Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I could look and tell you which it is.

I think we are far enough along for you to read my first page if you want to get an idea of what I am posting. I really doubt that would give anything important away and it might help us be more consistent.

I have a question - my impression from books was that Union Corps operated at about a full strength on c 15,000 men (3 Divs of c 2 - 3  Bdes c 5k per Div) and were often as low a c 10k but they had lots of corps
 
The Confeds operated larger corps and stronger Divs i.e c 6 - 10k men per Div.
 
If that is correct I assume that Corps and Divs are cheap to maintain as I would expect to be operating what c 20 Corps and 60+ Divs by 63?

I not seen that many in any of my games, I have played

more like 25 Divs, 4 or 5 Corps for me as the CSA

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The presence of that fort on the Kentucky side of the river creates no problems in gameplay. The only question is whether the Lower Tennessee River province in which it is located should begin the game as a CSA province rather than part of neutral Kentucky (in which case it goes whither Kentucky goes). I'll raise this with the people on the team who planned out the map.

Thank You. Just seemed totally unfair that the South might be penalized due to a map error...., and in the AAR it seems that they are. Statement that the Southern Player is unable to upgrade Ft. Henry because of "doings" in Kentucky doesn't sound right.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The presence of that fort on the Kentucky side of the river creates no problems in gameplay. The only question is whether the Lower Tennessee River province in which it is located should begin the game as a CSA province rather than part of neutral Kentucky (in which case it goes whither Kentucky goes). I'll raise this with the people on the team who planned out the map.

Thank You. Just seemed totally unfair that the South might be penalized due to a map error...., and in the AAR it seems that they are. Statement that the Southern Player is unable to upgrade Ft. Henry because of "doings" in Kentucky doesn't sound right.

while Kentucky is not taking sides, you can upgrade the fort, once Kentucky goes to the other side, then you can not, most times, you are too busy with what you got, trying to do what you need, to remember to upgrade it in time

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The presence of that fort on the Kentucky side of the river creates no problems in gameplay. The only question is whether the Lower Tennessee River province in which it is located should begin the game as a CSA province rather than part of neutral Kentucky (in which case it goes whither Kentucky goes). I'll raise this with the people on the team who planned out the map.

Thank You. Just seemed totally unfair that the South might be penalized due to a map error...., and in the AAR it seems that they are. Statement that the Southern Player is unable to upgrade Ft. Henry because of "doings" in Kentucky doesn't sound right.

while Kentucky is not taking sides, you can upgrade the fort, once Kentucky goes to the other side, then you can not, most times, you are too busy with what you got, trying to do what you need, to remember to upgrade it in time.

So I am right..., it's screwed up. Why should the choice of Kentucky effect what the South can do in Tennessee? It does need some map fixing. Thanks for the clarification....

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

The presence of that fort on the Kentucky side of the river creates no problems in gameplay. The only question is whether the Lower Tennessee River province in which it is located should begin the game as a CSA province rather than part of neutral Kentucky (in which case it goes whither Kentucky goes). I'll raise this with the people on the team who planned out the map.

Thank You. Just seemed totally unfair that the South might be penalized due to a map error...., and in the AAR it seems that they are. Statement that the Southern Player is unable to upgrade Ft. Henry because of "doings" in Kentucky doesn't sound right.

I just discussed this with Eric (= programmer & Prime Mover), and he confirms that the fort appears on the map the only place it can for computerish unit-placement issues. He also believes it should remain in the river province rather than being relocated to Pulaski province. For gameplay reasons, it makes sense for that province to become Union if Kentucky does. So we're going to leave it as is, but, as with so many things, this is an issue that can be reexamined once the game is out. But being so close to release, we're hesitant to make a change that affects gameplay when there isn't enough time to test how it affects the game.

Okay, I'll take my turn now. First, I wanted to point out that when I made the comment that Gen. H.H. Sibley was one of my best generals I should have noted that for the ordinary generals, the ones who show up just 9% of the time, we used random ratings. As the bios project continues, I hope to try to assign more realistic ratings to as many of the less famous generals as possible.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl





Thank You. Just seemed totally unfair that the South might be penalized due to a map error...., and in the AAR it seems that they are. Statement that the Southern Player is unable to upgrade Ft. Henry because of "doings" in Kentucky doesn't sound right.

while Kentucky is not taking sides, you can upgrade the fort, once Kentucky goes to the other side, then you can not, most times, you are too busy with what you got, trying to do what you need, to remember to upgrade it in time.

