Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Rationalize the costs of Plantations These critters are incredably cheap to create considering they provide a FREE "Factory"; a FREE "Horse Farm"; and half a FREE "Mint"...., and can only be built by one side in the game. That's 90 "Resources" worth of FREE construction that doesn't take up any building space---and it's 40 "resources CHEAPER than a "Mansion" to build. If the North was getting a "mansion" for 50 "money" and nothing else, "Plantations" would still be a huge bargain.

got to disagree here, you not taking into account time, or the fact that you only get 2 of the resources

and the south will lose the Plantations if and when the Union Frees the Slaves

and money is HARDer to come by then Horses or labor

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Correct Northern "logistical Staffs" One of the few areas in which the Union excelled from the beginning was in keeping it's forces supplied (and often "over supplied"). If you want to give the South better troop quality in their starting forces to reflect the "Militia Tradition" of these units, fine. But the only time Union armies ever went "without" what when their leaders purposely severed their supply lines (Grant at Vicksburg, Sherman marching from Atlanta), so their "Logistical Staffs" should never have a rating of less than "Fair". Confederate forces were always overjoyed when they got a chance to plunder the Union Supply System and gain temporary access to a world of "treats" they never saw otherwise.

I can agree, quatermasters were a strong point, commanders were the weak point

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'n not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

I think the Union should have more Horse resouces, but Kentucky does add alot to the mix, but not enough, to say the Union has enough as it starts

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Rationalize the costs of Plantations These critters are incredably cheap to create considering they provide a FREE "Factory"; a FREE "Horse Farm"; and half a FREE "Mint"...., and can only be built by one side in the game. That's 90 "Resources" worth of FREE construction that doesn't take up any building space---and it's 40 "resources CHEAPER than a "Mansion" to build. If the North was getting a "mansion" for 50 "money" and nothing else, "Plantations" would still be a huge bargain.

got to disagree here, you not taking into account time, or the fact that you only get 2 of the resources and the south will lose the Plantations if and when the Union Frees the Slaves and money is HARDer to come by then Horses or labor

Well, given that you may be right. But still, building a "Mansion", and then a "Horse Farm" and then a "Factory" is also going to take 12 turns..., and it's going to cost a whole lot more. So even with out the "1/2 a Mint" it's a great "buy". But having the "plug pulled" by Emancipation would change things---does this really happen? Would seem to make a "plantation" a really bad idea.

that is the question

when it happens, Plantations are suppost to change to Mansons, but I see they still have the same name, so am not sure it is working as intended, or if it is just a name not changing thing

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Equalize "Horse" production. Taken from the US Census Figures, "in 1860 the North had 4,114,655 horses, the South 2,109,401 horses, and Kentucky 355,704 horses. I'm not saying give one side more, but equalizing the supply would seem a more than generous "balancing factor"

I think the Union should have more Horse resouces, but Kentucky does add alot to the mix, but not enough, to say the Union has enough as it starts

I would have said the South should have less. I guess it could go either way..., but giving both sides 30-40 to start would seem to be a nice "crimp" on expansion and make the economic choices tougher.

well, it is 6 of one and half dozen of another

plus, the player could, just change to all Horses or all Iron to get something they want

but a cut down, if the player has the Upgrade costs turned on, and playing at anything really above sgt, it will really Hurt too much ?

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

well, it is 6 of one and half dozen of another plus, the player could, just change to all Horses or all Iron to get something they want but a cut down, if the player has the Upgrade costs turned on, and playing at anything really above sgt, it will really Hurt too much ?

I was just going by the Union "scenario start" numbers, which are in the 30's. Bouncing back and forth is supposed to upset the Governors, so I assume that activity will be somewhat limited. Giving the North 100 Horses seems excessive, giving the South more than the North is just wrong according to the Census figures..., so giving both something in the 30-40 range seemed a nice compromise. I haven't played with and of the "+" or "-" modifiers, or at the higher levels of difficulty, so I can't speak for what would happen in that case. I just figured it would be "equal" for both sides (which is still a "bonus" for the South). But I could be wrong..., it's happened before.

As soon as I capture Wheeling he (John Letcher) starts requesting Signal Towers, I'm not bothered which side he is on he is requesting them off me even when I don't control the capitol, and then getting anoyed when I don't build an infinite number of them and causing negative consequences for me.

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available. Why? Maybe I don't have anyone I want to give 4 stars to..., but I might have someone that deserves two stars (or three). I don't mind only being able to promote one leader a turn (it's silly, but I can live with it)---but I do object to having to fill all the 4-star slots before I'm offered the chance to fill any 3-star slots..., and to having to fill all the 3-star slots before I'm offered the chance to promote anyone to two-star rank. I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

1. need to move the column headings for attributed on generals to the blue boder, so you can easily see what the columns are.
 
2. i captured all the cities in Canada and still British troops showed up.  make a change so that if all cities in Canada are captured the British move to Texas like the French.
 
