RE: 1.030 Patch in the works

RE: 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 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/19/2008 10:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Adam Parker 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? July 61, March 62 and March 63.

wargamer123 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/20/2008 4:42:47 AM)
I think the point here of focusing Lee in the East or a slight risk of losing him in battle is to allow the Union a more historical feel. If you put Lee way out West in the Swamps of the MI and he dies well then you will likely lose earlier. Your gambling, a little There is still 2 very high rated CSA generals that should with victories have AC potential by '63 that could be moved West or left in Virginia. Or split, you do not have only 1 numero uno

Doc o War -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/20/2008 6:03:35 AM)
The Game starts in July 1861- That was decided by the designers - I believe- to start with the actual major ground war launching at Bull Run, as most the military and political decision made in the period of April to June were about positioning the troops where they start and the taking of southern bases and arsenals.And the calling up and training of troops. Both sides were treading cautiously and both sides actually assumed things would settle before major bloodshed erupted. There were a few small skirmishes in June, but the Game launches in July 61 with the real war breaking out across the nation. You- as the commander of one of the sides- must do as the original guys did and deal with a real shooting war that no one actully thought would happen- but everyone seemed to suddenly want. Hit the ground runnning. You are handed the situation as it was in July 61. I believe it is the best place to start- anything sooner would be shear conjecture and frankly- with what we know in the future it would probably upset the historic flow if some strategic forts and places were not abandoned by the the Union as they historically were. The real war started in July 61- it works better with the system here.

tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/28/2008 6:20:14 PM)
Question about Ironclad production -- Why will the Union NOT be able to produce ironclads and cruisers in Pennsylvania. I assume Philadelphia navy yard was a big-time ship production center. Question2: Why (even in pre .03) is the Union not able to produce ironclads for patroling the Mississippi River. The South can produce them in New Orleans and Memphis, while the North cannot produce them anywhere at all. The North had river-bound ironclads, that I assume were produced inland. And in light that major ship centers on the Atlantic are no longer capable of ironclad production -- why should the South be able to produce them in Memphis? Seems odd, and is definately a nit. But first time you are forced to take on a fleet of CS ironclads outside of Memphis with US Gunboats -- you will see what I mean. - P

Joel Billings -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/28/2008 7:17:56 PM)
The ratings of the Union gunboats goes up over time to account for the better gunboats on the river later on. What we show as true ironclads cannot go all the way up river to the Union States. The Confederates had a hard time building ships in general, and it is possible that if the Union player is unable to drive up the river from the Gulf, the CSA could produce ironclads on the river that would make it very difficult for the north to move gunboats down the river. If you have good info on where the ironclads were historically built, and/or where they should be build, I'd be very interested in seeing that info. As for Philly, we wanted to limit the number of ironclads that could be built at one time for the Union, and since we can't limit by area, only by state, we decided to just allow NY to build them. This puts the desired limit on ironclads. In the past the south has not been able to afford much of a navy, so it has not been an issue, but it is possible that things have changed with 1.030 due to the artillery limits on the CSA. It will no doubt take a lot of playing to get a true read on balance, although figuring out what works and what doesn't is half the fun in playing a game, isn't it?

tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/29/2008 8:59:02 PM)
Just a comment on ship construction restrictions -- Even under the current/original game version, I was wondering why the Union could not construct Ironclads on the Mississippi. First, the Federals had river-bound ironclads as well as the unarmored gunboats in real-life. Second, the South is able to construct them in the game in both Memphis and New Orleans. I am currently trashing the Federal Navy against the "challenging" AI with 4 CSA Ironclads and a couple gunboats, generally sinking 2 or 3 Federal gunboats with each encounter along the Mississippi, taking no damage in return. Why not allow Federal ironclad construction in Cairo or somewhere along the Ohio River? Surely the Union must have had capabilities equal to Memphis, where the CSA can construct them. Under .03, it sounds like Federal Ironclads will only be built in New York. Wasn't the Philadelphia Naval Yard doing some serious construction back then? Again, they had to be at least as good as Memphis.... - P

tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/29/2008 9:06:04 PM)
Sorry for the duplicate posting -- either my head cold or my cold medicine is turning me into a brain-stem. I coulda sworn I didn't see my original posting... Anyway, I still think it is a viable strategy for the CSA to control the Mississippi by pumping out Ironclads. Soon I will have 6 of the puppies plus supporting gunboats, and woe be it to the Union fleet that finds me. Regarding the great Commonwealth of PA -- it HAD to be at least as good as Memphis! [;)] Thanks guys... - P

