Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Here is the Raider status...thankfully last turn I managed to despatch 2 raiders, including the nasty piece of work Semmes.

Good grief, you've let them all get to Experience 3 and 2. Ouch. When you start a new game, send a Cruiser to the Raider box right away and keep it supplied. Then keep enough cruisers going there to match the number of raiders. Never get behind and let them build up to this degree, it's MUCH harder to stop them once they get experienced and you're sending inexperienced cruisers to chase them down.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
And the troop status

When did you draft and how many drafts did you do? I'd expect you to have more troops as the Union by this point.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
And finally the PP position

You're not doing badly for your first try at this, but I gather you hate losing. [;)] Apply the lessons learned, start the scenario fresh instead of trying to salvage your position here and I'm sure it will go better.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Yeah I know...

For the uninitiated...here are my errors
1. Not understanding the importance of pouncing on raiders
2. Not understanding the importance of blockades
3. Not reading the manual
4. Lack of understanding of who I should hire and fire, especially for TC and AC

I think my main issues are the lack of blockading early on and allowing raiders freedom. This allowed the CSA to keep high supplies whilst mine (along with PPs) dwindled.

Also, as Joel pointed out, Cavalry. Not understanding the importance (again early on) of scouting.

Anyway, I'm battling on. It's January '64 and I understand where the votes are going...I'll be standing down [:D]

On the plus side, I've learned a whole lot about the game and I'll be pumping another game out.

Yep, that's the spirit.

By the way...this is on Normal...so it just goes to show you how bad I was playing! [;)]

I think most players lost their first game against the AI on Normal, don't feel that you're unusual in that regard.

ORIGINAL: von Beanie
In conclusion, this system seems like it would be much more appropriate for the western front of WWI than the American Civil War, and in my frustration (I can empathize with your initial post) I've decided to shelve it.

While you have a few good points in among the rest, I have to say that it's quite possible to win as the Union in PBEM and I disagree with your overall assessment.

Original Erik Rutins
Good grief, you've let them all get to Experience 3 and 2. Ouch

Allright...no need to make me feel better [;)]

Well, it's true I don't take defeat easy...never have done, although I've mellowed over the years (honest)

I think I drafted in '61 and it might have been as late as '63...I think I've only drafted the twice. I now realise '63 was way too late for a second draft...I needed to get those troops in and trained to inf for the Spring of '63 at the latest.

I'll be playing to the end and taking it on the chin...then I'll dust off and have another pop.

Sorry for my tone earlier...just coming off the back of two hours of solid play, loss of thousands of infantry (not militia), supplies depleted to 0 and PPs heading the same way...I should've known better, walked away, calmed down then come on here asking questions in a sane and sensible manner...my bad. [:-]

JudgeDredd, time to throw in the towel bud! The South HAS won the war, but it will be fought again in 1914 when the South sides with the Brits and the North sides with the Germans! [:D]

Too bad there isn't an option for British intervention....oh well - going to try my hand at the Confederacy, getting pretty good as the Union & want to see what it looks like from the other side.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
I think I drafted in '61 and it might have been as late as '63...I think I've only drafted the twice. I now realise '63 was way too late for a second draft...I needed to get those troops in and trained to inf for the Spring of '63 at the latest.

Yeah, you need to draft once in '61 - I'd recommend right away on Turn 1. Then again once (or twice, depending on PP situation) in '62. I tend not to draft after '62 unless I really need to.

Regards,

- Erik

Erik

You shouldn't even be playing games...you should be concentrating on getting new talent and releasing other games!!

Get back to work and get BOTR out asap!

ORIGINAL: von Beanie

And the abundance of Southern heavy cannon and cannon in the game is something that is mind-blowing given the extreme limitations of the historic iron ore deposits and foundries in the South.

This is the one item in the post I largely agree with. From a historical perspective, Von Beanie is 100% correct. Every game I have played, the Confederacy has been able to produce tremendous amounts of heavy artillery, far in excess of any capacity they had to mine the ore, cast the cannon, or smuggle the pieces in from Europe in the real war. Additionally, the CSA seems to be able to move its heavy artillery around at will, and very quickly to boot. One example is the much debated 'Kentucky Problem' where Fortress Paducah is immediately fortified and filled up with heavy guns immediately after the Rebel cavalry overrun it. This makes it impossible for the Union to use the rivers in the west for many, many months, as the two gunboats the North starts out with are no match for these Confederate fortifications, and even after substantial gunboats have been produced by early 1862, they still are likely to be defeated by the fortress's guns. (see my Glory Road AAR)

