Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

Maybe I missed it, but I think you should be able to construct railroads (additional). For instance the stretch of railroad in the vicinity of Selma goes nowhere - I'd like to be able to connect it, etc. And if you can't build additional railroad then you shouldn't be able to build a RR station in a city that has no railroad in it!!

For the South (which needs it), the cost would probably be prohibitive. They weren't able to do much in this regard historically..... Have to agree with the second point. Improving RR Capacity where you have no RR does seem a bit silly.

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter
Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter
Well they tore up quite a bit of track in North Carolina in order to armor the ironclads built on the Neuse (etc.). What if I decide to not build any ironclads - I should be able to use that iron to build some railroad. Agree they didn't build much historically but I think there was potential if the government had made it a priority. I think the player should be able to set that priority for themselves. There was only one major victory for the south in the West and you could argue that if it weren't for the railroad Chickamauga wouldn't have gone down the way it did.

Guys, I think you're all taking it a bit to far. FoF doesn't seem to be the type of high-resolution strategic/tactical game that would include those types of details. Just my opinion of course


As you point out, they "tore the track up" to use on Ironclads. Shouldn't your arguement be that if the South builds any Ironclads they should LOSE RR capacity? Ripping up rails one place and putting them down somewhere else might move RR capacity, but it wouldn't increase it. It was the ability to forge rails and build engines that hampered any Southern RR Expansion. They couldn't even keep what they had running...

ORIGINAL: bountyhunter

Good point. I was trying to argue (poorly) that the Confederate gov't (and for example the NC governor) didn't place a high priority on railroads (I think the Arkansas was completley armored with unmelted rails). I still think we should have the option of making our own priority. When you build a RR station in the game you add only to the capacity (ie engines and cars) right? So we definetly have an issue with building a RR station in any isolated city adding to the overall railroad capacity - what I think is when you add that station a certain amount of track extends towards the nearest railroad INSTEAD of adding to the overall capacity. At the same time you should probably be able to tear up existing track for some other iron intensive project if you so desire.

So if we were to be completely historical the Confederate player shouldn't be able to add ANY RR stations... and thats not where I am trying to go with this. I'm just trying to argue potential, which I think is most important in historical based games or else all you end up with when you play is history. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for Guns of the South potential, just credible potential.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't have any basic problem with the South having some ability to increase it's RR Capacity in the game. Or if it were possible in the system, to "connecting" some of their RR system. The real problem for the South in this respect was that they almost totally lacked the Iron, Smelters, Foundries, and Factories to do this in real life..., so it should be a choice that "hurts" if you make it. What facilities the South did have were used almost exclusively for Arms production during the War. If the costs are such that the Southern player will need to chose between improving his RR's and arming his forts and troops, it will have the right "balance". Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the "Glorious Cause" was also economically the "Lost Cause". The game is already somewhat generous to the South's economy for reasons of "play balance", so the players get a "break" Jeff Davis didn't have. You want to be very carefull with any further "improvements in this area. Personally, I'd like to see their supply of "horses" chopped by about 2/3rds to prevent the growth of "camps" and reinforcements to totally ahistoric levels.

ORIGINAL: nmleague

How about a practice tactical battle that can be loaded up and played. So far Im mainly doing strategic games with quick battles but at some point I would like to start using tactical battles. However I really dont want to have to start one of the current game choices to practice the tactical battles. It would be nice if there was a tactiacl battle with enough troops, maybe up to about 20 brigades for each side, that just be started so that a person could play it through a number of times to learn the system.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")
Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

If enough people think that European intervention should be a game option we might be able to do that. What do others think? (Either way, to get consideration the suggestion needs to be added to the "Wish List.")
Truthfully, while it was a fear for one side and a wish for the other, the game's representation of it as a "bribing contest" doesn't feel very accurate. France wasn't going to "jump in" unless Britian did..., and Britian wasn't going to intervene unless the South showed real signs of "winning" (losing causes being tiresome and expensive..., plus the whole Slavery Issue being a major stumbling block) It should certainly be made a less likely occurance..., and a less expensive process for both sides. Toggling it completely off though..., that wouldn't "feel" like the ACW.

How about making European intervention scaleable? I’m thinking choices like this; None, Low, Normal(Default) High, Automatic, and Random. Allowing the player to select the level of European trade / support might also be a consideration.

ORIGINAL: elmo3

Would it be possible to uncouple the Richer and Poorer Economy options so that players could make one side richer and/or the other poorer? That might be a simple way for people who feel the Union is too weak economically or the South too strong to easily adjust things. That combined with the already available Power options for each side might let people fix the perceived problems without a major reworking and subsequent retesting of game parameters.