So I am right..., it's screwed up. Why should the choice of Kentucky effect what the South can do in Tennessee? It does need some map fixing. Thanks for the clarification....

hi Mike,
I see your point now, Ft Henry is in the lower Tenn river, but on our map that is in Kentucky

all, I know is they have there reasons, for the placements, my side was HW, so I just read what the others had to say

I have some questions =
 
- what are the cigars in Richmond on the strat. map - are they Confederate gunboats ? or like Ironclads ?
 
- can you build stations everywhere - is there an incentive to build them in the states that really matter for rail transport ? I would just build them in the middle of nowhere ... now there's a little contradiction ...
 
- do generals have special abilities, can you tell us some more ?

ORIGINAL: spruce

I have some questions =

- what are the cigars in Richmond on the strat. map - are they Confederate gunboats ? or like Ironclads ?

Ironclads. And they're staying there for now, because if I try to send them to join my fleet containers they'll be trounced by those Union ships lurking in the first sea zone I'd enter.

- can you build stations everywhere - is there an incentive to build them in the states that really matter for rail transport ? I would just build them in the middle of nowhere ... now there's a little contradiction ...

Railroad Stations are an abstraction that produce railroad movement points, so they can go anywhere. There is no opportunity to build new lines or extend existing ones.

That said, the idea of building them where they matter is intriguing -- perhaps if built in select cities they could give +7 movement instead. I'll try to remember this for consideration for a patch.

- do generals have special abilities, can you tell us some more ?

Generals have special abilities only in the sense that they can teach certain abilities to brigades under them (as Braxton Bragg did for me). In addition to permanently teaching abilities, generals have a chance of temporarily teaching abilities before a battle begins.

According to the West Point Atlas for the ACW, new rail lines were built in various parts of the Confederacy during the war -- in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina. Looking at the map, these efforts seem to have been poorly coordinated and sometimes unfinished, which is normal for the Confederacy.

Presumably the Union built more and to better effect, but the Atlas doesn't show it.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: spruce

I have some questions =

- what are the cigars in Richmond on the strat. map - are they Confederate gunboats ? or like Ironclads ?

Ironclads. And they're staying there for now, because if I try to send them to join my fleet containers they'll be trounced by those Union ships lurking in the first sea zone I'd enter.

- can you build stations everywhere - is there an incentive to build them in the states that really matter for rail transport ? I would just build them in the middle of nowhere ... now there's a little contradiction ...

Railroad Stations are an abstraction that produce railroad movement points, so they can go anywhere. There is no opportunity to build new lines or extend existing ones.

That said, the idea of building them where they matter is intriguing -- perhaps if built in select cities they could give +7 movement instead. I'll try to remember this for consideration for a patch.

- do generals have special abilities, can you tell us some more ?

Generals have special abilities only in the sense that they can teach certain abilities to brigades under them (as Braxton Bragg did for me). In addition to permanently teaching abilities, generals have a chance of temporarily teaching abilities before a battle begins.

Hey Gil, thank you ... again ... for your feedback. You seem to be a busy man ... let's hope the game is released pretty soon, so we can also have part of the fun ... (being somewhat sarcastic ... [:'(][:D][;)]).

Now to answer to your point about railroads, you come to the same conclusion as I ... railroads in some cities (border states ... or unfinished connections) could yield higher RR points. The idea can be further developed.

I think some places on the map where real chokepoints ... and were vital to ensure a good connection. Also more difficult to manage the connection.

Making it also more sexy for the Union to invade railroad "chokepoints" ...

I think in some cities the railroad can be "viewed" as more vital as they are the crossroad yielding more RR points. Perhaps lower the yield from regular stations a little and improve them of the chokepoints.

ORIGINAL: spruce

Now to answer to your point about railroads, you come to the same conclusion as I ... railroads in some cities (border states ... or unfinished connections) could yield higher RR points. The idea can be further developed.

I think some places on the map where real chokepoints ... and were vital to ensure a good connection. Also more difficult to manage the connection.

Making it also more sexy for the Union to invade railroad "chokepoints" ...

I think in some cities the railroad can be "viewed" as more vital as they are the crossroad yielding more RR points. Perhaps lower the yield from regular stations a little and improve them of the chokepoints.

