Matrix Games Forums

What to spend it on... What to spend it on...

I decide that I can't let the Union outspend me too much in diplomacy. (I'm not peeking, but I'm sure that jchastain is close to saturation levels in his diplomatic spending.) So, I spend 30 Money on diplomacy, as you can see below. At the very least, this should help increase the value of the blockade-runners' goods, but I'm really hoping for some help in the form of research points, which those advanced civilizations of Europe might be glad to share once they like me more.

Two final moves, and the turn is over. First, expecting that the Union might try to attack Ft. Henry now that Kentucky has sided with them, I move my Partisans there (and at the end of the turn tell them to "Steal Weapons," since 17 Guns is available. The other move involves sending that division in Murfreesboro (Tennessee) into the Cumberland River to join those other divisions. If Fort Henry is attacked, they'll be close by to do battle.

Fifth Turn

Looking at the Events List below, you can see that the money I spent on diplomacy is paying off, since the Europeans like me more. Also, my second new Camp was completed, so each turn I get 3000 reinforcements -- the equivalent of a brigade -- instead of 2000.

The blockade-runner in the New Orleans shipyard improved from 7 to 8 strength, so I think it has a good chance of surviving if danger strikes again, so I send it after the 10 Money right outside New Orleans, while the other runner fleet goes after 45 Weapons.

In the last turn, I tried to send the 16th Division from Chattanooga to Cumberland River (and Nashville), but it only got as far as Murfreesboro, since winter movement is tough to accomplish. So, I try to have it finish its journey this turn.

And now, I reveal that I did something very, very stupid. Remember that District of the Potomac corps container that I sent from Lynchburg to Memphis? I used rail movement so it would get there in a single turn, but forgot that now that Kentucky has sided with the Union part of the railroad line I was using goes through Union territory in the Lower Tennessee River province (look at the screenshot above), and empty containers cannot go through enemy territory. So, my corps container was destroyed, and I don't yet have a replacement. To produce a corps, one needs two Barracks buildings in a province, but one starts the game with no more than one in any city, so I'm using some of my resources to build a second Barracks in Richmond. This will take four turns, after which I'll build a corps, but that will cost me 50 Money and some other resources, so I've essentially just wasted a lot of money and resources. (If this were a game against the AI I would have taken a do-over, but there are no do-overs in PBEM.)

Here's the Events List.

After building the Barracks (20 Labor, 50 Horses), I used some of my other resources to build a Plantation (50 Labor, 50 Horses) in Neuse River and a Laboratory (75 Money, 30 Horses) in Petersburg.

Plantations, as discussed in one of my posts above, take 12 turns to complete but then permit one to build four more buildings, and Neuse River, where Raleigh is located, is one of my two cities with a University, which gives +1 for every research institution there. So in July I'll be able to start building more research institutions there.

As for the Laboratory, if you look at the screenshot of Petersburg you'll see from the light bulbs on the left that I'm getting very little in the way of logistics research. I already am building one Laboratory, but another would be outstanding -- if I'm lucky, I might soon get the logistics-related upgrade that lets me increase the reinforcements from camps by 33%, or the "centralized railroads" upgrade that doubles the number of railroad movement points I get each turn, or one of several other upgrades that lets me do far more with the infrastructure and resources I've got. So, rather than pumping resources into weaponry research when I might not be able to afford to purchase all the new-fangled weapons I'd be inventing, for now I'll focus on running the war effort as efficiently as I can -- and building more Laboratory buildings is vital for that.

At the end of the turn, I have my Partisans attempt to steal 22 Weapons, since I'd love to increase the size of my Guns stockpile. (I didn't spell this out before, but if Raiders or Partisans steal X Weapons, one's Guns stockpile increases by X. In other words, they don't steal specific guns, but rather the resource needed for me to purchase guns. This mirrors the reality of the situation during the Civil War, when so many southern weapons started off in northern hands.)

