1.030 Patch in the works (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States



Message

Joel Billings -> 1.030 Patch in the works (10/12/2008 7:26:08 PM)

Just wanted to let everyone know that we've been working hard on a patch for the past month and we're close to releasing it as a public beta. Unless we find something that needs fixing in the next day or two, Matrix plans on making it available later this week. We've had a good group of testers playing it for several weeks so hopefully it won't take long to move from public beta to approved patch. Since we've pretty much locked in the changes for this patch, I though I'd list them so you know what's coming soon:

· New Features

1. Map Change – The Mississippi R2 region has been made larger by extending it south into some of the area that used to be Mississippi R1 region. The impact of this is that Baton Rouge no longer is adjacent to the Mississippi R1 region, which means it will no longer be able to fire on amphibious invasions of New Orleans coming from the Mississippi R1 region. Although this map change will appear in the map art when you load an old save game file, in order for the impact on the regions to take affect you must start a new game.

2. Rule Change – On the player-turn on which Kentucky is first invaded, no overrun combat is allowed, and no amphibious invasions of Kentucky are allowed. At the end of this player combat will be immediately executed in all Kentucky regions containing combat units.

3. Rule Change/Exception – In order to support a ground attack on Fort Jackson (area 8) or Fort St. Philip (area 415), ships must be located in Mississippi R1a (area 404). Ships may no longer support attacks on these regions while in the Gulf of Mexico.

4. Rule Change – When a leader is hit in combat, he will continue to provide a combat bonus to units under his command during the rest of the combat, but the leader’s ratings will be reduced by 1 for the purpose of calculating these bonuses.

5. Rule Change – Attrition is now increased in swamp areas. During summer turns, all units in swamps must check for attrition, and the attrition is not divided by 4 as it is for other supplied units in the summer. The formula is also altered for units in a swamp to include a new variable P as follows: (((W+E)xS)+P)/T. P is set to one of the following values:
1 – For all units in swamp areas with at least one population or resource center.
3 – Confederate units in swamp areas with no population or resource centers.
5 – Union units in swamp areas with no population or resource centers.
Examples: A Union Militia unit in Tampa in June would have a (((1+1)x1)+5)/2 or 3.5% chance of being eliminated. A Confederate Infantry unit in Fort Jackson in August would have a (((1+0)x1)+3/1 or 4% chance of being damaged.

6. Rule Change – Production of certain unit types are now limited to certain states. They are as follows:
Artillery and Heavy Artillery – Only allowed to be built or repaired in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, Alabama and Texas (represents artillery brought in through Mexico).
Cruisers – Not allowed to be built or repaired in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey.
Ironclads – Not allowed to be built or repaired in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, New England.
The computer AI will try to abide by these restrictions. In addition, there may be some cases where units are sent to areas for repair that are not allowed, but when this happens, repair will be possible.

7. Rule Change – Whenever Lee is located outside of the Eastern Theater (see section 6.5), for purposes of leader illness (section 6.7); Lee will be treated as if he has a mortality rating of 9 (instead of 1).

8. Rule Change – Whenever the Confederacy wins a strategic victory in a northern state (not border states even if aligned or a permanent member of the USA), the Confederate player will be awarded 40 political points (instead of 20) and the Union player will lose 20 political points (instead of 10).

9. Rule Change – Heavy Artillery units that have moved during their most recent turn will have 3 subtracted from their die roll when they fire.

10. Rule Change – The Union player gains 5 Political Points at the end of any Union turn in which he has moved into any one of the following territories, if Confederate controlled, with at least 30 combat units: Manassas, Richmond, or any region adjacent to Richmond. These points are not gained if Richmond is Union controlled.

11. Rule Change – If the Union player does not move at least 15 combat units into Manassas on turn 1 of the Battle Cry of Freedom (1861 start) scenario, the Union player will lose 10 Political Points at the end of the Union turn.

12. Rule Change – Joseph E. Johnston no longer has initiative on turn 1 of the Battle Cry of Freedom (1861 start) scenario.

13. Rule Change – Units now check against the Scouted Level just prior to the Reaction Phase instead of just prior to the Combat Phase.

