Matrix Games Forums

I'd like to invite any and all questions about this game you may have. Just in case they may not pertain to the AAR....I'm sure there out there, fire away...

[8D]
Jon

Ok, how are amphibious operations handled? How about cavalry expeditions also? What effect would it have for the North to control the Mississippi from bottom to top? How are blue water operations different than riverine ones? How is the blockade prosecuted? I see there are (?)transport ships in coastal areas; is there a functioning transport network like WaW? What is the most exotic item on the research list? Is this game going to be too much for my pea-brain to assimilate [:D] ?

1) Amphibious landings are as AWD. The Transport costs are different. Each transpot has a 25 transport ability, and a 2 amphibious. Inf and Art transport costs are a 4, and Cav and heavy Art 5. Therefore 6 transports are need to land 3 Inf, at the invasion location.

2)If cav has the movement points it can scout, raid or attack.

3)Control of the Mississippi will keep supplies and troops pinned west of the River, and vis a versa.

4)There are 3 river types: Minor rivers, no naval ships; Major rivers, Gunboats and trasports only; Major rivers (deep), all naval ships allowed.

5)Yes, transports need to be in cascade inorder to supply ships and isolated ports.

6)Ironclads are the most exspensive item to build.

This game does need some personal application and desire. There are some genius concepts brought in. Over the last 9 months most have been streamlined into a very playable and exciting game.

[8D]
Jon

Controlling the mouth of the Mississippi river will also block trade to ports along the river from overseas. Also, controlling the river gives the Union player an easy way of moving troops and blocks resource movement from east to west.

A few questions:
 
1)  Does the game maintain detailed unit stats (i.e. what battles it fought it, casualties, major events, etc.)?
 
2)  Does the game maintain a detailed battle log for all battles fought (i.e. name of battle, leaders, size of forces, casualties, battle outcome, etc.)?
 
3)  Does the game have "fixed" ending points?  Meaning, when a certain date/number of turns have passed, does it end?  Or does it have a random ending where the events of the game dictate when it will end?  I personally like non-fixed endings so my actions end up deciding when things end.
 
4)  Foreign intervention possible?  If so, can you explain?
 
5)  Does the game include historical events?  Are things scripted at all or is everything random and base don actions you take?  I prefer non scripted.
 
6)  At the conclusion of a battle, what kind of results are shown (i.e. number of casualties, etc.)
 
7)  When looking at unit information, does it show actual "men" counts or does it use some kind of unit strength points?  I prefer everything showing by number of men since it gives a more personal feeling.
 
I'm sure I will come up with more later:)
 
 

1) Independent units arn't, however they can gain experence in battles fought. Their is a casuality screen which tells how many and of which type are damage or destroyed to date.
2)Major battles are recorded with the commanding Generals names, who won, and losses.
3)The game focuses on Lincolns reelection of Nov 64, and goes until Apr of 65 if he looses, if he wins it goes until July of 65. It can even end earlier if a players PP's fall below zero. So I would say non-Fixed endings.
4)No
5)2 different screens; The first one shows side by side losses, and captured artillery. The second shows Leader changes (command points), and leader losses.
6)It shows both.

[8D]
Jon

Thanks Jon.  Just a couple of quick clarificatons.  When you answered 'No' to #4, was that in reference to foreign intervention or hisotrical/scripted events question?  Just trying to better understand specifically my #4 and #5 questions.
 
Thanks again.

Original slybelle
Thanks Jon. Just a couple of quick clarificatons. When you answered 'No' to #4, was that in reference to foreign intervention or hisotrical/scripted events question? Just trying to better understand specifically my #4 and #5 questions.

Thanks again.

Jon's answer 5 and 6 are for questions 6 and 7.

There is no foreign intervention, only thing is that the Union can blockade the South's ports deriving the CSA of much needed supplies, that are suppose to come from abroad the States. but this cannot be classified as foreign intervention.

As to question #5 events are not script. Losing Richmond has BAD consequences to the South, same bad consequences when being low in PP (Political Points)

Also, naval items such as free trade and the ability to buy cheap commerce raiders is negatively impacted by the Union proclaiming the Emancipation Proclamation (making England less likely to help the CSA).

