civil War for most players, and so we worked very hard during testing to adjust many parameters (in particular the defensive morale and will-to-fight bonuses, general and staff rating bonuses) to cause a majority of our testers to lose to the CSA as the Union in the Virginia theater in the opening year or two of the war.
I can't stress too much how worried I was about having a Union that was able to just march on Richmond on the opening three turns of the game and effectively winning the game in March of '62. If players who are new to the system could do this, just think what veteran players would be able to do! I think overall this would make for a less enjoyable game, even if the C&C rules of the system are frustratingly limiting in the early years (especially for new players).
Another important design goal for us was to reward players who take the effort to learn all of the nuances of the system and who make use of the brigade attributes, know the limitations of the staff ratings, pair up general special ability training with units equipped to make the best use of these things, etc. We didn't want to make these things just "window dressing", but we wanted to make players have to give serious thought about how best to organize, equip, and train their armies. Buying good guns and attempting to overwhelm the CSA with sheer numbers generally doesn't work because of the morale and C&C rules -- but it is a good way to get rid of the green status of a lot of your units!
Historically speaking, in the opening years of the war the defenders won an overwhelming percentage of battles -- something like 85% -- regardless of often numerical and firearm advantages possessed by the attackers. From what I've read, an important factor in this was the low quality of the junior officers in the units (in the Union, but also for the Confederacy as well); attacking places greater demands on an army's C&C, and so early in the war attackers had a much harder time of things than defenders. So I would say that a lot of bias people perceive toward the CSA in the game is really a "defender bias": to wit, if the CSA tries to duplicate Antietam early in the war, the USA can generally drive them out of Maryland without too much problem.
RE: Realism
If you want AI biased play at full general... Those morale loss reductions at that level... Hehe at lower difficulties I would capture alot of union brigades, now they all play Leonidas and his 300 [:)]
But I love it! It forces me to fight hard in every battle. Well done guys! [&o]
But I love it! It forces me to fight hard in every battle. Well done guys! [&o]
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
-
Randomizer
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm
RE: Realism
Ericbabe, thanks for the reply, I had drafted a followup (below) that I will submit unedited.
After six complete DC battles using the combat window throughout, I have concluded that what I had been seeing is poor 'rolls' and just plain bad luck that does not appear to be outside of reasonable probabilities. At the First Sgt difficulty level there is a penalty listed but it's minor and so no issue from my end. I am satisfied that there is no discernable bias in the detailed combat routines. Now I can close the combat window since using it ruins the flow of the tactical battles for me. I will however, use it sparingly as a tool to see how newly introduced weapons and attributes behave under fire.
Also, kudos to Terje439 and Mad Russian for their threads in the AAR Forum. Both are articulate and well worth reading.
One thing that I have not seen here is hints on specific organizations within a container unit, specifically Corps and Armies. I have implemented the following and it seems to be working so far. Disregard if this is covered elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprized but could not find it.
Attaching cavalry and artillery bdes directly to the Corps and Army commanders has a number of advantages in DC. For example:
Army container
Meade (***)
Hunt (*)
Army Cavalry Bde (insert name here)
Army Artillery Bde (insert name here)
I Corps (subordinate container)
Reynolds (***)
I Corps Artillery Bde
1 Div (subordinate container)
2 Div
3 Div... and so on.
A screenshot would be better but don't know how to take one in FoF.
This brings a couple of things to the table:
1. It's historical, higher formations generally had cavalry and or artillery attached directly to their headquarters.
2. It ensures that these high value units will always have a general with all of the advantages that accrue from that.
3. For those who like to impose divisional integrety into DC, it allows that combat support units to operate wherever required within the area of responsibility of the higher formation.
On another note I have read around here a number of posters lamenting the lack of actual battlefield maps for DC but in my opinion the FoF team got it right as is. Historical battles happened exactly where they did for reasons that were specific to the situation at the time. The scale of FoF precludes taking specific roads on a particular date so not being able to exactly re-fight Gettysburg during the Early July '63 turn is entirely reasonable IMO. There are non-FoF options out there for those who wish to re-fight a specific battle. What the representitive maps do is force the player to actually do an appreciation of the terrain, time and space. This imposes all sorts of real-life type problems since the sides usually start out of contact. Cavalry and scouting becomes essential and the bad guys showing up off the anticipated axis can be disasterous. I'm finding DC totally absorbing, it reminds me of the old 'Beer and Pretzel' Blue and Gray board wargames from the 1970's in scale but not in execution.