3. i ignored diplomacy and the EU was slowly going for the South, however the kicker was in early 1862 the South went for emancipation. this is unrealistic.  a sliding scale needs to be implimented on the South's chances of going for emancipation.
 

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available... I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

I agree with this. I want to start with all generals at one star and promote them based on their performance, just like Lincoln had to. Right now, the promotion scheme is too rigid.

JIM

ORIGINAL: daniel123

1. need to move the column headings for attributed on generals to the blue boder, so you can easily see what the columns are.

2. i captured all the cities in Canada and still British troops showed up. make a change so that if all cities in Canada are captured the British move to Texas like the French.

3. i ignored diplomacy and the EU was slowly going for the South, however the kicker was in early 1862 the South went for emancipation. this is unrealistic. a sliding scale needs to be implimented on the South's chances of going for emancipation.

for the 3rd one at least, turn it off ?, if you do not want the South to be able to do so, do not set the game up so that they can ?

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

As soon as I capture Wheeling he (John Letcher) starts requesting Signal Towers, I'm not bothered which side he is on he is requesting them off me even when I don't control the capitol, and then getting anoyed when I don't build an infinite number of them and causing negative consequences for me.

I beleive what you are seeing is that you are in his land and he controls it, so he see his requests, he don't belong to you, so I do not see how he can be hurting you ?

he is making requests to his Goverment, and if he gets upset, it is with his Goverment that he is upset with

money income from plantations should be depended on blockading efficiency.

F.e. if the Union is getting more successfull at blockading the income will plumet - and cities with loads of plantations might consider to switch to labour (historical justified imho).

Then there's also an incentive for the South to actually do something against that Union navy. Now, your plantations are just making always the same amount of money.

ps = income from plantations might also be higher if the Union is not blockading at a historical rate ... meaning that the cotton export had a high value economical spoken.

F.e. = if Union blockading 50% or more below historical rate (year dependend) = money from plantations is doubled.
F.e. = if Union blockading within - 25% or +25% compared to historical rate (year depended) = no modifier to money from plantations.
F.e. = if Union blockading 50% or more above historical rate (year dependend) = money from plantations is halved.

This will make the player actually "feel" the Union blockading ... also in the later game. Suppose the confederacy has bought all sorts of nice upgrades early war - and late war the Union is blockading, the CSA is not really feeling this (its money source is not tackled). If the blockade affects plantations, the CSA might get more into dire straits ... now they are just too comfortable with the situation ...

Just to whet your appetites, I thought I'd mention that Eric just shared with me a list of programming changes he has already made for the upcoming patch, and you'll be pleased to know that some suggestions from this very thread have already made it in. (For now I won't be specific, since these changes need to be playtested to make sure they work.)

So, keep 'em coming!

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Give players some means of controlling "Unrest" Unrest puts a big hit on your economy, and can spread at random. Yet their seems to be no "positive step" a player can take to do anything about it. Couldn't you add a "garrison" requirement for such unhappy provinces, so that if a player moved the appropriate number of troops into such an area the "Unrest" could not "spread" and would always decrease by at least one level per turn. If you give players a "problem", you also need to offer them a "solution"...

This is already a rule. Just send a division in (I can't remember if independent brigades have an effect) and the time that unrest lasts can be shortened. For an example, look at the Event Report in the most recent turn of my PBEM AAR.

from the reports you get, I think it is based on a container

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available. Why? Maybe I don't have anyone I want to give 4 stars to..., but I might have someone that deserves two stars (or three). I don't mind only being able to promote one leader a turn (it's silly, but I can live with it)---but I do object to having to fill all the 4-star slots before I'm offered the chance to fill any 3-star slots..., and to having to fill all the 3-star slots before I'm offered the chance to promote anyone to two-star rank. I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

Since you can put, say, a 4-star general in the position normally occupied by a lower-ranking general I'm not sure this is something that needs to be changed.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Some flexibility in Promotions When the "Promotion Screen" pops up, I am ONLY given the choice of promoting someone to the HIGHEST rank available. Why? Maybe I don't have anyone I want to give 4 stars to..., but I might have someone that deserves two stars (or three). I don't mind only being able to promote one leader a turn (it's silly, but I can live with it)---but I do object to having to fill all the 4-star slots before I'm offered the chance to fill any 3-star slots..., and to having to fill all the 3-star slots before I'm offered the chance to promote anyone to two-star rank. I ought to be able to fill any slot I have available in a turn.

Since you can put, say, a 4-star general in the position normally occupied by a lower-ranking general I'm not sure this is something that needs to be changed.


Problem arises when you later get a leader worth 4 stars, you are now faced with demoting the first fellow and pissing off his Governor. There are a number of leaders that are perfectly acceptable as 2-stars leading Divisions within a larger "container", but a waste of "stars" for an independent role.