Sherman's March to the Sea?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Sherman's March to the Sea?

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 >> Sherman's March to the Sea?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/9/2007 6:48:25 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

I'm currently going through the Basic Game rules, so bear with me, and perhaps enlighten me.

How exactly are the concepts of crops/livestock represented in the game?

I live in Richmond, VA and frequent the wonderful Shenandoah, which as we know was a key agricultural area for the Confederacy. The thread title references Sherman's march and of course, we think of the massive destruction that it wrought.

So as I am reading the rules and focusing on Cities right now, I am wondering how exactly that wonderful province known as 'Shenandoah' a few miles to the west of me can really be portrayed accurately. Indeed, how does agriculture play into this game?

One can hypothesize that 'money' in the cities reflects the agricultural bounty. And yet, what if these provinces are taken by the Union? Still, nearby cities in Confederate control churn money, do they not? So in this case, the abstraction that money partly reflects agricultural produce and livestock wouldn't suffice.

Just curious as to what people have to say.

Post #: 1

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/9/2007 2:02:05 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

These concepts are represented by the money each province produces but are also partly rolled up into the nearest cities, as they contain the infrastructure and transport necessary to actually use these resources. Otherwise, what's grown in Shenandoah stays in Shenandoah. A final way in which this is represented is via the Forage value of each province, which determines how many troops can be supported there without additional supplies.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 2

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/9/2007 4:39:38 PM

Rexor

Posts: 295
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Oort Cloud
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

I'm currently going through the Basic Game rules, so bear with me, and perhaps enlighten me.

How exactly are the concepts of crops/livestock represented in the game?

I live in Richmond, VA and frequent the wonderful Shenandoah, which as we know was a key agricultural area for the Confederacy. The thread title references Sherman's march and of course, we think of the massive destruction that it wrought.

So as I am reading the rules and focusing on Cities right now, I am wondering how exactly that wonderful province known as 'Shenandoah' a few miles to the west of me can really be portrayed accurately. Indeed, how does agriculture play into this game?

One can hypothesize that 'money' in the cities reflects the agricultural bounty. And yet, what if these provinces are taken by the Union? Still, nearby cities in Confederate control churn money, do they not? So in this case, the abstraction that money partly reflects agricultural produce and livestock wouldn't suffice.

Just curious as to what people have to say.

I think this is a good point, SittingDuck. As Erik has pointed out, money is the abstraction, broadly speaking, for what you're talking about (in addition to foraging). Perhaps the money output of each province could match its foraging value? In other words, make the Shenandoah, the CSA's "breadbasket," worth something like eight dollars. As it is now, I think all the non-city provinces are worth a uniform two dollars. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.)

Anyway, a good suggestion for the Wish List perhaps....

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 3

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/10/2007 1:15:30 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

OK, let's say all the non-city provinces in VA or some other heavily important agricultural state for the CSA are taken, leaving only a city province or two. How can this adequately be represented? Those types of territorial losses would be HUGE for the long-term welfare of the army and nation itself. No way the city provinces should still be creating all that money.

I will really have to read up on supply and all that before I can go further in commenting.

(in reply to Rexor)

Post #: 4

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/11/2007 8:59:27 PM

shangrila

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/6/2006
Status: offline

The other thing is territories such as Abingdon Va should have a huge value or at least an important Fort.
Saltville is located there. Kenawha would be another important zone for this.
Saltville was heavily defended and was attacked. Salt was THE most important commodity to keeping troops and general population fed. It was the largest salt mine the south had and gave a huge % of salt to the country pre war. The union staged it's attacks because the Salt was so important.

Controlling zones that had things like salt should directly affect your ability to supply your population(effecting population growth also). The only meat the CSA troops generally saw was bacon. You need salt for that :)

"Salt played a key role in the U.S. Civil War and on the the present. Early in the war, Union forces captured key Confederate saltworks in Louisiana and Grand Saline, Texas. Then, finally, in December, 1864, Union forces made a forced march and fought a 36-hour battle to capture Saltville, Virginia, after earlier attacks had failed ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 ). Saltville was the site of the Confederacy's last important salt processing plant, essential to sustaining the South's beleaguered armies. Two years earlier, federal troops targeted a Florida saltworks. Civilian distress over the lack of salt in the wartime Confederacy undermined rebel homefront morale too ( 1 2 ). Salt was critical to locating the city of Lincoln, Nebraska and West Virginia claims salt as its first mineral industry. The important role of salt in Kansas history will be captured in the Kansas Underground Salt Museum scheduled to open in September 2005 in Hutchinson, KS. The vast distances in the American West sometimes required passage over extensive salt flats. " ...
"Reports from Onondaga, New York in 1654 indicated the Onondaga Indians made salt by boiling brine from salt springs. Colonial Americans were making salt by boiling brine in iron kettles during the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted. By the time of the Civil War, 3,000 workers produced over 225,000 short tons of salt by boiling. Settlers reported that native Americans made salt at Kanawha, West Virginia before 1755 by boiling brine from salt springs. Large scale salt production from brine springs was underway by 1800, and the process of drilling for more concentrated brine began within a few years. The Kanawha valley supplied the Confederacy with salt during the Civil War, when production peaked."-saltinstitute.org

The Erie canal was built to haul salt!