Since RR Crossings are a "building" within each city and the computer is then calculating RR points based on those, I assume what you suggest would be easy to implement. You could even make the RR point expense cost of different routes to be different if you wanted to further model choke points. The real question is really not whether the computer could do the more complex calcs - that would be the easy part - but rather whether players would want to have to deal with having sim-RailRoad-Engineer be a part of this game. Is the additional complexity of having to plan the geography of your railroad investments worth it? Is it truly more fun or just more cumbersome? The answer to that is likely different for different people. If they did implement such an idea though, I would strongly suggest it be tied to a config switch. That's my two cents worth anyway.

ORIGINAL: jchastain

ORIGINAL: spruce

Now to answer to your point about railroads, you come to the same conclusion as I ... railroads in some cities (border states ... or unfinished connections) could yield higher RR points. The idea can be further developed.

I think some places on the map where real chokepoints ... and were vital to ensure a good connection. Also more difficult to manage the connection.

Making it also more sexy for the Union to invade railroad "chokepoints" ...

I think in some cities the railroad can be "viewed" as more vital as they are the crossroad yielding more RR points. Perhaps lower the yield from regular stations a little and improve them of the chokepoints.

Since RR Crossings are a "building" within each city and the computer is then calculating RR points based on those, I assume what you suggest would be easy to implement. You could even make the RR point expense cost of different routes to be different if you wanted to further model choke points. The real question is really not whether the computer could do the more complex calcs - that would be the easy part - but rather whether players would want to have to deal with having sim-RailRoad-Engineer be a part of this game. Is the additional complexity of having to plan the geography of your railroad investments worth it? Is it truly more fun or just more cumbersome? The answer to that is likely different for different people. If they did implement such an idea though, I would strongly suggest it be tied to a config switch. That's my two cents worth anyway.

Well - I think you are right on the fact that this game shouldn't be a train sim game. Altough I was considering that some of the counties in the North and South had a higher strategical importance for railroads then the others. This is hard for me to discuss as non-US citizen, but IIRC Chattanooga and Manassas where real railroad junctions (cross roads) making them "harder" to lose.

I think either investing in a junction or a regular county would still yield extra RR points. I was just considering that losing the station in a junction would be more hurting ... as the Union tried to do during the war with the South.

So my arguments are more or less directed towards the historical effect and the gameplay effect ... we don't want a train sim game - I agree with that [:)]

How to implement this with still having some fun with it in the game - well first of all - there should be a few junctions ... not too many. So a player should be able to see what a junction is - a little graphic icon - or whatever ... and if the station is lost - or the county is lost a malus is imposed. I think this is more difficult to implement.

Perhaps the most effective way to do what you suggest might be to create a new building ("RR Junction"?) that is similar to a university or an iron works - buildings that don't do anything themselves but that enhance the effect of others.  If you created such a building that increased the effect or RR Stations, then you could create those key junctions as starting buildings in the right locations which would incent players to continue their RR construction there and would also make them prime targets in the war.  The new building could be lumped into the "advanced buildings" option and because it would appear in the city as any other building, there are no complex rules to remember or tables to look up.  And since there are similar buildings already in place, it shouldn't be too difficult to implement.  That's the way I'd do it anyway.

I have to say, I like this idea of a RR Junction building quite a bit. It should be double the price (after all, you have TWO sets of tracks meeting), and would make a nice target. Definitely something to consider for a patch.

well I'm glad you guys seem to like the idea of Junctions and I think they'll ad up to the "roleplaying" element of the game
 
... damn - Sir, we shouldn't lose our precious railroad junction to those Northern fellows ...

One concern that I have are the numbers of soldiers being deployed to the field. I believe that the ANV never managed more than 80,000 men in the field. I know you said that there is a limit in place on the battlefield but Armies of 100,000 men just wasnt very popular in the ACW. Is there a way to go in and mod the OOB or just reduce the number of troops available to the armies?

ORIGINAL: regularbird

One concern that I have are the numbers of soldiers being deployed to the field. I believe that the ANV never managed more than 80,000 men in the field. I know you said that there is a limit in place on the battlefield but Armies of 100,000 men just wasnt very popular in the ACW. Is there a way to go in and mod the OOB or just reduce the number of troops available to the armies?

I'm told that this is doable. I don't know how myself, but it's probably just one of those .txt datafiles that you can rework in Excel. We'll provide info on this when the game comes out.

I'd say that the number of men under arms is not unrealistic, but players have a tendency to clump together their forces into really big forces. Perhaps modding the game to shrink the capacities of container units will have the desired effect.