quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

What is this uber stack you are speaking of?

Because each area in this game encompasses hundreds and hundreds of square miles. This is an area based game, not hex.

So the "uber" stacks youa re talking about? They actually existed. While sometimes armies were broken up do to foraging/supply issues (Longstreets Corps being sent away in 1864, IIRC, for example) the idea that the game needs some mechanism to force the players to spread out is simply fallacious. Preumably, they ARE spread out, all within the area they occupy.

I don't ahve any real problem with the winter dispersion, but disease hits in the summer as well. I would REALLY like to see the historical evidence that suggests that Armies at the time were not concentrated at the scale the game represents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
So the Confederacy can't build plantations without slaves -- but the Union can?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg
Is it really all that essential that "Plantations" accurately model the plantation economy? I just view Mansions/Plantations as an abstraction of the need to invest in the local infrastructure in order to reap the benefits of increased local production. Mansions offer a high-cost, low-time option with limited payback. Plantations offer an lower-cost, longer-time investment with a larger payback. They are simply different paths to achieve the same thing. Is anything really gained by making it more complicated than that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
So, what happens in the game if new palntations/farms can't be built after Emancipation??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.

I like these ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Er, no. The Union can't build plantations. The Confederacy can. However, if the Confederacy chooses to emancipate, then it can no longer build new plantations. Existing ones continue to operate. As far as how many resources the Confederacy has to build anything, that depends on the game settings.

Regards,
- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

As far as camps go, speaking of an area which has a lot of interest, we're talking about (1) making the cost of additional camps in a city progressive beyond the first camp, (2) tying the reinforcement rate from a camp into the population of the province, perhaps 300+15*Men -- if the advanced population rules are on, then this would be the average of the current Men and maximum Men, otherwise it would just be the maximum Men for the province, and (3) giving camps a chance to reduce the province's Men by 1 in the Early April turn.

I like these ideas.

In my mind, the fix for camps could be even simpler - don't make them exempt from building capacity. If they filled cities like other developments and required the construction of a mansion, then that would both slow construction and add to their cash cost (indirectly).

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

To avoid uberstacks, there are lots of ways besides disease you could do that -- limitations on supply into any single province, or declining effectiveness of armies above a certain size, or weakening command effectiveness, just for beginners.

quote:

110) CHANGE V1.3.0: Infantry attacking other infantry in quick combat now have their damage adjusted closer to the average damage dealt by both units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
The Union can't build plantations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

What is this uber stack you are speaking of?

Because each area in this game encompasses hundreds and hundreds of square miles. This is an area based game, not hex.

So the "uber" stacks youa re talking about? They actually existed. While sometimes armies were broken up do to foraging/supply issues (Longstreets Corps being sent away in 1864, IIRC, for example) the idea that the game needs some mechanism to force the players to spread out is simply fallacious. Preumably, they ARE spread out, all within the area they occupy.

I don't ahve any real problem with the winter dispersion, but disease hits in the summer as well. I would REALLY like to see the historical evidence that suggests that Armies at the time were not concentrated at the scale the game represents.

In a perfect world, the game would have more provinces. But it doesn't. Hence, much of the maneuver that occurred in real life isn't possible at this scale. Without the disease model, the game would devolve to my perpetual stack on my front line versus your perpetual stack on your front line. I like the fact that the game forces more fluidity, even if it doesn't perfectly match the scale.

Fluidity = good. Stagnation = bad. Scale, I can live with. Again, an abstraction of the literal that, I think, produces a better result overall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

83) CHANGE V1.2.7: A brigade with a Medical Attribute now lowers disease losses by 20% for all units directly attached to the same military group or fort; brigades with two Medical Attributes lower disease losses by 40%. This supercedes the old rule under which the Medical Attribute reduced disease losses by 50% only for the brigade with the attribute.