I also decide to demote Gen. Ewell, one of my 2-star generals. Two-star generals command divisions, and I have far superior generals who are only 1-stars. Ewell's ratings are: "normal" initiative, and "fair" leadership, tactics, command and cavalry. I've got generals with "good" and "great" ratings being wasted as brigadier generals, so in demoting Ewell 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. Ewell is from Virginia and that governor likes me quite a lot, so I can afford to do this.)

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

At the end of the turn, I have my Partisans attempt to steal 22 Weapons, since I'd love to increase the size of my Guns stockpile. (I didn't spell this out before, but if Raiders or Partisans steal X Weapons, one's Guns stockpile increases by X. In other words, they don't steal specific guns, but rather the resource needed for me to purchase guns. This mirrors the reality of the situation during the Civil War, when so many southern weapons started off in northern hands.)

I also decide to demote Gen. Ewell, one of my 2-star generals. Two-star generals command divisions, and I have far superior generals who are only 1-stars. Ewell's ratings are: "normal" initiative, and "fair" leadership, tactics, command and cavalry. I've got generals with "good" and "great" ratings being wasted as brigadier generals, so in demoting Ewell 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. Ewell is from Virginia and that governor likes me quite a lot, so I can afford to do this.)

Does this decrease the capabilities of the general at all? In reality, the general would more than likely resign.

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...)

Sixth Turn

Here's the top of the Events Report. Note that my Lynchburg Hospital and one of my Mints was built. Also, note the effects of promotion/demotion of generals on governors.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

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...)

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?


With your permission I will post this to the general thread because obviously dismissal of a general is involved here, I won't without your say-so.

Next, as you can see (though I had to cut off the top of the list), my two divisions and ten or so garrisons in the Tennesse-Mississippi River province (= Memphis area) just got hit by disease. There's a hospital there, though, so it could have been twice as bad.

As I might not have mentioned, Hospitals also have the function of improving units' disposition, so all that lowered disposition that you see should be back to normal by campaigning season. But I still lost around 2000 men. (Good thing I'll be building yet another Camp this turn...)

Also, note that diplomacy has paid off a little more -- the French just sent me 7 Money.

One really odd thing is that so far my governors have made only two requests (both times for a certain number of brigades to be stationed in their states), and haven't asked for buildings or taken actions to help/harm the war effort. It's highly unusual to go so many turns without this happening -- think of a long series of rolls in craps without a seven coming up.

On to the turn itself now. First, I send the blockade-runner in the Gulf of Mexico, which at 8 strength instead of the maximum 10 is still vulnerable, after 40 Money (50% success, 40% danger), and send the one in the Atlantic after 70 (!) Weapons (80%-10%).

Then comes more building: a Camp, a Mint, a Mine, and Engineering School (total: 75 Money, 30 Labor, 60 Iron, 100 Horses). I haven't explained fully my approach to deciding which buildings to build first. Essentially, there are two types of buildings: those that produce something (resources, reinforcements, research points, etc.) each turn, and those that produce nothing and function in a different way (e.g., Signal Towers help with scouting checks, Shipyards let one build ships, etc.). My goal is first to build buildings that produce something each turn, since the sooner they're up and running the more I get of whatever it is they produce. Signal Towers take just two turns to complete, so I can wait until March without negative repurcussions and use the resources they cost for other buildings. It's especially important to build up one's research infrastructure from the start, because it's possible that one might get a key upgrade the turn before a decisive battle -- and who would want to risk not getting it because he delayed building the appropriate research institution for a turn or two?

Another thing I do this turn is to shift two garrisons from southern provinces where they are unlikely to see any action (unless jchastain is plotting a major amphibious assault somewhere along the Gulf coast), up to my Memphis-area forts. If you look at the screenshot below, you'll see several forts in the area of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. Since Vicksburg and Ft. Morgan (on the Mobile River) each have two garrisons, I send these northward. If I am attacked in the south, I'll just have to deal with it by sending reinforcements by rail. Plus, in a few turns I'll try to create a modest brigade down there.