Sorry for rambling on, while this is the 'Realism' thread, I hope I have not hijacked it from JeanUSARMYGUARD.
Keeping my fire steady and effective... Cheers
After six complete DC battles using the combat window throughout, I have concluded that what I had been seeing is poor 'rolls' and just plain bad luck that does not appear to be outside of reasonable probabilities. At the First Sgt difficulty level there is a penalty listed but it's minor and so no issue from my end. I am satisfied that there is no discernable bias in the detailed combat routines. Now I can close the combat window since using it ruins the flow of the tactical battles for me. I will however, use it sparingly as a tool to see how newly introduced weapons and attributes behave under fire.
Also, kudos to Terje439 and Mad Russian for their threads in the AAR Forum. Both are articulate and well worth reading.
One thing that I have not seen here is hints on specific organizations within a container unit, specifically Corps and Armies. I have implemented the following and it seems to be working so far. Disregard if this is covered elsewhere, I wouldn't be surprized but could not find it.
Attaching cavalry and artillery bdes directly to the Corps and Army commanders has a number of advantages in DC. For example:
Army container
Meade (***)
Hunt (*)
Army Cavalry Bde (insert name here)
Army Artillery Bde (insert name here)
I Corps (subordinate container)
Reynolds (***)
I Corps Artillery Bde
1 Div (subordinate container)
2 Div
3 Div... and so on.
A screenshot would be better but don't know how to take one in FoF.
This brings a couple of things to the table:
1. It's historical, higher formations generally had cavalry and or artillery attached directly to their headquarters.
2. It ensures that these high value units will always have a general with all of the advantages that accrue from that.
3. For those who like to impose divisional integrety into DC, it allows that combat support units to operate wherever required within the area of responsibility of the higher formation.
On another note I have read around here a number of posters lamenting the lack of actual battlefield maps for DC but in my opinion the FoF team got it right as is. Historical battles happened exactly where they did for reasons that were specific to the situation at the time. The scale of FoF precludes taking specific roads on a particular date so not being able to exactly re-fight Gettysburg during the Early July '63 turn is entirely reasonable IMO. There are non-FoF options out there for those who wish to re-fight a specific battle. What the representitive maps do is force the player to actually do an appreciation of the terrain, time and space. This imposes all sorts of real-life type problems since the sides usually start out of contact. Cavalry and scouting becomes essential and the bad guys showing up off the anticipated axis can be disasterous. I'm finding DC totally absorbing, it reminds me of the old 'Beer and Pretzel' Blue and Gray board wargames from the 1970's in scale but not in execution.
Sorry for rambling on, while this is the 'Realism' thread, I hope I have not hijacked it from JeanUSARMYGUARD.
Keeping my fire steady and effective... Cheers
RE: Realism
Just a quick screenshot tip. I open Paint before I start the game. In game I simply use the Print Screen (or alt or ctrl print screen depending on circumstance) and the alt-tab back to Paint and paste it in. This works well for me but I've definitely heard mileage varies.
RE: Realism
One general comment on the detailed battles:
It seems the designers are well aware that the detailed combat can be overwhelming for green players.
I would like to stress, that I would much rather have overwhelming gameplay, that underwhelming.
Make the rules adjustable so inexperienced players can have an easier time - but please don't ever consider scaling down the mechanics of the detailed combat.
It's the wonderful level of detail everywhere in this game that keeps us coming back for more - and makes mastering the game (or trying to, at least) such a satisfying experience.
If the detailed combat was any less detailed than it is (streamlined, as it is called it today), FOF would be a worse game for it.
I know nobody talked about dumbing down the detailed combat and I'm sure the designers have no plans in that direction.
But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths - and that it is one of the most rewarding things to tackle - and eventually understand and master - something very complicated. Which is one of the big selling points of FOF for me and the reason I keep coming back to it - and the reason I will buy every other title or expansion WCS ever releases.
It seems the designers are well aware that the detailed combat can be overwhelming for green players.
I would like to stress, that I would much rather have overwhelming gameplay, that underwhelming.
Make the rules adjustable so inexperienced players can have an easier time - but please don't ever consider scaling down the mechanics of the detailed combat.
It's the wonderful level of detail everywhere in this game that keeps us coming back for more - and makes mastering the game (or trying to, at least) such a satisfying experience.