14. Data Change – Increased the transport cost of Heavy Artillery from 5 to 12.

15. Data Change – Increased the Defense Rating of George G Meade to 4 (was 3).

16. Data Changes – Changes to setup of Battle Cry of Freedom (1861 start) scenario. Moved the Union fleets in the Gulf further from the Mississippi River so they cannot attack the forts in Louisiana on turn 1. Added leaders DuPont and Goldsborough and removed leaders Alden and Ward. Removed two Union transports from area AC7 and added a gunboat in production to Philadelphia. Norfolk is now at Fort Level 1 in all scenarios.

17. New Feature – Fort icons will now show up in regions with enemy ghost (unspotted) symbols.


· Bug Fixes

1. Bug Fix – Cavalry and Mounted units were incorrectly being allowed to scout or raid after moving strategically. This has been fixed so that units that move strategically may not raid or scout on the same turn.

2. Bug Fix – Supplies were not getting built automatically in the area where a factory was being built on the turn of the factory’s completion. Factory completion will no longer interfere with supply production.

3. Bug Fix - Heavy artillery was not getting the benefit of artillery sub commanders (i.e. says the corps is missing sub commanders for HA units even when there are arty commanders available). Heavy artillery will now get help from sub commanders.

4. Bug Fix – Unit’s not attached to a leader prior to combat were in some cases not getting the combat benefit of the automatic attachment to an available leader in the area. Now unattached units will get a combat benefit if they are able to automatically attach prior to the combat.

5. Bug Fix – In some cases ships in combat were being treated as if they had been fired upon earlier in the turn when they hadn’t. This should no longer happen.

6. Bug Fix – Units in an area not on a supply grid were sometimes not auto-foraging, as they should have. They will now auto-forage if there are resources in the area.

7. Bug Fix – In some cases, leaders were only giving combat bonuses to friendly firing units but not friendly defending units. Leaders will now always help out with both firing and defending when they help a unit.

8. Bug Fix – After Kentucky had become a permanent Confederate state it was incorrectly possible for the state to become Union aligned after the EP was declared. This will no longer happen.

9. Bug Fix – In some cases population would improperly accumulate in parts of Kentucky that were Union controlled when the state was a Permanent member of the Confederacy. This has been fixed.

10. Bug Fix - Units used to incorrectly be able to damage infrastructure in enemy areas. This is no longer possible. The area must be friendly controlled in order to damage infrastructure.

11. Bug Fix - When op-fire happened against naval units with sub commanders, sometimes the sub commanders got shot at instead of some of the ships, and those ships get left unmoved. This has been fixed.

12. Bug Fix - Artillery firing at units in the artillery fire phase were not spotting the units fired at. They will now cause spotting to happen.

13. Bug Fix - Sub-commanders could be named as acting army commanders in a battle. This will no longer happen.

14. Bug Fix - Army commanders that get initiative should always have amphibious initiative, and now they will.

15. Bug Fix – South Carolina was incorrectly being treated as being in the Western Theater for Leader Activation. It is now part of the Eastern Theater.

16. Bug Fix - With FOW on, and the Show No supplies and infrastructure off, supplies in some areas would not show up on the map. This has been fixed.

17. Bug Fix - Fixed a rare display issue where a leader could be listed as a Unit Commander in a battle in the detailed combat report screen even when the leader was not in the combat region.

18. Bug Fix – It was possible for the Union blockade value in a region to become negative when playing with Sub-Commanders, and this could increase the Confederate free trade. This can no longer happen.

19. Bug Fix – Fixed a data bug that prevented movement from Washington to Manassas (but not the other way around) in the 1862 and 1863 scenarios.

20. Bug Fix – Leaders that could not trace a rail and/or transport link to a Theatre Commander were not getting help with initiative from the TC even if within six regions. Now leaders just need to be within 6 regions and do not need to have a rail or transport link.

21. Bug Fix – In some rare cases units not on a supply grid were still getting supplied. This should no longer happen.

22. Bug Fix – In some cases naval leaders were being blocked from moving on land. This has been fixed.


· AI Enhancements

1. Improved AI – The Union AI has been improved to produce slightly more supply and should be less likely to over produce artillery.



