Matrix Games Forums

Sorry, but I don't understand why camps are priced so highly. 100 horses seems a bit steep considering the attrition rate. Hard to man the forces when you are too busy creating horse farms in a feeble attempt to create one lousy camp... am I missing something?

If I recall I get 500 men per camp, but when the force is losing 1000's it seems a bit insane. Hell, I think I would have become a horse farmer...Lord knows they are making a bundle. Hmmm, thats 1 horse per 5 men... can we please change these numbers.

Otherwise, I think the game is moving in the right direction... except for the model depicting losses.

Thanks,
Antsha

Most people would probably disagree with you. Especially those playing the CSA where they have horses coming out of their wazoo. Even as the union you will eventually get more than enough replacements, it just takes a little bit longer to build up since they don't have an excess of horses. But I played a game as the Union where I had literally no more casualties to replace because I had so many camps!!

I wouldn't find it exactly satisfying to see even MORE camps. Who wants to kill 20,000 troops only for them to be replaced instantly?

ORIGINAL: JonReb

I wouldn't find it exactly satisfying to see even MORE camps. Who wants to kill 20,000 troops only for them to be replaced instantly?

that's easy to answer - use your armies offensive in the west - and defensive in the east - you'll get huge corps containers in the east and your offensive containers in the west will consume the reinforcments. A few divisions and perhaps 1 corps container will blast like a hot knife trough butter and keep up their momentum.

I played like this in my CSA game - I vanquished many of the Union states west of Pennsylvania ...

In the "Game Balance" thread a lot of people seem to think that Camps should be harder to build, and we are presently considering making them have a monetary cost that is progressive by the number of Camps already in the province.  If you think Camps are too expensive now, go make your case on the "Game Balance" thread!  We really appreciate all the feedback we've gotten from players, and hope to do our best in the coming weeks to incorporate as much of it as possible into game updates.

ORIGINAL: spruce

ORIGINAL: JonReb

I wouldn't find it exactly satisfying to see even MORE camps. Who wants to kill 20,000 troops only for them to be replaced instantly?

that's easy to answer - use your armies offensive in the west - and defensive in the east - you'll get huge corps containers in the east and your offensive containers in the west will consume the reinforcments. A few divisions and perhaps 1 corps container will blast like a hot knife trough butter and keep up their momentum.

I played like this in my CSA game - I vanquished many of the Union states west of Pennsylvania ...

A good strategy, but that's not the point.

ORIGINAL: JonReb

A good strategy, but that's not the point.

what's your point then ? Facing Union armies in the west and besieging their cities will take a big toll on your army - so you'll need those replacements you have killed - cause sieges always come with a high toll ...

The point is being able to get 20,000 replacements with no penalty(except quality) every couple of weeks is too much. The way you handle your sieges and the large amount of casualties that come out of it shouldn't be a major reason to be able to get so many reinforcements.