If the detailed combat was any less detailed than it is (streamlined, as it is called it today), FOF would be a worse game for it.
I know nobody talked about dumbing down the detailed combat and I'm sure the designers have no plans in that direction.
But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths - and that it is one of the most rewarding things to tackle - and eventually understand and master - something very complicated. Which is one of the big selling points of FOF for me and the reason I keep coming back to it - and the reason I will buy every other title or expansion WCS ever releases.
regards,
Briny
Briny
-
Mad Russian
- Posts: 13255
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
- Location: Texas
RE: Realism
ORIGINAL: briny_norman
But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths -
Well, that may be so in your opinion. In my opinion it's the biggest weakness of the game.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
RE: Realism
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
ORIGINAL: briny_norman
But I just wanted to underline, that the detailed detailed combat is one of FOF's biggest strengths -
Well, that may be so in your opinion. In my opinion it's the biggest weakness of the game.
Good Hunting.
MR
Hehe it is both [:D]
- too easy on low levels to capture the enemy
+ it becomes a challenge on the higher levels.
The more I play this game, the more I love it. So well done guys! [&o]
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
RE: Realism
Thanks everybody for the kind words.
We are considering an alternate approach using the engine to make much simpler games, since it does seem the complexity (and 250 pages of rules) is a put-off to many players, and the more complicated games do take a lot longer to develop. I don't think we'd abandon the current style of game in COG and FOF if we try this.
We are considering an alternate approach using the engine to make much simpler games, since it does seem the complexity (and 250 pages of rules) is a put-off to many players, and the more complicated games do take a lot longer to develop. I don't think we'd abandon the current style of game in COG and FOF if we try this.
RE: Realism
Well, on the other hand, I'm pretty sure a more simple approach would be a put-off to many players too.
The phrasing "much simpler games" actually sounds a bit scary to me, but it'll be interesting to see what you come up with.
The argument about longer development time (and generally more trouble) is valid, of course, especially in an economic context.
But I still don't much like the thought of more, simpler games from your hands instead of few, but epic ones.
This is just my opinion of course - and I don't need to worry about making money or spending all my weekends preparing patches for a nestful of unruly and unreasonable forumites, who have just had their life ruined by a small inconsistency in the return fire tables in the specific case of when a 50% depleted, high-morale, unsupplied unit dug-in in swampy terrain with Richmond muskets and the medical and swampwise attribute shoots it out with a fresh, low-morale, split brigade armed with European muskets and regimental artillery firing from an elevated, slightly flanked position in close proximity of friendly units from the same division and in command of a general with a tactics rating above fair. During night combat. [X(]
And yes, I know you can't entrench in swampy terrain... [;)]
The phrasing "much simpler games" actually sounds a bit scary to me, but it'll be interesting to see what you come up with.
The argument about longer development time (and generally more trouble) is valid, of course, especially in an economic context.
But I still don't much like the thought of more, simpler games from your hands instead of few, but epic ones.
This is just my opinion of course - and I don't need to worry about making money or spending all my weekends preparing patches for a nestful of unruly and unreasonable forumites, who have just had their life ruined by a small inconsistency in the return fire tables in the specific case of when a 50% depleted, high-morale, unsupplied unit dug-in in swampy terrain with Richmond muskets and the medical and swampwise attribute shoots it out with a fresh, low-morale, split brigade armed with European muskets and regimental artillery firing from an elevated, slightly flanked position in close proximity of friendly units from the same division and in command of a general with a tactics rating above fair. During night combat. [X(]
And yes, I know you can't entrench in swampy terrain... [;)]
regards,
Briny
Briny
-
IronWarrior
- Posts: 796
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Beaverton, OR
RE: Realism
Hey guys,
Another new player here, and want to also add my compliments to this nice game. I also want to say that I agree with briny_norman. I hope you guys reconsider "dumbing" things down. I admit that there were things I didn't get at first and it took me awhile to figure out, but the effort seems to be rewarding. One thing that would really help is having an index in the manual.
One question I did have about containers and structure... I had set up my ANV sort of like mentioned above by attaching artillery and cavalry directly to Corps and Army commanders. I had Lee take command of the Army and had Beuregard take a Corps until I promoted Longstreet and would reassign Beuregard. Although I had Lee as Army commander, it still showed Beuregard on the main map, and during tactical battles Lee was shown as Corps and Beuregard as Army. Not sure if this was because Beuregard was considered a superior ranking 4-star?