I am wondering how artillery is handled in combat (whether it's like AWD with suppression or more like WAW).
 
Actually I wouldn't mind finding out about combat calculations in general, but I'm sure the aar will get there eventually.
 
Thanks,
 
Rocco

It's more like WaW, however its attack factor is low enough that it rarely hits, but just softens up the target (other units get a bonus when attacking units already attacked by artillery).

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's more like WaW, however its attack factor is low enough that it rarely hits, but just softens up the target (other units get a bonus when attacking units already attacked by artillery).

This doesn't look very realistic, ACW arty was still direct-fire as it was under Napoleon, indirect shelling didn't exist and arty wasn't usable to soften targets and keep heads down.

The combat formulas are fairly abstract. Artillery was in fact used at long distance (mostly to scare off enemy artillery), which it does in this game. Extra artillery provides an advantage in combat when working in conjunction with infantry/cavalry, but will not by themselves cause a lot of casualties. It's really the interplay of all arms that has to be looked at. Remember in game terms each hit is equivalent to 1300 casualties, so their's a lot of abstraction going on in the combat resolution.

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

It's more like WaW, however its attack factor is low enough that it rarely hits, but just softens up the target (other units get a bonus when attacking units already attacked by artillery).

This doesn't look very realistic, ACW arty was still direct-fire as it was under Napoleon, indirect shelling didn't exist and arty wasn't usable to soften targets and keep heads down.

It depends on what you call indirect because indirect artillery isn't the same as line of sight. Indirect fire is any weapon such as a howitzer or mortar that doesn't have its bore pointing directly towards the target. They weren't lobbing shells 12 miles, but they were often lobbing them over walls and hills with smoothbores, howitzers and mortars. Shells with timed fuses were the most used ammunition (timed for air burst). Also case shot was widely used and airburst with a timed fuse (though short ranged but since much of the fighting was in wooded areas, long ranged artillery wasn't really needed in many battles). An important note is that direct fire artillery was a technical improvement over indirect artillery not the other way around.

Artillery was used as often as possible on the offense to destroy defensive positions and reduce the defender's cohesion.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The combat formulas are fairly abstract. Artillery was in fact used at long distance (mostly to scare off enemy artillery), which it does in this game. Extra artillery provides an advantage in combat when working in conjunction with infantry/cavalry, but will not by themselves cause a lot of casualties. It's really the interplay of all arms that has to be looked at. Remember in game terms each hit is equivalent to 1300 casualties, so their's a lot of abstraction going on in the combat resolution.

I'm not sure that the 'classic' three pronged combined arms model holds true in the US Civil War and WWI periods. But artillery/infantry combined arms was definitely important.

What I was trying to say was that artillery, unsupported by infantry or cavalry could not hold ground and would be subject to being overrun before they could inflict many losses on the enemy. It's working in conjunction with the other arms that artillery becomes valuable. It would seem that the bulk of the casualties caused by artillery was when used at short range in the defensive while supported by other arms. Attacking artillery was most often used to drive off defending batteries.

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

What I was trying to say was that artillery, unsupported by infantry or cavalry could not hold ground and would be subject to being overrun before they could inflict many losses on the enemy. It's working in conjunction with the other arms that artillery becomes valuable. It would seem that the bulk of the casualties caused by artillery was when used at short range in the defensive while supported by other arms. Attacking artillery was most often used to drive off defending batteries.

Your explanation is accurate for the period, and as far as I can tell it appears to be properly abstracted in the game mechanics as a modifier to other arms versus causing direct casualties.

D

Hi,
a new (and maybe silly) question about cavalry. It's easy to understand that cavalry has a main role when playing with FOW: but can cavalry scouting and harassing the ennemy rail network remain unnoticed by ennemy units (especially ennemy cavalry)? Cavalry is a precious resource and it would be very bothersome if it would be easily surprised instead of surprising... Can we use some tricks in order of seeing without to be seen?
Thanks for your attention

What are the differences between this & FOF?

I'll post some screen shots later so you can see for yourself... What occurrs is that unspotted units do not appear to your foe. Only cavalry scouting and units that have been engaged in battle will be seen. If units are pulled from the front and return the next month thier unspotted once agian. FOW opens this game to a level of suspense in not knowing where enemy troops are concentrated.