RE: Early September 1862

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Early September 1862

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Early September 1862

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:15:45 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

My second army can move on to Little Rock now and lay siege there through the winter. I would have preferred to take them down to Baton Rouge, but my supply couldn't pass through Jackson while it is still in enemy hands, so this makes more sense as a target for now. Also, it gives me the opportunity to conquer a few defenseless provinces in northern Arkansas to establish an alternate supply route just in case I lose the primary one somehow. Land based supply isn't nearly as effective as rail, but it would be better than nothing.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 391

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:19:40 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Hmmmmm. It appears he went on a full out offensive last turn. By now he'll see the error of that decision and will likely try to retreat from here. But hopefully the fort will keep him engaged and he'll now be stuck in the same web that entangled me earlier. I wish the disease hadn't hit Hatchie and lowered their strength right before this opportunity, but even with that setback this is an opportunity that I have to take. Keyes is the best fighting force at my disposal and I'll have him trapped between that army and Fort Henry. I'll never have a better opportunity to crush him out West than right now, so I have to take it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 392

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:22:06 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Looking to sea, my Navy also has an inviting target. There is a Rebel ironside sitting just north of me. That is especially interesting sine I included my own ironside in the invasion force to protect my frigates. I haven't upgraded my naval weapons. Now I wish I had. But still, how can I pass up such an opportunity to destroy the most valuable element of his navy while it is sitting there all alone? Again, I must attack.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 393

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:23:12 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

OK, last turn I didn't have the labor to build that mint Iowa wanted (and that I need anyway). I'll do that first thing while I'm thinking about it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 394

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:25:39 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Which reminds me, I do need to check in on the governors. Thanks goodness of Indiana. That extra 15 money each turn has been a blessing. Maryland is being a pain. He comes up for election this year. With any luck, he'll soon be gone. Right now, he is just opposing musters in that one state. There are several actions he could take that would be far more painful.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 395

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:27:00 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Looking on down the list, New York is giving us badly needed support for Logistical research and he's getting impatient. I need to look at that one more closely to be sure.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 396

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:28:39 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

And finally, Brown is helping out with iron - though I must confess if there is any one resource that I don't need help with right now, its iron.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 397

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:30:18 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

OK, let's go back to the city filter again and take another look from that view. We've already giving Iowa the mint they want. Michigan wants a hospital, but is an ally with strong support and a low temper so it's not a pressing concern.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 398

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:31:09 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Missouri has a bit of a temper on him. I'll put this one in the maybe category for help.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 399

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:32:35 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

I worry about New Jersey. He has a temper and pretty low support. But he's asking for a bank and at the end of the day, that's too much ask from a state the provides so little to the war effort.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 400

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:34:31 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

I suspected New York was key and I was right. High temper, low support. I've already seen that he's boosting a research area where I need help. The election isn't far off so I need to do what I can for him now.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 401

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:36:06 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

In Ohio his temper is low, but so is his support. He's a good republican, but a University is just so expensive. I want to help. I just don't see how I can.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 402

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:37:18 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Curtin in Pennsylvania is fine. He's got plenty of support and a low temper. I don't want to waste money on a Naval College right now and still see no reason to worry about it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 403

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:40:03 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

And then there is Rhode Island. It is New Jersey times two. I can't worry about it. Looks like Sprague gets his second disappointment (everyone did read the bio to see he was passed over for Maj General, right?)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 404

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:41:12 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

OK, the Manufacturing Center in New York is clearly the most significant need. Unfortunately, we can't afford it. It takes 100 labor and 100 iron and I don't have either of those in sufficient quantities.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 405

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:42:13 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Looking at my income, iron should be fine but my labor production won't suffice to fill the request until after the election. I better do something.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 406

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:43:04 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Just temporarily, I'll shift several cities from cash over to labor.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 407

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/17/2006 11:44:23 PM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

And that's it for another turn. '62 has been quite a wild ride, but if things go as planned out west this turn, we'll be back on track and making good progress towards ending this little insurrection.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 408

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 12:41:39 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

I somewhat worried about the accuracy of the generals database. You get Joshua Chamberlain in oct of 1862 when he didn't command a brigade until june of 1864.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 409

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 12:46:43 AM

Paper Tiger

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

And Grant hasn't turned up yet

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 410

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 12:46:56 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I somewhat worried about the accuracy of the generals database. You get Joshua Chamberlain in oct of 1862 when he didn't command a brigade until june of 1864.