Anyway, thanks again for this great game! I have high hopes for the next COG and hope nothing gets "simplified" from FoF.
Bill
Another new player here, and want to also add my compliments to this nice game. I also want to say that I agree with briny_norman. I hope you guys reconsider "dumbing" things down. I admit that there were things I didn't get at first and it took me awhile to figure out, but the effort seems to be rewarding. One thing that would really help is having an index in the manual.
One question I did have about containers and structure... I had set up my ANV sort of like mentioned above by attaching artillery and cavalry directly to Corps and Army commanders. I had Lee take command of the Army and had Beuregard take a Corps until I promoted Longstreet and would reassign Beuregard. Although I had Lee as Army commander, it still showed Beuregard on the main map, and during tactical battles Lee was shown as Corps and Beuregard as Army. Not sure if this was because Beuregard was considered a superior ranking 4-star?
Anyway, thanks again for this great game! I have high hopes for the next COG and hope nothing gets "simplified" from FoF.
Bill
RE: Realism
ORIGINAL: IronWarrior
Hey guys,
Another new player here, and want to also add my compliments to this nice game. I also want to say that I agree with briny_norman. I hope you guys reconsider "dumbing" things down. I admit that there were things I didn't get at first and it took me awhile to figure out, but the effort seems to be rewarding. One thing that would really help is having an index in the manual.
One question I did have about containers and structure... I had set up my ANV sort of like mentioned above by attaching artillery and cavalry directly to Corps and Army commanders. I had Lee take command of the Army and had Beuregard take a Corps until I promoted Longstreet and would reassign Beuregard. Although I had Lee as Army commander, it still showed Beuregard on the main map, and during tactical battles Lee was shown as Corps and Beuregard as Army. Not sure if this was because Beuregard was considered a superior ranking 4-star?
Anyway, thanks again for this great game! I have high hopes for the next COG and hope nothing gets "simplified" from FoF.
Bill
Yes, I've seen this more than once myself, which is why always dend Beuregard away from ANV. But why not promote Longstreet on turn 1? There are two Corps commanders that really have a demotion coming for them as the game starts.
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
-
IronWarrior
- Posts: 796
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Beaverton, OR
RE: Realism
ORIGINAL: terje439
Yes, I've seen this more than once myself, which is why always dend Beuregard away from ANV. But why not promote Longstreet on turn 1? There are two Corps commanders that really have a demotion coming for them as the game starts.
Ah, well this is my very first game, but I think I tried to promote him but couldn't for some reason (not enough academies maybe) and didn't want to demote others (felt too gamey and taking advantage of the AI) on my first game. IIRC I was able to get him to 2-star on turn 1 and then it took a couple turns before I could get him to 3-star. Even though this is my first game I am already whipping the Union AI every battle on First Sergeant. Against a human opponent I would probably do what you recommend, however. Maybe since he (Beuregard) is a 4-star he can't be attached to a Corps? Or maybe they were caught shuffling when the Union attacked?
Also thanks for your AAR, it has helped me tremendously to get a grasp for some of the mechanics.
One other thing I wanted to add is that I really like the misinterpret commands (among other things) in Detailed Combat. However I'd like to see that when a unit does misinterpret it should end its' movement. Otherwise it doesn't do much as it can keep moving and probably voids the misinterpret anyway.
Eventually I'd like to get a pbem going with detailed battles imported to LAN. Just need to find someone as hardcore and dedicated as me to gaming
. I'm assuming this is possible... sounds awesome if so!Bill
One other question... which of the economy choices is the most realistic/historically accurate? Is it without either richer or poorer checked?
RE: Realism
ORIGINAL: IronWarrior
ORIGINAL: terje439
Yes, I've seen this more than once myself, which is why always dend Beuregard away from ANV. But why not promote Longstreet on turn 1? There are two Corps commanders that really have a demotion coming for them as the game starts.
Ah, well this is my very first game, but I think I tried to promote him but couldn't for some reason (not enough academies maybe) and didn't want to demote others (felt too gamey and taking advantage of the AI) on my first game. IIRC I was able to get him to 2-star on turn 1 and then it took a couple turns before I could get him to 3-star. Even though this is my first game I am already whipping the Union AI every battle on First Sergeant. Against a human opponent I would probably do what you recommend, however. Maybe since he (Beuregard) is a 4-star he can't be attached to a Corps? Or maybe they were caught shuffling when the Union attacked?
