Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Early September 1862

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Early September 1862 Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 6:59:19 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		In FoF, promotions are not nearly as tightly controlled.

1.  You have a limited number of generals allowed at each "Rank".  Those limits can be increased by building acadamies.

2.  As long as you have a "slot" open, you can promote anyone into it.  A general can go all the way from 1 "star" to 4 at any time (so long as the slot is open).

3.  You can demote any general at any time.  Any general can always be demoted to 1 "star".  There must be a "slot" open for a lesser promotion.  So a 4 star could be demoted to a 3 or 2 "star" if such a slot is open and they could be demoted to a 1 star at any time since there are an unlimited number permitted.

4.  The promotion or demotion of a general impacts your standing with the governor of the state from which that general hails.

(in reply to AU Tiger_MatrixForum)
Post #: 421
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:04:54 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		If that's the case then why would you ever use a bad general? In the war both sides had to at times. It seems like you could always promote the best at the beginning of the war.

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 422
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:05:47 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		OK... let's see what happened now that the war is in full swing.

The siege in Jackson made some progress. Encircle really is an effective technique when engineering and artillery are not yet fully developed.

Ack! He avoided the battle in Lower Tennessee river. That little bugger sure is slippery.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 423
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:08:11 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		A few more buildings come on line. While camp output keeps growing, so too does the need for reinforcements. I still haven't even reached a break even point, let alone starting refilling the ranks.

Disease in Tallahassee. That little trip has been a difficult one for all involved. The losses were fairly light, mostly because the units are already badly depleted just from the trip.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 424
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:09:58 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		He somehow has the money to be investing in diplomacy still? And he's making progress too. Though there is still al long way for him to go before it becomes worrisome. I never like seeing the phrase "CSA conquers..." That will need to be looked into.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 425
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:11:33 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Looking out west, he not only slipped away in the Lower Tennessee, but he is moving south to engage those armies will all alacrity. Well, I guess the good news is I finally got him out of Nashville.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 426
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:12:36 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		And looking further south, he managed to cut my supply line, though with a meager force. Still it will have to be dealt with.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 427
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:15:56 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		I'll pull Keyes down as far as he can make it. I'd love to catch a rebel force now, but we seem to be playing cat and mouse and I doubt he'll march right into my most obvious path. Still, I need to quickly get into position to do something later and the obvious path is the fastest one. I'll pull the army from Little Rock to try and retake Yazoo. The army isn't a veteran bunch, but hopefully their numbers will prevail. Once Keyes is down, he can become the policeman and there should be time to return on Little Rock for a winter siege.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 428
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:17:30 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		I'll begin my Siege in Tallahassee, but even as weighty as the numbers first appear, the 11th Corp is not in good shape.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 429
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:20:46 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Virginia is tricky. Marching into the Shenendoah is very likely a trap. Why leave a little division there except to bait me as Robert E comes circling back? Still, supply is high and the army grows restless, so let us give it a try. If he doesn't come back now, we hold the heights and he'll be hard pressed to leave his soil in our hands.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 430
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:23:38 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		I'll bring my siege artillery to Kentucky for rendezvous. By next turn I'll have to decide if I should take them back to Nashville or to a softer target. Taking Murfreesboro would make it much harder for him to relive subsequent attacks on Nashville.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 431
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:26:28 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		For builds, I'll do the planned Mfg Center in NY. I'll put it in Buffalo since that is the city where I am most likely to build troops later on (due to its relatively weak economic performance). That leaves me in the unusual position of having excess cash with few other resources. This might be the time to invest in a lab and get my logistics research kick started. I'll go ahead and switch cities from labor back to cash. Surplus or not this turn, that's still what I seem to be most frequently running short on.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 432
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:27:44 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		And with the end of this turn, I receive not one but 2 advances. For the first, I'll enhance my inclimate weather performance.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 433
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:28:29 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		And the second is another engineering advance and the sweet taste of exactly what I was hoping for.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 434
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:30:05 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		And yet another turn is done. Many things are in motion now. While flags may not be raised and lowered until it all plays fully out, the outcome of the war may well be determined in the near future.

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 435
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 7:32:53 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

If that's the case then why would you ever use a bad general? In the war both sides had to at times. It seems like you could always promote the best at the beginning of the war.


If you are using historical/visible stats (which we are), then you should promote the best right at the outset (thus my earlier comment on Grant and a possible reason for his delayed availability - you can only promote the fellows who have made their debut). Those wishing to model the difficulty of going through generals and attempting to find and promote the right ones might prefer the random/hidden attributes option.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 436
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 9:16:48 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain
If you are using historical/visible stats (which we are), then you should promote the best right at the outset (thus my earlier comment on Grant and a possible reason for his delayed availability - you can only promote the fellows who have made their debut). Those wishing to model the difficulty of going through generals and attempting to find and promote the right ones might prefer the random/hidden attributes option.


The game provides two ways of handling generals, and most players will be able to live with at least one of them; but I think quite a few players will feel that neither way is completely satisfactory. Random/hidden gives the better simulation, but it makes the names of the generals meaningless, which is a bit sad.

I already posted about this some time ago so I won't go on at length here, but I can't resist mentioning it in this context.

