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: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the General Forum :-) )

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the General Forum :-) ) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the Ge... - 9/9/2008 9:52:35 PM   
tbriert

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to von Beanie)
Post #: 31
RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the Ge... - 9/10/2008 12:38:29 AM   
tbriert

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 9/5/2008
Status: offline
One further thought that occurred to me to solve what I view is the heavy artillery problem is simply to eliminate the use of a separate unit for heavy artillery.  Instead, incorporate a certain value of heavy artillery into the combat value of a fort.  Since that is basically where all the heavy arty is used anyway, this could be easily modeled.  Then adjust the amount of time and resources to build a fort level 1, and a fort level 2, to reflect the actual time it would take to construct the earthworks, entrenchments, redoubts, and manufacture and place the heavy arty in the fort.  This would address the issues of mobility of heavy arty (you couldnt move it once committed) and the too-rapid deployment of heavy arty and forts.  If a level 1 fort took 4 months to build, and the upgrade to level 2 a further 8 months, a player would have to plan his defense ahead of time, and figure out where it made the best sense to commit to these types of defenses in depth, which werent developed overnight in real life.  The Confederacy would start with a large advantage, having seized all the pre-war coastal fortifications and guns, thus curtailing the chance of any early Union sea blitzkreig.  Then, he would have to decide where to build up in his interior, with limited resources to do so -- do I fortify Paducah, or do I concentrate on preparing the defenses of Memphis, Vicksburg, and the approaches of Atlanta instead?  In the real war, these were all pressing questions with serious strategic consequences, and a decision to defend too far forward often led to the the loss of half-finished fortifications and guns, a serious blow to the Confederacy.  Also, such an approach would require the Union to station many ships in the Mississippi to interdict trade after taking Fts. Jackson and St. Philip, as it would take time for heavy guns to be shipped in, fortifications to be prepared, and chains, nets, and mines strung across the river and its side channels to the point where commerce would be effectively blocked.

(in reply to tbriert)
Post #: 32
RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the Ge... - 9/10/2008 1:58:02 AM   
Treefrog


Posts: 702
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline
The obvious, basic problem facing the new Union player is that he must learn then master a multiplicity of basic skills and concepts (initiative, leader ratings, movement, combat, supply , raiders, and pirates) while pressing forward, always on the attack.

That is tough. If you don't get everything going reasonably well at once you are apt to founder.

The beauty of playing that AI is that it doesn't whine if you fold and start again.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 33
RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the Ge... - 9/10/2008 3:26:18 AM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
Be ready...give up wife....give up friends.....stay home from work sick.....have LOTS of time :-) LOL

ya got great attitude
Madgamer

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 34
RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the Ge... - 9/10/2008 3:32:37 AM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
Here is the heart of it!......skill level and the learning curve! They get me every time. I learn so slowly. I love strat level games but have no brain to play them LOL! I play only against the AI for so long that by the time I get to high level of play the game is out of print or has been updated or replaced.
I finally get to where I can keep up with the AI in WitP and now am awaiting the whole new AE update...life in not very fair! but I love it!

Madgamer

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 35
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> RE: Is it just me (a different post to my one in the General Forum :-) ) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.077