|
tbriert -> RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the General Forum :-) ) (9/9/2008 9:52:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: von Beanie
And the abundance of Southern heavy cannon and cannon in the game is something that is mind-blowing given the extreme limitations of the historic iron ore deposits and foundries in the South.
This is the one item in the post I largely agree with. From a historical perspective, Von Beanie is 100% correct. Every game I have played, the Confederacy has been able to produce tremendous amounts of heavy artillery, far in excess of any capacity they had to mine the ore, cast the cannon, or smuggle the pieces in from Europe in the real war. Additionally, the CSA seems to be able to move its heavy artillery around at will, and very quickly to boot. One example is the much debated 'Kentucky Problem' where Fortress Paducah is immediately fortified and filled up with heavy guns immediately after the Rebel cavalry overrun it. This makes it impossible for the Union to use the rivers in the west for many, many months, as the two gunboats the North starts out with are no match for these Confederate fortifications, and even after substantial gunboats have been produced by early 1862, they still are likely to be defeated by the fortress's guns. (see my Glory Road AAR)
So, the two main problems I see are 1) too much CSA heavy artillery compared to historical capacity and 2) far too much ability to strategically move these pieces around the CSA very quickly, not reflecting how difficult it was in the real war to move heavy guns at all. In fac,t most heavy guns were never moved from their original emplacements, as it was too costly, time consuming, and logistically taxing. This goes for the North, by the way, as well as the South. I have read many accounts of campaigns, particularly in the Western theater, where there was a 'race against time' as the CSA was working for months to prepare forts/river gun emplacements, while the Union was trying to get fleets and troops there to capture them before they were completed. The current 'race against time' simply falls to whichever side happens to attack and move first, without any chance for the opposing player to contest.
I am willing to accept 1 on the assumption that it is a game play balance Gary has deemed necessary for the system. However, I believe #2 should be addressed.
I would like to see a change in how heavy artillery is handled, to make it both more historical, and force players to make more strategic decisions with where they deploy the heavies, and then live with the consequences. I would suggest:
1) Making all USA and CSA heavy artillery on map at the beginning of the game fixed units, unable to move for the entirety of the game. This gives both sides the benefit of pre-war fortifications.
2) Allow only newly produced heavy artillery to be moveable. Furthermore, make the moving of this heavy artillery pieces very difficult to move. Perhaps they should be unable to use strategic movement, period, but rather have to move tactically. This would forces players to decide where to produce the pieces, and then deploy them locally, rather than have heavy guns produced in Richmond and appear in New Orleans a week later, a feat the modern US Army might even have some difficulty with. I would also allow the heavy guns to be moved by sea/river transport, but at a much higher cost in transport capacity than currently. This would make it much more difficult for the Union to take Ft. Jackson or St. Phillip, then ship heavy artillery down the next month and completely block all trade on the Mississippi to the CSA.
The bottom line for me is that heavy guns should be of two types -- those that go with the original coastal fortifications and cant be moved, and those produced during the war, a precious commodity that takes time, planning, and strategic decision making into where they are deployed, and once deployed, the die is cast and they are committed to that position.
My two cents worth.
|
|
|
|