Jutland13 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/12/2008 10:04:22 PM)

This looks great. Well done, is there any more to prevent WWII type blitzkreig overruns? What about increasing the movement cost to leave an overrun hex, so that only cavalry could achieve this?



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/12/2008 10:39:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jutland13
This looks great. Well done, is there any more to prevent WWII type blitzkreig overruns? What about increasing the movement cost to leave an overrun hex, so that only cavalry could achieve this?


Exactly what kind of "blitzkrieg overrun" problem are you seeing?



Jutland13 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/12/2008 10:57:03 PM)

An example would be Lee at Manassas with a large force and a Union force overruning the valley and then large forces exploiting through to occupy Staunton, Fredericksburg and Appomatox. These forces are large enough that they cannot in turn be overrun and attacking them allows the Union to react with a larger army.  I agree as the CSA you need to maintain large forces in the East. But it is hard to imagine Lee sitting in Manassas with a large force and not reacting as the all of these areas are overrun around him. The same can be said in the West below Tennessee, with so many open areas the Union can isolate and cut off CSA forces, while these forces are unable to respond. The Union can use their Army to break the line in a weak area and flood cavalry and some other corps through the hole, While the CSA Army sits in an adjacent hex powerless and likely finds itself cutoff. The fact that forces can keep checking to see if they have enough forces to overrun aids this process. In this way they can committ enough forces for the overrun and hold back any extra/spare forces to push through. With each turn representing a month, basically the CSA army sits for a month while it can be surrounded or cut off by these acts. This can be used very successfully by the Union. My point being a large CSA force/army should not just sit and be surrounded without reacting or influencing the overrun perhaps increasing movement costs through the area or overrun requirments of adjacent areas. Maybe adjacent forces should cause the overrun to occur in the combat phase and not the movement phase. If there are no adjacent forces, then an overrrun and exploitation could occur normally.



tevans6220 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 12:04:41 AM)

Not sure I like the rule change regarding Lee. Keeping Lee in the Eastern theater is a smart move and what happened historically. But it was very plausible that Lee could have been sent west. Davis even suggested it several times during the war. I just don't undestand the thinking behind changing the mortality rating if Lee goes west. What is there in Tennessee, Missouri or Mississippi that would cause Lee to become more likely to face death or illness than in Virginia? Why not go a step further and force Grant and Sherman to stay in the west until 1864? It seems like a rule with no purpose. Historically Lee stayed in the east but gamewise if I've got the east covered and I'm losing in the west, Lee's going west. This rule practically makes Lee immortal in Virginia but very mortal everywhere else.



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 1:21:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jutland13
An example would be Lee at Manassas with a large force and a Union force overruning the valley and then large forces exploiting through to occupy Staunton, Fredericksburg and Appomatox.


That's quite easy to stop. That can only happen if you're not defending those places as the CSA. You don't need a very large force in the Valley to prevent it being overrun, as long as you build a Level 1 Fort in the bordering regions.

Frankly, overruns are fairly rare if you've got opponents who are carefully watching their lines and making sure to plug any overrun possibilities. Virtually all battles end up being real battles with reaction chances after the first few turns of overruns in border states.

What you're describing really sounds to me like the CSA player just isn't deploying his forces carefully enough and fortifying enough areas to prevent overruns. Don't try to defend everywhere and let yourself be encircled or outflanked. Keep enough force in key areas to prevent overruns and allow reactions. Conserve your supplies and build factories early so that you have enough supply to fortify throughout the war.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 1:27:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Not sure I like the rule change regarding Lee. Keeping Lee in the Eastern theater is a smart move and what happened historically. But it was very plausible that Lee could have been sent west. Davis even suggested it several times during the war.


It was suggested and as I understand it, Lee made it clear that he would not go along with that suggestion. Unlike Grant or Sherman, who would have served wherever they were assigned, Lee felt quite strongly about serving Virginia and only in Virginia.

Mortality ratings are based primarily on historical events. Lee served out the war in Virginia and although he had a few close calls, he made it through the entire war. His issues with health and his tendency to lead from the front were well known though. So a mortality rating of 9 reflects what might have happened given these issues had he not served out his "historical war" in Virginia. Additional travel, different weather, different terrain (like swamps and more heat) all could have made campaigning elsewhere harder on Lee than his historical campaign proved to be (which was already pretty darn hard).