I know they did a good deal of research on the generals, but with over 1000 in the list I am also certain there are mistakes. It might be worth starting a thread dedicated to allowing people to report discrepencies they see. Though I assume most of the reports will come shortly after the game is released and people have access to the full list and all of the associated data.

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 411

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 12:53:57 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Grant should be available at the start of the nov 1861 scenario. He commanded a force of two brigades at the battle of Belmont on nov 7th, 1861

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 412

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 12:59:15 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

Grant should be available at the start of the nov 1861 scenario. He commanded a force of two brigades at the battle of Belmont on nov 7th, 1861

I think the challenge with that is that if he were available at the start, everyone would immediately promote him to head the AoP. I'm not on the dev team, but I have to assume his timing is meant to coincide with him rising to a senior level command where every player will undoubtably place him.

(in reply to chris0827)

Post #: 413

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 1:10:23 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Without having the game it's hard to discuss promotion of generals. There should be some sort of limit on who you can promote. Possibly battlefield exp would enable a general to be promoted more quickly. As for Grant he was promoted to senior command quickly. He was an army commander by february of 1862.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 414

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 1:14:52 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

The whole promotion and demotion thing bothers me a little. If Grant can't be in the game on time for play balance, that suggests thta promotion is too easy. I know some of the issue is historical leaders and players all seeing knowledge, but promoting a junior over a seniot ought to have a good chance of causing resignations, unless there is grounds (leads a force to a notable victory or something). Likewise, demotion ought to have an effect as someone mentioned earlier.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 415

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 1:18:16 AM

chris0827

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

We should probably start a new thread to discuss this. We're kind of interupting the AAR. Maybe a dev can give us a description of how promotion works.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 416

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 1:26:24 AM

Paper Tiger

Posts: 210
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

I remember an old ACW game I played maybe 20 years ago where generals could only be promoted following being involved in a battle, and only by one jump at a time.
So 1 star Grant would need to be involved in a battle and survive before he could be promoted to 2 star grant and then again before he could be 3 star grant. There was always a higher chance that a 1 star general would be killed in action so you tended to go into battle with Grant as a Union player with your fingers firmly crossed.
Demoting a general I think should cost victory points, call it political fallout.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 417

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 5:39:56 AM

Bungo_Pete

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/18/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I remember an old ACW game I played maybe 20 years ago where generals could only be promoted following being involved in a battle, and only by one jump at a time.
So 1 star Grant would need to be involved in a battle and survive before he could be promoted to 2 star grant and then again before he could be 3 star grant. There was always a higher chance that a 1 star general would be killed in action so you tended to go into battle with Grant as a Union player with your fingers firmly crossed.
Demoting a general I think should cost victory points, call it political fallout.

was that a boardgame? because if it is I have it somewhere in my garage,can't remember the name thou.Think it was by victory gsames.

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 418

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 6:21:48 AM

AU Tiger_MatrixForum

Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I somewhat worried about the accuracy of the generals database. You get Joshua Chamberlain in oct of 1862 when he didn't command a brigade until june of 1864.

I know they did a good deal of research on the generals, but with over 1000 in the list I am also certain there are mistakes. It might be worth starting a thread dedicated to allowing people to report discrepencies they see. Though I assume most of the reports will come shortly after the game is released and people have access to the full list and all of the associated data.

Chanberlain shouldn't appear as a General until after July '63 at the earliest. In '62 he was still learning how to march...

_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 419

RE: Early September 1862 - 11/18/2006 6:22:49 AM

AU Tiger_MatrixForum

Posts: 1606
Joined: 10/9/2006
From: Deepest Dixie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

I remember an old ACW game I played maybe 20 years ago where generals could only be promoted following being involved in a battle, and only by one jump at a time.
So 1 star Grant would need to be involved in a battle and survive before he could be promoted to 2 star grant and then again before he could be 3 star grant. There was always a higher chance that a 1 star general would be killed in action so you tended to go into battle with Grant as a Union player with your fingers firmly crossed.
Demoting a general I think should cost victory points, call it political fallout.

I like it.

_____________________________

"Never take counsel of your fears."

Tho. Jackson

(in reply to Paper Tiger)

Post #: 420

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Early September 1862