Also thanks for your AAR, it has helped me tremendously to get a grasp for some of the mechanics.
One other thing I wanted to add is that I really like the misinterpret commands (among other things) in Detailed Combat. However I'd like to see that when a unit does misinterpret it should end its' movement. Otherwise it doesn't do much as it can keep moving and probably voids the misinterpret anyway.
Eventually I'd like to get a pbem going with detailed battles imported to LAN. Just need to find someone as hardcore and dedicated as me to gaming
Bill
One other question... which of the economy choices is the most realistic/historically accurate? Is it without either richer or poorer checked?
# of 3 star generals are not tied to academies (only 5 star generals are). To increase # of 2 star generals, build DIVs, to increase # of 3 star generals build CORPS, to increase # of 4 star generals build Armies.
Gamey? Well it did happen in the ACW that officers were demoted, and some of those officers you start with are just a plain menace to your men.
As to the misinterpretation, yes moving one and one hex will minimilze the penalty this gives you, however if you are like me an move all in one go it can be really painful to see your brigade turn its rear to the enemy at the last movement hex.
About attaching a higher general to a lower container (4 star to a corps etc) this should not be a problem, from my understanding a 4 star can lead anything up to and including an army, a 3 star anything up to a corps.
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen
("She is to be torpedoed!")
("She is to be torpedoed!")
-
IronWarrior
- Posts: 796
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Beaverton, OR
RE: Realism
Ah thanks terje, I did purchase a Corps container early (turn 1 or 2) so that explains it.
I think gamey may have been the wrong term, I meant that I am easily beating the AI as it is, and am not sure if the AI has the sense to shuffle its' command the same way. It's more of a challenge that I impose on myself I guess. The only battle I've lost so far is one where a small Division was caught by overwhelming numbers and I hit Instant Battle. Against a competent human opponent I would certainly demote and promote, since my opponent would surely do the same.
Same for misinterpret... I impose the same on myself by moving each unit once, so if it misinterprets the command then that's that.
I think gamey may have been the wrong term, I meant that I am easily beating the AI as it is, and am not sure if the AI has the sense to shuffle its' command the same way. It's more of a challenge that I impose on myself I guess. The only battle I've lost so far is one where a small Division was caught by overwhelming numbers and I hit Instant Battle
. Against a competent human opponent I would certainly demote and promote, since my opponent would surely do the same.Same for misinterpret... I impose the same on myself by moving each unit once, so if it misinterprets the command then that's that.
RE: Realism
Re the container command if there are two equal ranking commanders, the choice is determined alphabetically so a 4 star Beauregard tops a 4 star Lee.
Use the difficulty level to give yourself a tougher game - AI combat and resource bonuses kick in at 1st Sergeant increasing up the scale and there is also the possibility of bonus field fortifications for the AI from Major upwards. Southern Steel and the unbalanced version of Coming Fury have the most realistic troop/resource/population levels so are the most challenging for a Southern player.
Its a great game, and gets even better with the advanced options in play.
Use the difficulty level to give yourself a tougher game - AI combat and resource bonuses kick in at 1st Sergeant increasing up the scale and there is also the possibility of bonus field fortifications for the AI from Major upwards. Southern Steel and the unbalanced version of Coming Fury have the most realistic troop/resource/population levels so are the most challenging for a Southern player.
Its a great game, and gets even better with the advanced options in play.
RE: Realism
Concerning an index - there is an excellent search facility in the pdf manual which will list all relevant references.
-
IronWarrior
- Posts: 796
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Beaverton, OR
RE: Realism
Thanks Ironclad, I wasn't sure which of the options/scenarios were considered to be the most historically accurate, so I had just picked the standard campaign. Didn't know about the search function either, had been reading the printed manual and using that while the game is running for quick reference. Also thought that attaching Beuregard to a Corps would make Lee show on the main map, thanks for explaining that. Still though, Lee was Corps and Beuregard Army in the tactical battle for some reason.
Really happy with this game so far, I will try one of the scenarios you mentioned. I assume that I would leave richer/poorer economy unchecked as the most realistic as well?
Bill
Really happy with this game so far, I will try one of the scenarios you mentioned. I assume that I would leave richer/poorer economy unchecked as the most realistic as well?
Bill