Lee is a fairly unique case because of his strong desire to stay in Virginia and his health issues (and the fact that he's the best general on the map). Note that even with a Mortality of 9, an AC is quite unlikely to be taken out of action. This effectively represents a very minor increase in risk if you choose to use Lee ahistorically. It makes for a great "what if" to have Lee blunting Grant's drive down the Mississippi, but this rule encourages the player to weigh the pros and cons that might have been in play historically had this somehow been made to happen.

Regards,

- Erik



Doc o War -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 1:28:48 AM)

Tevans6220- I think the consensus among the playtest players based on history was just that- Lee was immortal in Virginia- the man gave his entire being to its defense. He was resistant to commanding elsewhere and Jeff DAvis frankly- didnt want to put a Virginian in Command of Western Troops. It had to be a Westerner. It sort of makes it wise to leave him in the East- there are other commanders who can handle the West. Why risk loosing him? There is no rule to stop you from sending the best corps commanders to the west.

I do think perhaps If we keep Lee in Virginia we should probably keep Grant in the west until 64- but that is a designer call.

Meanwhile study the changes- they make for major changes in the intitial year of the war in terms of actions. Best thing is it also takes care of many minor annoying bugs. Clearing the game of bugs is always a major accomplishment. The testers played the heck out of these changes. Now it's going to be your turn. There is still one or two minor points we didnt quiet get totally shifted through- I will address at least one of those to the forum after the patch comes out. But as I said- it's minor chrome- this patch is a real nice fix- wait until you see it.



IronWarrior -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 10:16:19 AM)

Wow! Looks like a great patch, nice work guys!

Thanks to all the playtesters as well.



tevans6220 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 10:33:51 AM)

There's no doubt that Lee is the best general on the map. But he's going to be that way in any historically accurate strategic ACW game--board or computer. In all the games I've ever played this is the first game to institute such a rule. Yet we have generals such as Lyon, Grant and Sherman with no such restrictions. Historically Lyon was killed early in the war, Grant didn't come east until 1864 and Sherman didn't move east until his march to the sea. Moving any of those three east changes the complexion of the game dramatically. Historically Lee never went west but if he had been ordered he would have went reluctantly. Changing his mortality rating for going west seems odd. Lee had some close calls in Virginia but never got hit. Why should his chances be greater by going west? I just think this is an artificial and unneeded rule but I'll reserve judgment until I see it in action. Sorry to rock the boat on this one but I don't think I'm going to like this rule. I'm supposed to be Davis or Lincoln. It should be up to me where my generals fight. I shouldn't be restricted by a rule or have a better chance of losing a general because I decide to fight him in a certain area.



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 12:23:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Historically Lyon was killed early in the war, Grant didn't come east until 1864 and Sherman didn't move east until his march to the sea.


Well, Lyon has a higher mortality rating to reflect that. Grant and Sherman both activate only in the West and I'd say a Union player has a lot to gain by leaving them there. Moving Lee west changes things more than moving any other general and Lee is the only general where there's a case to be made that he actually would not have left Virginia even if asked to do so. As noted above, mortality ratings are less important for ACs, so this is a very minor encouragement to leaving Lee in Virginia.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 12:28:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
10. Rule Change – The Union player gains 5 Political Points at the end of any Union turn in which he has moved into any one of the following territories, if Confederate controlled, with at least 30 combat units: Manassas, Richmond, or any region adjacent to Richmond. These points are not gained if Richmond is Union controlled.


...and this is the other minor encouragement to keep a good general in Virginia. I expect there may be a bit more focus by the Union in the East once this is released.



PhilipB -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 4:16:14 PM)

Folks,

I like most of the changes made in this patch.
     I agree with the Lee Rule.  I would have subtracted PPs from the Rebels if Lee left the east.  And to those critiics that say he should move anywhere, still disagree strongly. There should be some history in a history game.  To have him up and die in the West seems a waste, but I guess there wasnt a way out of it. 
    The only thing I would have added was the weather line. somewhere along the N Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas borders. I still think the movement penalty for winter is too harsh for the Deep South. 