Joel Billings -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/29/2008 10:14:26 PM)
The Union has never been able to build Ironclads on the river (1.030 did not change anything with that). Our understanding is that the "ironclads" that were built on the river are more like the gunboats with enhanced stats that we have in the game's later war years. As for the CSA, yes, it's likely they are able to build more gunboats on the river at one time then they could in the war. Given the production system, it's hard to put a global limit. If we could identify certain places where they were more capable to build ironclads and some where they were not and probably could not easily be built, we'd consider making a change. Currently, the only locations where they can be built are New Orleans (which is eaiser to capture in 1.030 given the rule changes), Little Rock, and Memphis. If we end up feeling that the limitations on Union Ironclad production on the Atlantic is too much, we can always add back in another state. We chose New York as this gave us the "global" limit that we were looking for on Union gunboat production.

Jutland13 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works (10/30/2008 7:56:07 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? _____________________________ Erik Rutins Director of Product Development and Business Relations For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/ "Si vis pacem, para bellum. I think , by addressing the situation in Kentucky, it eliminates this issue to a large degree. When the Union was able to sweep through Kentucky, there were insufficient troops and time to prepare any detailed defense. This allowed the Union player to further their gains in the manner described. In my present PBEM game (using 1.030) this is not an issue, due to the couple of extra turns I now have to prepare. There was a compounding affect without this patch.

Jutland13 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (10/30/2008 8:15:42 AM)
I received a very curious result, not sure if it has anything to do with the patch, but have never exerpienced it before. TJ Jackson was wounded at Fredericksburg (July 1862) for 11 months. Later (~2-3mos) in a battle at New Bern, involving Longstreet TJ Jackson showed up on the casualty list as KIA. I lost New Bern. So I replayed the turn. I still lost New Bern. I checked the leaders screen and it showed Jackson at Goldsborough in NC with Longstreet, but he was not on the map and not scheduled to return until April 1863!? When I check the leaders screen, it still shows him there, despite him not being on the map. He was at Fredericksburg with Longstreet and now seems to go wherever Longstreet goes. (Longstreet is at New Bern and the Leader Screen shows TJ Jackson there, but he is not on the map (I checked all the sub-commanders of Longstreet) + he is not scheduled, according to his wound to return before April 1863 . Given that I saw the result of him being killed in a battle he was not in, this only makes it more likely he will be lost at some point, if Longstreet is in combat. I do not believe in replaying turns to get the result you want, but losing Stonewall in this manner is a bit silly. Thoughts? I can only assume this is a error?

Joel Billings -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (10/30/2008 5:29:54 PM)
We found a bug in the code that was taking leaders off map after being casualties. Gary fixed it yesterday and we're in the process of testing the fix. I can't say for sure that this bug explains what happened to you, but hopefully it does, and the fix will keep it from happening again. We should have a new public beta version to test soon, or the next version will become the official version. In either case, you should be able to get a new version soon that hopefully fixes this bug. Keep an eye out for problems with leaders once this next version is available in case we've still missed something. Thanks.

tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (10/30/2008 7:39:50 PM)
Joel: I understand what you are trying to do -- but honestly I did not think that overproduction of Union ironclads was a problem to begin with. The Union Navy should be overpowering and huge, especially after they complete the 2nd build cycle after 18 months. In game terms, the Union needs to grow to 30-ish cruisers, 12-15 ironclads, 20+ gunboats, and about 100 transports. That's a lot of production capacity that is needed. On the other side, how many ironclads can the CSA pump out -- if they choose to. They can build 4 on the Missisippi alone. Can they actually more ironclads than the Federal navy -- if they choose to -- with the changes that are coming? Time will tell I guess. My initial reaction is, however, that something that was working already may be getting broken. - P

