|
Mr. Smith -> Industrialization, Leaders, and Divisions (7/16/2007 4:56:23 AM)
|
The game is outstanding! I haven't had a game this much fun in quite awhile. If you don't own it, do yourself a favor: schedule some time off, put the pizza guy on speed dial, and order it.[sm=happy0065.gif]
A couple of questions:
1) Regarding industrialization, does the investment level need to be mantained turn to turn? Can the investment level be reduced/stopped without negative effects? My questions is about what does the investment simulate: an influx of cash to encourage new development or funding for existing industry?
Along this line, is it possible to change a state's rating, say from average to good to excellent?
2) What determines the maxium number of divisions a side can have?
How do you increase this number if possible?
3) Regarding leaders, I think the activation system works very well in simulating the sluggish nature of most commanders in the Civil War. The frustration of national command authorities is certainly imparted to the player. Part of what made the outstanding generals stand out was their ability to get moving and seek battle. This was a desirable but infrequent quality on both sides (more so for the Union) and it is modeled well. However, I am curious from a design stand point on a couple of points:
The assignment of commanders from brigade to army was literally done at the stroke of a pen and could be transmitted in days, if not hours. Why the delay in making the assignment? The movement and aggresion level could still be penalized, but the commander would be named and units assigned.
Similarly, why the limitation on number of divisions? If I recall correctly, the division were an arbitrary designation for organizational purposes usually created by the Army commander in the Civil War. What I mean is, the nations and states did not raise divisions per say, neither did they count how many they had on the rolls. They raised and counted regiments which were then be combined to form brigades, divisions often after they had deployed to an Army. So you literally could have an infinite number of divisions, brigades, and corps. For example, the were several 1st Divisions in the Union Army throughout the war, in different Corps and different theaters sometimes existing at the same time. The formation of Armies and to a lesser extent Corps followed a different path.
Likewise, why do states raise brigades instead of regiments?
Part of the reason I raise these questions is that you have many commanders available for assignment but are unable to employ them (as far as I have discovered). Historically, most of the leaders generated began as brigade commanders, like Longstreet, Jackson, Meade and Sherman, and it would seem appropriate to model that. Not complaining; just curious.
I have played the April, '61 scenario half way through at this point and lack a manual, so my questions may be answered elsewhere. I apologize if that is the case.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