Thanks
NoVa538



Capt Cliff -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 7:36:45 PM)

How is the AI going to handle moving Lee west? I think it should be hard wired that he can't move from the eastern theater. At least for the AI.

Oh yeah ... Bravo for the massive update and fine tuning of what was/is a good game to be a GREAT game!!



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/13/2008 7:45:18 PM)

The AI will put Lee wherever it feels he is most needed. The mortality difference is not enough to discourage the AI, though it may give a human player pause in some cases. If you play against the AI and you put the bulk of your effort in the West, don't be surprised if Lee shows up there (a human opponent would probably do that too).

But if you maintain a credible offensive threat in the East and make attempts to push on to Richmond, you're very likely to keep at least one very good CSA Army Commander pinned there. With the 5PP bonus for a campaign directed towards Richmond, this is less costly than it was for the Union player. You can now afford to do this PP-wise and that can keep the pressure on the CSA player as far as the need for a strong defense in Virgina.



Doc o War -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/14/2008 6:01:05 AM)

Phillip B- The weather in the deep south in winter was just as bad as it was north of a weather line.   It rains the further south you go in winter instead of snows. It rains hard, and is miserable and the Infrastructure needed to move 19th century armies crumbles under bad weather.  Mud is just as bad as snow and ice- and I have been in Tennessee and Georgia and had ice in my beard in Winter while trooping around in the red mud. 
    Remember the armies lived outdoors- they tended to seek winter camps all through the war.  The weather restrictions from winter effect movemment- and I do not think a weather line would really show much difference above or below it in terms of how it actually effected the movement.  It was bad everywhere.

This is the 19th Century- everything you used in a mititary campaign- every tent, every bullet, every barrel of salt pork- was carried on Wagons from the railheads to the front lines. And mostly mule powered wagons.

Mules were better at hauling supply wagons. The horses were better for the front lines- As we modern Civ War reenactors know-- Mules get spooked at cannon fire- Horses will stand it. Simple as that- it made it easy to determine what animals to use for what duties. These animals need lots of expensive feed in the winter time- grains- and so movement is held down by how many fit animals you had available to pull the wagons- a starving creature will not last long pulling loads in winter. Many times in harsh weather the animals of the army would be taken away to farmlands far to the rear to be refitted and restored  for future use. Both Armies began to establish Remount Camps behind their lines to recondition blown out and used up horses and mules. By spring of each year huge numbers of horses and mules would be gathereed for the next good camapign weather.

Though It would be fun to have spring <mud turns> in which all movement in Feb and MArch was reduced yet again due to flooding and mud.  I have read about mud so deep it would swallow a mule team. But for now we simply have a simple overall weather condition for winter.



PhilipB -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/14/2008 2:12:53 PM)

Doc
Yes I understand your concerns. I wasnt expecting that I'd get the weather line added, but thought I'd voice my concerns.   I have read up on the history too.  My impression was that the designers ( you guys ? ),were treating the South as a European latitude, instead of something a little more mediterrainian.  Yes you had storms that tied everything up, but they were'nt constant.  One of my conserns is having a force which has initiative not being abkle to move to an adjacent province within a months time.

NoiVa538



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/14/2008 2:20:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PhilipB
One of my conserns is having a force which has initiative not being abkle to move to an adjacent province within a months time.


This is impossible within friendly territory. You can always move at least one region. Only when it comes to marching into enemy territory with a poor to average commander is bad weather a significant limit on movement such that you may not be able to march into a nearby enemy region. That's not ahistorical though, many average commanders on both sides took time (and extra time in bad weather) to form plans and get supplies ready and training, replacements and equipment before they felt ready to march into enemy territory.



tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/16/2008 8:07:09 PM)


That's the stahl, Lo -- errrr --- Joel !!