Joel Billings -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (10/30/2008 8:54:08 PM)
By what time does the Navy have to get to those numbers? Are you accounting for units generally representing 2 major warships? I think by mid/late-1863 the Union should be able to build 12 Ironclad Fleets if they really want to. Is that not historically enough? As for the south, I agree we may be allowing too many ironclads on the Mississippi River. I'm looking for how you think that should be limited within the game system. Should New Orleans, Little Rock, or Memphis be removed from the areas that should be able to build Ironclads? Keep in mind that if the CSA builds ironclads in New Orleans or Memphis, he risks losing the region before the first ironclad is built.

herwin -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (10/30/2008 11:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joel Billings By what time does the Navy have to get to those numbers? Are you accounting for units generally representing 2 major warships? I think by mid/late-1863 the Union should be able to build 12 Ironclad Fleets if they really want to. Is that not historically enough? As for the south, I agree we may be allowing too many ironclads on the Mississippi River. I'm looking for how you think that should be limited within the game system. Should New Orleans, Little Rock, or Memphis be removed from the areas that should be able to build Ironclads? Keep in mind that if the CSA builds ironclads in New Orleans or Memphis, he risks losing the region before the first ironclad is built. What was the critical resource? For ironclads, I suspect the critical resource was iron plate production.

GShock -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (10/31/2008 10:11:11 AM)
USA has also been given a major edge in Arty production with the new limiters. If CSA builds 4 ironclads, it will basically stop recruitment of militia in the transmississipi scenario for a year, giving the Union another major advantage in manpower, another sector where its advantage is already massive against CSA. The limiters mitigate the "what if" power in the hands of the player...it's up to him on how to apply a more accurate historical reconstruction to all other "what ifs" in the game strategy for both sides. If you build 4 clads for CSA and don't lose NO in the meanwhile, you will lose in KY and TN much faster...and every time one of those clads is bombed by the Union Hvy Arty you lose 1 extra supply production capability due to repairs while still being outpowered in naval production on the river. Don't confuse "what if" with "what's best".

tran505 -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (11/1/2008 5:24:47 PM)
Joel: Fair enough. Here's a concrete suggestion for you to consider: 1) I beleive the New York only Ironclad production for the Union will in the end, be viewed as too restrictive. New York is one of the best states to build factories early in the game because of all the infantry rebuilds that will need to be done there later in the game, plus the generally high population that is available. From a practical point of view, I think that the Union will not be able to get the 12 ironclads out there by mid-63 under the proposed revision. SUGGESTION --> Add New Jerswy back into the mix. The extra 3 production points should be enough to relieve the congestion. ALso remember what Ironclads are there to do -- shoot at HA in forts. WIth VA, GA, AL, and TX still capable of building HA, I do not believe you have restricted HA prodcuction anywhere near what you are proposing for Federal Ironclads. Shooting at HA in level 2 forts is HARD, and takes a lot of ships. 2) Not to disparage the great city of Memphis, that is where I would take ironclad production away for the CSA. ALlowing it in NO should be fun, because of the map changes that are in v.03. As an aside, I do not think that it is all that likely that the CS would lose it ironclads in drydock iff they commit to the project on turn 1. Start building all 4 on turn 1 or do not bother. Add in an Arkansas gunboat, and you have a very nice fleet on the Missisippi river, with nary a Union Ironclad to be seen. Me like eating Federal Gunboats -- taste good and crunchy too! Gshock -- as to whether this is something you SHOULD do -- that would have to be decided on the battlefield, now wouldn't it ?!? [sm=00000106.gif] - P

GShock -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (11/2/2008 11:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tran505 Gshock -- as to whether this is something you SHOULD do -- that would have to be decided on the battlefield, now wouldn't it ?!? [sm=00000106.gif] - P You bet! [;)]

jimkehn -> RE: 1.030 Patch in the works - Error (11/2/2008 3:34:47 PM)
So......when is this puppy due off the presses??? I would like to start a new PBEM, but not til the 1.03 is official!

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875