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 5

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/11/2007 9:32:50 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

I agree it might make sense to have some of the non-city provinces worth more than others in terms of contribution to the economy. As it is right now though, that's really lumped into the nearest regional "city" with the assumption that the country side tended to provide raw materials while the industry and transport, such as there was, was in the cities.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to shangrila)

Post #: 6

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/11/2007 11:02:48 PM

cerosenberg

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline

FYI

There are two important facets to supply: the product and the transport. Niether side in the Civil War pocessed the ability to eliminate the production of the other. Logistical control meant control of the transportation. In the civil war this was control of the rivers, seas and most important railways. Road transport had a maxium of 25 to 30 miles in a day. The requirements of fodder meant that an Army could only be 3 to 5 days from a major supply site unless said Army remained on the move.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 7

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/12/2007 1:09:23 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Shangrila,
If you can add your idea to the Wish List thread we'll keep it in mind. As for a fort in Abingdon, do you know of one that existed in 1861 and therefore should be added?

(in reply to cerosenberg)

Post #: 8

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/12/2007 1:25:11 AM

LMUBill

Posts: 39
Joined: 12/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Shangrila,
If you can add your idea to the Wish List thread we'll keep it in mind. As for a fort in Abingdon, do you know of one that existed in 1861 and therefore should be added?

Never was a fort in Abingdon, unless some small fortifications were built around the railroad depot there. what Shangri-la was referrring to was the large fortifications around Saltville a few miles away. (Which are still there) In the game, Abingdon is the closest place you can have a fort and I think they were wondering if there could be a way to represent Saltville in the game. It was an important objective of both sides.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/12/2007 11:57:45 PM

shangrila

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/6/2006
Status: offline

Yes as LMUBill stated I was refering to Saltville in the Abingdon "hex" of the map.

Including the major ones in the game would be a nice addition. FL, NY, Texas, Kenawa Va, Abingdon etc. I'm unfamiliar with fortifications at the others, but Saltville had a pretty impressive brestwork/rifle pits entrenchments etc...

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 10

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/13/2007 12:02:01 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

What do others think? Should a Fort I be added to Abingdon? And would it be present in the July 1861 scenario, the November 1861 scenario, or only later scenarios?

And what would such a fort be called? "Saltville Defenses"?

(in reply to shangrila)

Post #: 11

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/13/2007 1:29:50 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I agree it might make sense to have some of the non-city provinces worth more than others in terms of contribution to the economy. As it is right now though, that's really lumped into the nearest regional "city" with the assumption that the country side tended to provide raw materials while the industry and transport, such as there was, was in the cities.

Not to argue the point, but a counterpoint for that:

If you take away the raw product, you have nothing to work with. Have your cities and population and transportation and all that. I have ALL the rest of the countryside in my possession, meaning people starve to death.

Well, not even sure why I brought this up. I guess to get some insight on something I might be missing. To me, it is too late to adequately mirror the importance of agriculture in the game so that it has a true strategic value, one that is indeed VERY important. The program is written.

This is no slight on the design of the game. What game actually does do this?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 12

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/13/2007 1:57:42 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Well, losing the countryside and all those 2 money provinces does add up to some significant economic pain, it's just that each individual one is no big deal but in total they are important. I do agree it would be nice to have some more important than others and perhaps allow them to produce something other than money, but I think going any more complex than that will add too much additional overhead to the game.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 13

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/13/2007 2:20:19 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

I can appreciate that. You have to draw the line at some point.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 14

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/13/2007 10:58:45 PM

cerosenberg

Posts: 39
Joined: 5/4/2007
Status: offline

Basically, Provinces that do not have an open railline or river to a city (or sea lane in the case of the North) should not be able to contribute supply: money, men, iron, horses, etc. to the government. They can only supply, via forage, troops in said province. Note that I have ignored road transportantion and the question of whether or not a province is adjcent to another with a city or open connections. Road transportion was so inefficient that it can be ignored on the scale of FoF which also applies to the question of adjacent provinces. (One might agrue that Sea Lanes should be considered for the South if Britian or France join the war. However, it is extremely unlikely that merchants would venture into a war zone.)

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 15

RE: Sherman's March to the Sea? - 7/14/2007 7:35:11 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerosenberg
Note that I have ignored road transportantion and the question of whether or not a province is adjcent to another with a city or open connections. Road transportion was so inefficient that it can be ignored on the scale of FoF which also applies to the question of adjacent provinces.

Except that the Shenandoah was vital for Virginia. So I can't buy that completely, because I well know the road system of Virginia and have a good idea of what it was like during the war. They did what they had to in order to get it to the troops.

An attempt was made in the area of agriculture. It wasn't perfect but nothing is, and as Eric pointed out, not within the scale of the game's desired complexity.

But I won't rationalize this away. I just choose to accept it and move on.

< Message edited by SittingDuck -- 7/14/2007 7:36:40 AM >

(in reply to cerosenberg)

Post #: 16

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Sherman's March to the Sea?

Page: [1]