I like the approach of nudging players towards a more active, historical, and fun eastern theater. A sledgehammer was not required, just a little more incentive. I think a great game just got better! [sm=happy0065.gif]

Thanks guys,

- P



Jutland13 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/17/2008 5:33:43 AM)

I agree that all these things need to be done. The issue is the ability to exploit a hole in Blitzkreig fashion, with forces grabbing not only the overrun area, but then driving other forces through it and grabbing 2-3 other areas in the same month, with no ability for the enemy to respond. Agreed that maybe forces could have covered this much territory in a very aggressive month, but to think that no force would have responded is the issue. I plan to fully employ this method of dstruction for the South. Avoid or pin the major CSA forces and crack the line at the weakest point and flood forces into the rear. If successful in several areas the South cannot recover.



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/17/2008 5:35:25 AM)

This strategy is only possible if the other side doesn't garrison and fortify properly. You should have to fight for the ground you gain, by and large and from what I've seen that's how things work. Is this strategy mainly working for you against the AI or against human players?



jimkehn -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/17/2008 12:41:10 PM)

Speaking of pinning an enemy force, how does one determine how much of a force it takes to pin an enemy force. Surely a one star confederate general with 2 brigades cannot pin Grants entire army that contains 36 brigades. What size force, percentagewise, does it take......like half the size of the defending force??



Erik Rutins -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/17/2008 2:05:58 PM)

It's a 1:1, so two brigades can pin two brigades, etc. if I recall correctly.



JAMiAM -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/17/2008 4:21:41 PM)

Regarding a pin, I believe it is checked for each separate moving force, with respect to the number of enemy:friendly brigades still left in the region. Thus, a two brigade pin could stick a 16 brigade corps, if that corps is the last force attempting to move out of the region. However, if the corps dropped off 2 or more brigades to deal with the pinners, then it could move out.



jimkehn -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/17/2008 7:46:37 PM)

Interesting info.



Adam Parker -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/19/2008 11:59:03 AM)

I'm finally very close to buying this one, working my way through a number of boardgame systems. There is just nothing in PC Land that is even close to being released (besides Ageod's First World War - and I do not want another EU clone) and nothing new in the Matrix catalogue looks close to being bug-free stable (than maybe SSG's Kharkov - but I have a Kharkov game already that works fine).

The ACW just hasn't yet been put fully comfortably on my plate though some great attempts have tried. Forge of Freedom's "container" concept is just too fiddly and Ageod's ACW just doesn't make full sense to me.

I had to buy Slitherine's Commander Napoleon game just to see what the controversy was about and found a game that kudos given, is stable but missing atmosphere.

So it's left to this offering by 2by3...

The chatter here has been very enthusiastic and the AAR's numerous and exciting (though I fear I may be taking on too much micromanagement having never been able to warm to W@WADW).

How is this patch holding up? You know I hate the "public beta" concept but feedback here seems to have died with its release. Is this game still fun to play? I see that Lee must now stay to protect dear Virginia and conquer the east.

Looking for some timely feedback before my credit card wallet closes!

Cheers,
Adam.



Bo Rearguard -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/19/2008 5:28:17 PM)

quote:

I see that Lee must now stay to protect dear Virginia and conquer the east.


He doesn't have to stay in the east. You're just taking the calculated risk that he has a greater chance to come to harm if he has to fight elsewhere. [;)]

All in all it's a good game and an elegant design in my opinion. I sometimes wish it included New Mexico, the rest of Texas and the Indian Territory as the western edge of the map seems a bit constraining but I'm sure that decision simplified a lot of things too.



tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/19/2008 6:02:33 PM)


Well, Bobby Lee is welcome to try (and conquer the east). I expect to give him a warm reception. [sm=fighting0056.gif]

- P



Pford -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/19/2008 7:47:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard
All in all it's a good game and an elegant design in my opinion. I sometimes wish it included New Mexico, the rest of Texas and the Indian Territory as the western edge of the map seems a bit constraining but I'm sure that decision simplified a lot of things too.


And I wish they'd consider a scenario beginning at Ft Sumter. Granted there wasn't much maneuvering but there were planning decisions to be made. The game processes turns quickly. In my opinion, WBTS would gain a satisfying sense of completeness and grandeur.



Adam Parker -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/19/2008 9:43:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

And I wish they'd consider a scenario beginning at Ft Sumter. Granted there wasn't much maneuvering but there were planning decisions to be made.


When do the scens start?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.216797