Matrix Games Forums

We found a bug in the code that was taking leaders off map after being casualties. Gary fixed it yesterday and we're in the process of testing the fix. I can't say for sure that this bug explains what happened to you, but hopefully it does, and the fix will keep it from happening again. We should have a new public beta version to test soon, or the next version will become the official version. In either case, you should be able to get a new version soon that hopefully fixes this bug. Keep an eye out for problems with leaders once this next version is available in case we've still missed something. Thanks.

Joel:
 
I understand what you are trying to do -- but honestly I did not think that overproduction of Union ironclads was a problem to begin with.  The Union Navy should be overpowering and huge, especially after they complete the 2nd build cycle after 18 months.  In game terms, the Union needs to grow to 30-ish cruisers, 12-15 ironclads, 20+ gunboats, and about 100 transports.  That's a lot of production capacity that is needed.
 
On the other side, how many ironclads can the CSA pump out -- if they choose to.  They can build 4 on the Missisippi alone.  Can they actually more ironclads than the Federal navy -- if they choose to -- with the changes that are coming?
 
Time will tell I guess.  My initial reaction is, however, that something that was working already may be getting broken.
 
- P
 

By what time does the Navy have to get to those numbers? Are you accounting for units generally representing 2 major warships? I think by mid/late-1863 the Union should be able to build 12 Ironclad Fleets if they really want to. Is that not historically enough? As for the south, I agree we may be allowing too many ironclads on the Mississippi River. I'm looking for how you think that should be limited within the game system. Should New Orleans, Little Rock, or Memphis be removed from the areas that should be able to build Ironclads? Keep in mind that if the CSA builds ironclads in New Orleans or Memphis, he risks losing the region before the first ironclad is built.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

By what time does the Navy have to get to those numbers? Are you accounting for units generally representing 2 major warships? I think by mid/late-1863 the Union should be able to build 12 Ironclad Fleets if they really want to. Is that not historically enough? As for the south, I agree we may be allowing too many ironclads on the Mississippi River. I'm looking for how you think that should be limited within the game system. Should New Orleans, Little Rock, or Memphis be removed from the areas that should be able to build Ironclads? Keep in mind that if the CSA builds ironclads in New Orleans or Memphis, he risks losing the region before the first ironclad is built.

What was the critical resource? For ironclads, I suspect the critical resource was iron plate production.

USA has also been given a major edge in Arty production with the new limiters. If CSA builds 4 ironclads, it will basically stop recruitment of militia in the transmississipi scenario for a year, giving the Union another major advantage in manpower, another sector where its advantage is already massive against CSA.
The limiters mitigate the "what if" power in the hands of the player...it's up to him on how to apply a more accurate historical reconstruction to all other "what ifs" in the game strategy for both sides.

If you build 4 clads for CSA and don't lose NO in the meanwhile, you will lose in KY and TN much faster...and every time one of those clads is bombed by the Union Hvy Arty you lose 1 extra supply production capability due to repairs while still being outpowered in naval production on the river. Don't confuse "what if" with "what's best".

Joel:

Fair enough. Here's a concrete suggestion for you to consider:

1) I beleive the New York only Ironclad production for the Union will in the end, be viewed as too restrictive. New York is one of the best states to build factories early in the game because of all the infantry rebuilds that will need to be done there later in the game, plus the generally high population that is available. From a practical point of view, I think that the Union will not be able to get the 12 ironclads out there by mid-63 under the proposed revision. SUGGESTION --> Add New Jerswy back into the mix. The extra 3 production points should be enough to relieve the congestion.

ALso remember what Ironclads are there to do -- shoot at HA in forts. WIth VA, GA, AL, and TX still capable of building HA, I do not believe you have restricted HA prodcuction anywhere near what you are proposing for Federal Ironclads. Shooting at HA in level 2 forts is HARD, and takes a lot of ships.

2) Not to disparage the great city of Memphis, that is where I would take ironclad production away for the CSA. ALlowing it in NO should be fun, because of the map changes that are in v.03.

As an aside, I do not think that it is all that likely that the CS would lose it ironclads in drydock iff they commit to the project on turn 1. Start building all 4 on turn 1 or do not bother. Add in an Arkansas gunboat, and you have a very nice fleet on the Missisippi river, with nary a Union Ironclad to be seen.

Me like eating Federal Gunboats -- taste good and crunchy too!

Gshock -- as to whether this is something you SHOULD do -- that would have to be decided on the battlefield, now wouldn't it ?!?


- P

ORIGINAL: tran505



Gshock -- as to whether this is something you SHOULD do -- that would have to be decided on the battlefield, now wouldn't it ?!?


- P

You bet! [;)]

So......when is this puppy due off the presses??? I would like to start a new PBEM, but not til the 1.03 is official!