So, the two main problems I see are 1) too much CSA heavy artillery compared to historical capacity and 2) far too much ability to strategically move these pieces around the CSA very quickly, not reflecting how difficult it was in the real war to move heavy guns at all. In fac,t most heavy guns were never moved from their original emplacements, as it was too costly, time consuming, and logistically taxing. This goes for the North, by the way, as well as the South. I have read many accounts of campaigns, particularly in the Western theater, where there was a 'race against time' as the CSA was working for months to prepare forts/river gun emplacements, while the Union was trying to get fleets and troops there to capture them before they were completed. The current 'race against time' simply falls to whichever side happens to attack and move first, without any chance for the opposing player to contest.

I am willing to accept 1 on the assumption that it is a game play balance Gary has deemed necessary for the system. However, I believe #2 should be addressed.

I would like to see a change in how heavy artillery is handled, to make it both more historical, and force players to make more strategic decisions with where they deploy the heavies, and then live with the consequences. I would suggest:

1) Making all USA and CSA heavy artillery on map at the beginning of the game fixed units, unable to move for the entirety of the game. This gives both sides the benefit of pre-war fortifications.

2) Allow only newly produced heavy artillery to be moveable. Furthermore, make the moving of this heavy artillery pieces very difficult to move. Perhaps they should be unable to use strategic movement, period, but rather have to move tactically. This would forces players to decide where to produce the pieces, and then deploy them locally, rather than have heavy guns produced in Richmond and appear in New Orleans a week later, a feat the modern US Army might even have some difficulty with. I would also allow the heavy guns to be moved by sea/river transport, but at a much higher cost in transport capacity than currently. This would make it much more difficult for the Union to take Ft. Jackson or St. Phillip, then ship heavy artillery down the next month and completely block all trade on the Mississippi to the CSA.

The bottom line for me is that heavy guns should be of two types -- those that go with the original coastal fortifications and cant be moved, and those produced during the war, a precious commodity that takes time, planning, and strategic decision making into where they are deployed, and once deployed, the die is cast and they are committed to that position.

My two cents worth.

One further thought that occurred to me to solve what I view is the heavy artillery problem is simply to eliminate the use of a separate unit for heavy artillery.  Instead, incorporate a certain value of heavy artillery into the combat value of a fort.  Since that is basically where all the heavy arty is used anyway, this could be easily modeled.  Then adjust the amount of time and resources to build a fort level 1, and a fort level 2, to reflect the actual time it would take to construct the earthworks, entrenchments, redoubts, and manufacture and place the heavy arty in the fort.  This would address the issues of mobility of heavy arty (you couldnt move it once committed) and the too-rapid deployment of heavy arty and forts.  If a level 1 fort took 4 months to build, and the upgrade to level 2 a further 8 months, a player would have to plan his defense ahead of time, and figure out where it made the best sense to commit to these types of defenses in depth, which werent developed overnight in real life.  The Confederacy would start with a large advantage, having seized all the pre-war coastal fortifications and guns, thus curtailing the chance of any early Union sea blitzkreig.  Then, he would have to decide where to build up in his interior, with limited resources to do so -- do I fortify Paducah, or do I concentrate on preparing the defenses of Memphis, Vicksburg, and the approaches of Atlanta instead?  In the real war, these were all pressing questions with serious strategic consequences, and a decision to defend too far forward often led to the the loss of half-finished fortifications and guns, a serious blow to the Confederacy.  Also, such an approach would require the Union to station many ships in the Mississippi to interdict trade after taking Fts. Jackson and St. Philip, as it would take time for heavy guns to be shipped in, fortifications to be prepared, and chains, nets, and mines strung across the river and its side channels to the point where commerce would be effectively blocked.

The obvious, basic problem facing the new Union player is that he must learn then master a multiplicity of basic skills and concepts (initiative, leader ratings, movement, combat, supply , raiders, and pirates) while pressing forward, always on the attack.

That is tough. If you don't get everything going reasonably well at once you are apt to founder.

The beauty of playing that AI is that it doesn't whine if you fold and start again.

Be ready...give up wife....give up friends.....stay home from work sick.....have LOTS of time LOL

ya got great attitude
Madgamer

Here is the heart of it!......skill level and the learning curve! They get me every time. I learn so slowly. I love strat level games but have no brain to play them LOL! I play only against the AI for so long that by the time I get to high level of play the game is out of print or has been updated or replaced.
I finally get to where I can keep up with the AI in WitP and now am awaiting the whole new AE update...life in not very fair! but I love it!

Madgamer