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 437
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 9:45:22 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		I noticed in the screenshots there are corps and divisions without generals. I assume this means no general is better than a bad general. How about requring a leader in order to purchase a corps or a division? This would force both sides to use some of the less successful generals in order to field large armies. It's just not the civil war without generals like Butler, Banks, Fremont, Halleck, Pemberton, Bragg, or Pillow. As the game is now you'll never see them. I wouldn't mind seeing some promotions happening randomly either. Let's say General Sigel is in command of a division at the battle of Manassas. His troops luckily perform well despite the general's lack of ability. His friends at the war departement get him a promotion. At the next battle his corps commander is killed. You want to make General Logan the new corps commander but Sigel outranks him. Do you promote Logan over Sigel and anger his home state governor and possibly drive sigel to retire? What if a poor general is loved by his troops and you want to replace him? Do you risk lowering the troops morale or keep the bad general?

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 438
RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 4:18:02 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I noticed in the screenshots there are corps and divisions without generals. I assume this means no general is better than a bad general. How about requring a leader in order to purchase a corps or a division? This would force both sides to use some of the less successful generals in order to field large armies. It's just not the civil war without generals like Butler, Banks, Fremont, Halleck, Pemberton, Bragg, or Pillow. As the game is now you'll never see them. I wouldn't mind seeing some promotions happening randomly either. Let's say General Sigel is in command of a division at the battle of Manassas. His troops luckily perform well despite the general's lack of ability. His friends at the war departement get him a promotion. At the next battle his corps commander is killed. You want to make General Logan the new corps commander but Sigel outranks him. Do you promote Logan over Sigel and anger his home state governor and possibly drive sigel to retire? What if a poor general is loved by his troops and you want to replace him? Do you risk lowering the troops morale or keep the bad general?


Actually, all it means when there are units without generals is that I am too lazy to give them one. It is possible that units are better with no general at all - I'm actually not sure on that but I would assume TERRIBLE across the board would be worse than none at all. That said, I have plenty of decent generals that could be assigned if I were willing to take the time to think through the assignments. Gil wanted to play with the "More Generals" option. Personally, I prefer playing with less as haviung to balance and rebalance 100 generals and deal with the ripple effect every time someone new pops onto the scene is the point where I start not wanted to deal with the micromanagement. Add in the fact that I cannot promote anyone further and all the new 1 stars could only command a single brigade anyway, and I just haven't felt the value justified the time investment required.

The retirement of generals is an interesting angle that isn't included within the game but that has been discussed a few times on these boards. I strongly suspect that the rules around generals in general (sic) will get plenty of discussion once the game launches. It is just one of the topics that people tend to feel most passionate about.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 439
Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:31:40 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		There is a flurry of activity just ahead of winter setting in. The sieges in Tallahassee and Jackson both creep along.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 440
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:36:48 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Lots of battles to report.

It appears Lee did not return to the Shenandoah after all and allowed me to trounce his lone division.
There was a minor skirmish in Bowling Green. I don't think either of us has anything there of substance.

Hmmmm. He gets a win in Oxford and it is a real battle, not a small one. The casualty figures don't concern me. We'll win a war of attrition so I'll take that ratio. And when you combine that with the rest of the losses across the small battles, it is pretty darned even which is definitely a win for me. But did he fight Keyes or just a junk army? If that was Keyes, then that could be a concern.

National Will now -3? That is also concerning. Do the people not realize that even losses are good for our side?

And a minor skirmish in Yazoo. The big news is that he let me take Shenandoah and he won a fairly large fight in Oxford that will need a little more examination.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 441
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:40:05 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Ahhh, one last little battle in Jackson. But didn't the last line above say battle was avoided in Jackson? Did he send in two and only 1 fought? Hmmmmm. I'll take a look at that too.

Replacement needs now top 110K. Still not even close to turning the corner on that one.

And disease hits the AoP. Luckily the losses do not seem overly burdensome.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 442
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:41:43 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		The numbers in each brigade aren't all that bad, but they certainly do add up in total.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 443
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:43:13 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Diplomacy is thankfully quiet. Darn. I lost Cullum. He will be missed.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 444
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:48:33 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		OK, on to the battle report to get a better sense of these fights. Oxford was clearly the big fight and it was my best army that didn't perform so well. Some of my best brigades fled the field and let me down. 2 of my 3 Cav units dropped their weapons and ran. And 2 of my 5 divisional core brigades did likewise. That is doubly disturbing because I have now put those Improved Springfields in the hands of the enemy.

I also keep seeing CSA gains points towards Experience upgrade with far greater occurance than I see the same for USA. Unlike other upgrades, experience can only be earned in battle and even then only occasionally. It appears he is doing far better than I am in that regard.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 445
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:49:56 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		And a small skirmish in Jackson to round things out.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 446
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:52:17 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Looking out west, it is alarming to see that Sibley apparently did all of that damage to Keyes all by himself. He again has my supply lines cut and now my best troops have been beaten back and are likely not in position to retake Oxford.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 447
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:53:15 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Nashville is wide open and my newest siege force has collected at Bowling Green.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 448
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:54:58 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		While in Mississippi, Orme's corp continues the siege and the second army has secured Yazoo - though the benefit is reduces with his occupation of Oxford.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 449
RE: Early November 1862 - 11/18/2006 6:00:00 PM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Seeing Sibley alone, it is tempting to bring Keyes and the 2nd Army together against him. But looking at Keyes' supply, that clearly couldn't work. The army is badly depleted. Having just lost when well stocked, my hopes for a positive outcome in attack right now would not be good. It would take guts far beyond anything he has shown to date for him to come at me. And even with such low supplies, the numbers would be in my favor as well as the benefits of the defender. All-in-all, I suppose my only recourse is to sit and resupply for now as I am likely safe from attack but unable to myself strike. I need this army back on its feet though. If ever there was a case to be made for high supply priority, this is it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Early September 1862 Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.969