To end the turn, I promote D.H. Hill (whose ratings are all "good") to 2-star general -- a much better guy to have than the "fair" Ewell.

Seventh Turn

A lot to report, but only one screenshot, of the Events Report. Going down it in order:

(First, not shown in the screenshot but no doubt already crowed about by jchastain, Wheeling has fallen. This deprives me of some income and makes it easier for the Union to invade western Virginia, but otherwise isn't terribly significant. I'm glad it took so long, though.)

One of those Mines in Augusta, where an Iron Works doubles the +2 Iron/turn production of each new Mine to make it +4, was just completed.

Disease struck two garrisons in an area unlikely to be attacked for several turns, which is welcome news.

French support for the CSA dropped, so I just added another 10 Money to try to improve relations. The Other Europeans like me more, though. (This is evident in the greater value of the blockade-runners goods I'm seeing out there.) I really could use more money so as to boost my chances of getting help from the three European powers, but I don't have that anywhere in my budget. A year from now, after I've built more mints, I'll have it, but I'll have to make do in the meantime.

Finally, my governors are doing something for me. (And the Virginia governor is demanding a superfluous shipyard. If I buy it I waste 50 Labor but he likes me more, and if I ignore him he will become steadily more angry with me. I'll wait a turn or two to see if he abandons his request, as sometimes happens.) The Louisiana governor is helping me in engineering research, while the Texas governor supports musters. In the first case, I'm now getting +5 engineering points per turn, while in the second case it means that I can muster new brigades in Texas without angering Gov. Lubbock and lowering his Attitude by 5 (as would otherwise happen). So, I've just tried to muster in Austin and Galveston.

This brings up an important point. If anyone is wondering why I haven't tried to create any new infantry, cavalry or artillery units, either by purchase or muster/conscription, the reason is that under advance rules every time one creates a new brigade and uses up some of the limited "Men" resource in the city where the unit is created, it means that that city will produce less of whatever resources it produces. Put simply, the level of Men in a city directly impacts the production of that city. And since I'm hard up for resources AND in winter don't do much fighting, I've deliberately chosen not to bulk up my forces by adding new units. A crucial point to bear in mind is that in April any city that is below capacity in Men (as Galveston and Austin will now be) has a chance to replenish the missing Men. For this reason, I am waiting until March before I produce new units, so that I will go the shortest possible time with certain cities under-producing.

Therefore, since it's now late February, this is the last turn until April that I'll build any buildings. I'll now try to use my resources to produce new units, and then finally I'll start upgrading my existing units by buying new weapons and attributes for them.

Before I call a halt to construction, I first build another Railroad Station (10 Labor, 50 Iron) and my first School (75 Money, 40 Horses), a research institution that provides +1 in each of the areas of research, and takes eight turns to complete. By early summer my research efforts should be having a definite impact.

In this turn I also remove another garrison unit from Fort Pike (in Ponchatoula, Louisiana, a province that has an incredibly small chance of being invaded) and send it up to the Memphis area. I might relocate it to Fort Donelson in my next turn, though.

And that's the turn...

Eighth Turn

Now things begin to get interesting.

First, the Events Report. I forgot to take a screenshot of the bottom half (or, more likely, took the screenshot but forgot to paste it into Paint), so I can't show that. But I don't remember anything especially interesting. (I'll check next time I load up the game.) In this screenshot, note that one of my two Texas musters succeeded, but not the other.

Here's what I see when I look at Virginia. That giant Union army strikes me as out of place -- I'll have to do something about that.

Note that when I mouse over Fredericksburg I'm told in that white text box that I have 18000 troops there -- which is accurate -- and 95,000 enemy troops. The latter figure is a scouting report, and need not be accurate. However, since the army is in the same province as my own units there is a better chance of its being accurate than if that same army were still in Maryland.

