Specialization

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Specialization

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Specialization

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Specialization - 10/2/2008 6:59:48 PM

dakjck

Posts: 59
Joined: 10/22/2006
Status: offline

I thought leader specialization only mattered for CSC's. I am trying to use Pemberton as a Corps Commander. I have attached 6 infantry units and three artillery units to Pemberton. I also have attached 3 one star infantry generals and 3 artillery colonels to Pemberton, yet the interface still lists him as a -6. Does this mean that leader specialization impacts their Corps command and that you should never put infantry under an artillery corps commander?

Post #: 1

RE: Specialization - 10/2/2008 7:40:06 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Gary says he intended for artillery leaders to only be able to handle artillery (as far as sub-commanders go). He did not intend this for cavalry, but I did a quick test and it seems the same applies to cav leaders as well. So if you are using artillery or cavalry leaders as corps leaders, you should keep them pure (only artillery or cavalry attached respectively).

(in reply to dakjck)

Post #: 2

RE: Specialization - 10/2/2008 7:59:05 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Gary says he intended for artillery leaders to only be able to handle artillery (as far as sub-commanders go). He did not intend this for cavalry, but I did a quick test and it seems the same applies to cav leaders as well. So if you are using artillery or cavalry leaders as corps leaders, you should keep them pure (only artillery or cavalry attached respectively).

I can understand the artillery restriction, but not the cavalry. Ever hear of horse artillery--gallopers--and light infantry--who could march faster than cavalry?

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 3

RE: Specialization - 10/2/2008 8:30:40 PM

Erik Rutins

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Gary says he intended for artillery leaders to only be able to handle artillery (as far as sub-commanders go). He did not intend this for cavalry, but I did a quick test and it seems the same applies to cav leaders as well. So if you are using artillery or cavalry leaders as corps leaders, you should keep them pure (only artillery or cavalry attached respectively).

I think this is a display issue. I've used Sheridan as a mixed infantry/artillery corps commander many times. He contributes his modifiers as far as the combat detail goes, it must just not be calculating it properly for the CSC count? Or is it his CSCs that are affected in this case? He's a perfect example of where this needs to be possible though.

_____________________________

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 Joel Billings)

Post #: 4

RE: Specialization - 10/2/2008 8:40:17 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Gary says he intended for artillery leaders to only be able to handle artillery (as far as sub-commanders go). He did not intend this for cavalry, but I did a quick test and it seems the same applies to cav leaders as well. So if you are using artillery or cavalry leaders as corps leaders, you should keep them pure (only artillery or cavalry attached respectively).

I think this is a display issue. I've used Sheridan as a mixed infantry/artillery corps commander many times. He contributes his modifiers as far as the combat detail goes, it must just not be calculating it properly for the CSC count? Or is it his CSCs that are affected in this case? He's a perfect example of where this needs to be possible though.

Sheridan is the perfect example. Early in the war he led infantry and artillery (and probably a little cavalry); later he led cavalry and artillery.

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 5

RE: Specialization - 10/2/2008 10:10:17 PM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

As far as I know, the only issue is with the Sub-Commanders. Any Unit Coimmander can help any kind of unit. Gary did not intend for there to be an issue with units attached to Cavalry "Corps" commanders, just artillery. I do not know if this is a display issue with the CSC count, or if in fact the sub-commanders will not provide bonuses for units not of the artillery or cavalry Corps commanders type. I did also notice that the first artillery unit attached to an Artillery "corps" leader is not causing -1 for the sub-commander count, even when no sub-commander is attached. Seems like there is at least one bug here which we'll look at in future patches (probably not 1.030 as we're just wrapping that up now). For now, I suggest you use Artillery Corps commanders only for artillery units, and Cavalry corps commanders only for cavarly units. This is an annoying issue, but not one that should cause a major problem as long as you know about it.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 6