Sadly, I waited too long to put that 10-inch Rodman in my main Fredericksburg fort, and I haven't built up the forts with attributes, so these forts will be easier for the Union to take than might have been the case. But with 18000 units there, the Union's army will have trouble and take a lot of casualties, even if that 95,000 figure is correct.

So, rather than rushing in to Fredericksburg, I'll take a turn or two to beef up my forces by buying them better guns and some attributes (e.g., brigade artillery, scouts, baggage train, etc.). I guess I won't be able to spend much on producing new brigades through purchase, since I'll have to improve the fighting ability of the ones I have. Still, next turn I'll try to muster some more troops, which don't cost any resources but are quite inferior in quality to units that do cost resources.

The single most important weapon I can purchase is an Ordnance Rifle for my one artillery unit, the Jeff Davis Battery (in Lynchburg). Artillery units, like infantry and cavalry brigades, usually begin with the cheapest type of weapon, so this is a significant upgrade. I'm sure that the Union, rich in Iron, has several such units, but at least I'll have one.

If you look at the last column you'll see how much damage it can do, based on how many hexes away the target is.

It occurs to me that while the odds are highest that the Union army in Fredericksburg is about to besiege the forts there over many turns, there is a chance that something sneakier is afoot, such as trying to take Shenandoah (or even Abingdon)? Not wanting my 12th Division in Shenandoah to be crushed, I move it to Lynchburg, reasoning that if the Union wants Shenandoah that brigade wouldn't be able to prevent it, even with the help of nearby reinforcements. But if the Union stays in Fredericksburg, when the time comes for me to attack it will just as easily enter that province.

Note that before moving the division I set it to "Avoid Battle" (as it says in a text box at the bottom) so that if the Union army does invade Shenandoah this division will have a 50% chance of eluding it.

Now to the western theater, where things have a chance of getting quite worse. There are two forces that look poised to go after Memphis and/or Fort Henry (which I wasn't able to finish fortifying, thanks to Kentucky's untimely decision to side with the Union). And in Kentucky, there's what looks like a single division in Bowling Green, which is adjacent to Cumberland River and my three divisions there. If that's correct (that it's just one division), I think I can beat it by outnumbering it, and also because some of my brigades are equipped with Lorenzs (one of the best guns to have).

So, I first buy the "brigade artillery" attribute for the 58th Infantry (since that unit is a high-quality unit that isn't much depleted in terms of manpower). This attribute costs 20 Money and 40 Iron, and has 25% of the brigade's attack be done by six-pounders instead of rifles. I also rearrange my divisions somewhat. I put my best brigades into the two division containers with the best ratings, and these are the ones I send to Bowling Green to confront that lone division. I then take the other division and some remaining brigades and stick them in Fort Donelson, so that if the Cumberland River province is about to become a target they'll be able to do far more damage than if I leave them just encamped in the vicinity.

I also send my Partisans to Bowling Green, hoping to get lucky and destroy the enemy's supplies before the battle.

Key point: since battles in PBEM are resolved automatically by the computer, I won't get to manage the battle or watch it, and will learn the results from the next Events Report.

Since I expect to have the Memphis area attacked within the next turn or two, I need to get ready there. It's looking like a very good thing that I added three garrisons from down south -- I've now got more than 20,000 men garrisoned in two forts there, and with rifle pits giving these men +50% damage it will be impossible for the Union to capture both forts without suffering extremely high casualties. This would be even more true if both forts had the 10-inch Rodmans, so I purchase one for Fort Pillow, matching the one already at Island No. 10. (In the very near future I'll need to get one for Fort Donelson, which has a large garrison but weak firepower.)

Although the following tactic may be a bit ahistorical, I find no reason to leave my two divisions of 30,000 men in this province and therefore in the path of what may be a very large invasion force. Instead, for the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph, I think it would be best to move the divisions to adjacent Hatchie and let the enemy hurl himself onto my forts' defenses. After this has gone on for a few turns, and the enemy has lost at least 10,000 men, I'll be able to attack -- and with forces much stronger than they currently are, since I'll have had time to buy weapons and attributes, and perhaps even bring a division from out east by rail.


Move two divisions to Hatchie, to let the Union suffer from my forts first

I use up a good deal of my Guns stockpile buying Minie rifles for several infantry brigades in both theaters that currently have the weakest firearms. I also use some resources to build another camp, since those extra 500 reinforcement per turn will be greatly needed. In addition, I build a Signal Tower in Cumberland River (adds +40 to scouting check before battle and reduces chance of sneak attack). When Cumberland River is invaded, this will give me a greater advantage. I regret not building one in the Tennessee-Mississippi River province, too.

Finally, after hitting "End Turn" I am able to tell my Partisans to sabotage the railroad -- I had wanted to destroy supplies but this wasn't an option, which suggests to me that the Union brigade had already left Bowling Green before they got there.

Also at the end of the turn, for the first time, I get to choose an upgrade. Those four War Colleges with which I started the game finally produced enough research points (shown by those yellow light bulbs in previous posts), so I am given a choice of four upgrades: "indian training," which lets new indian brigades come into the game as high-quality units; "aggressive raiders," which makes raiders have greater success (and would be useless to me until I spend the 100 Horses necessary for more Raiders); "wheel training," which lets units in line formation in combat change the direction it's facing more efficiently; and, "target practice," which gives +10% in fire attacks. I choose this last one, because nearly all of my brigades look like they'll be fighting within the next few turns, and this will be far and away the most helpful upgrade.

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

At the end of the turn, I have my Partisans attempt to steal 22 Weapons, since I'd love to increase the size of my Guns stockpile. (I didn't spell this out before, but if Raiders or Partisans steal X Weapons, one's Guns stockpile increases by X. In other words, they don't steal specific guns, but rather the resource needed for me to purchase guns. This mirrors the reality of the situation during the Civil War, when so many southern weapons started off in northern hands.)

I also decide to demote Gen. Ewell, one of my 2-star generals. Two-star generals command divisions, and I have far superior generals who are only 1-stars. Ewell's ratings are: "normal" initiative, and "fair" leadership, tactics, command and cavalry. I've got generals with "good" and "great" ratings being wasted as brigadier generals, so in demoting Ewell 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. Ewell is from Virginia and that governor likes me quite a lot, so I can afford to do this.)

Does this decrease the capabilities of the general at all? In reality, the general would more than likely resign.

I also posted the idea about when you promote generals beyond division command they can get a bad trait "unfit for higher command". After thinking about it - I wouldn't do this trait for promoting corps commanders to army generals. Off course - a general that holds already the bad trait won't get rid of it by putting him on top of the army [:D]. The trait would impact some of the generals ratings in a severe way. If you demote him back to division command, the bad trait is NOT gone - but the effects are gone.

The only problem is that demoting "unfit for higher command" generals shouldn't be possible on the spot - otherwise the idea would yield no gameplay fun at all...

AU Tiger - I agree with you - a similar bad trait could exist when demoting back any general. Like a bad trait "disgruntled" or whatever. This trait should result in a fairly high chance that the gneral will leave the game.

Let's take an example - general Grant is one of the Unions most promising generals. He gets a promotion to corps command and unlucky for the Union he gets a "unfit for higher command" trait ... meaning his corps he will be commanding will not have the same performance as Lincoln would have expected.

After some turn - Lincoln decides to demote him back to division command ... Grant gets the "disgruntled" trait - but he doesn't resign as general ... he keeps his command as division commander with good "parameters" to lead his division to glory. Yet, general Grant retains his trait "unfit for higher command", but he's a division general and doesn't have to bear the negative consequences ... those are only acting at corps and army level.

Gil told us to debate after game release in the proposal sub forum ... [8D]

Here, I went back and took a screenshot of the bottom of the Events Report from Turn 8. Nothing too exciting...