AGEOD Forums

First one is a snow in a desert. Come on! I did accept it as presentation of some kind of penalty while in desert region. Perhaps drought would be more appropriate with severe penalty to supplies and cohesion.

Second thing is I'm unable to determine in which city unit will be built. For game simplification that is acceptable for troops but at least for units like Medic, Signal and especially naval units would be good to have option to determine in which city to build them but with limitation on how much you can build per turn in particular city. It is to avoid situations when I wanted to strengthen naval power on Mississippi river and ordered two ironclads to be build in Illinois and two in Indiana. Next turn I realized that three of those ships are being built in cities on the great lakes which made them practically useless. The fourth appeared in the city which came under siege that same turn and was captured the next one. Waste of money, manpower and resources.

Third thing is inability to destroy heavy equipment like artillery or supply unit. If raiding cavalry captures artillery piece or supply what it's going to do with it? For sure it cannot drag it back to home but only abandon it. Once two of my divisions got stuck in mud and I had to abandon all heavy equipment to enable troops to move out of the region faster. That equipmement was later captured by the enemy. Would be nice If I could have had it destroyed.

Fourth suggestion is to enable units to be disbanded, again that goes for artillery or naval units which could be scraped for war materials.

Torca wrote:Second thing is I'm unable to determine in which city unit will be built. For game simplification that is acceptable for troops but at least for units like Medic, Signal and especially naval units would be good to have option to determine in which city to build them but with limitation on how much you can build per turn in particular city. It is to avoid situations when I wanted to strengthen naval power on Mississippi river and ordered two ironclads to be build in Illinois and two in Indiana. Next turn I realized that three of those ships are being built in cities on the great lakes which made them practically useless. The fourth appeared in the city which came under siege that same turn and was captured the next one. Waste of money, manpower and resources.

My only concern is when a unit is built in an area that is soon to be under seige. Having control over the exact city is too much control, in my opinion, givng players unrealistic abilities (historically, units were raised where the soldiers were mustered into service).

*You can move ships from the great lakes using the Erie Canal. Just select the stack, and direct them to a river to the south (cannot remember which one, someone will help), but your ships there are not 'lost'.

McNaughton wrote:*You can move ships from the great lakes using the Erie Canal. Just select the stack, and direct them to a river to the south (cannot remember which one, someone will help), but your ships there are not 'lost'.

It is the Erie & Ohio Canal; runs from Erie, PA to the Allegheny River at Franklin (Centre), PA. The Erie Canal, which is also shown on the map but not functional, runs east from Buffalo and connects with the Mohawk River near Utica. Hence much of the confusion. It took me a long time to find this feature, because of all the references to the Erie Canal.

Correction: It is the Ohio & Erie Canal, not the other way 'round.

Torca wrote:First one is a snow in a desert. Come on! I did accept it as presentation of some kind of penalty while in desert region. Perhaps drought would be more appropriate with severe penalty to supplies and cohesion.

Stonewall has posted a mod to fix weather. With further testing, I believe AGEod plans to officially add it to a patch next month.

McNaughton wrote:Having control over the exact city is too much control, in my opinion, givng players unrealistic abilities (historically, units were raised where the soldiers were mustered into service).

I agree if it's about infantry, cavalry, ... but for naval units instead of choice of state you could have choice of a city where to build. Number of units available depending on a size of a city starting with size 2 or even 3. For example, capturing only city with shipbuilding capacity in the region will stop enemy from building ships in that region since it's kinda unrealistic that someone would start building three ironclads in the middle of nowhere size 1 town

Torca wrote:I agree if it's about infantry, cavalry, ... but for naval units instead of choice of state you could have choice of a city where to build. Number of units available depending on a size of a city starting with size 2 or even 3. For example, capturing only city with shipbuilding capacity in the region will stop enemy from building ships in that region since it's kinda unrealistic that someone would start building three ironclads in the middle of nowhere size 1 town

I agree that shipbuilding in a size one town is a nightmare, esp. for the South. Having an ironclad that will take 7 or 8 turns to complete, appearing in a vulnerable coastal location is just an invitation for an amphib assault. I don't like to waste my $ and WS that way.

Jabberwock wrote:I agree that shipbuilding in a size one town is a nightmare, esp. for the South. Having an ironclad that will take 7 or 8 turns to complete, appearing in a vulnerable coastal location is just an invitation for an amphib assault. I don't like to waste my $ and WS that way.

Wasn't the CSS Albemarle built in a cornfield in North Carolina? Also, I believe that the CSS Arkansas was built (or was it re-built?) in Yazoo City, Mississippi. A size one town would seem to be big enough to build an ironclad.

Le Ricain wrote:Wasn't the CSS Albemarle built in a cornfield in North Carolina? Also, I believe that the CSS Arkansas was built (or was it re-built?) in Yazoo City, Mississippi. A size one town would seem to be big enough to build an ironclad.

Yes to both. On further thought, I suppose my objection is to more exposed positions, Hampton Roads is a good example.

Jabberwock wrote:Yes to both. On further thought, I suppose my objection is to more exposed positions, Hampton Roads is a good example.

But the CSA several times lost partially complete ironclads when the Union captured their shipyards. The fortunes of war. The best laid plans are obsolete once the first shot is fired. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.... And all that stuff.

Queeg wrote:But the CSA several times lost partially complete ironclads when the Union captured their shipyards. The fortunes of war. The best laid plans are obsolete once the first shot is fired. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.... And all that stuff.

As in "if" Stephen Mallory were silly enough to start building an ironclad in Hampton Roads, that would make him a real "but"-head. Which he wasn't.

your wrong about the desert :} in the winter it can become deathly cold(to include snow and hail, in fact the biggest hail ive ever seen in my life was in saudi arabia, golf ball sized). if you are outdoors and are without shelter in the desert in the winter I can tell you what to expect, throat parching days, and freezing nights. ive spent time in saudi arabia and in the arizona desert and speak from experience.

( as a item of interest a member of the british sas operating in the western iraq desert near the syrian border wrote a book about a op he was part of during the first gulf war, his team, or rather some of his team, were captured and poorly treated by his captors, but what was noteworthy was his comments about his efforts to escape and evade into syria and the climate of the region. very insightful, it was no balmy desert :} they froze thier posteriors off, his team that is. and bear in mind the british sas is the finest imo special operations group bar none. If these team members felt the iraq desert climate was harsh during the winter...got to respect that.)

Torca wrote:First one is a snow in a desert. Come on! I did accept it as presentation of some kind of penalty while in desert region. Perhaps drought would be more appropriate with severe penalty to supplies and cohesion.

Second thing is I'm unable to determine in which city unit will be built. For game simplification that is acceptable for troops but at least for units like Medic, Signal and especially naval units would be good to have option to determine in which city to build them but with limitation on how much you can build per turn in particular city. It is to avoid situations when I wanted to strengthen naval power on Mississippi river and ordered two ironclads to be build in Illinois and two in Indiana. Next turn I realized that three of those ships are being built in cities on the great lakes which made them practically useless. The fourth appeared in the city which came under siege that same turn and was captured the next one. Waste of money, manpower and resources.

Third thing is inability to destroy heavy equipment like artillery or supply unit. If raiding cavalry captures artillery piece or supply what it's going to do with it? For sure it cannot drag it back to home but only abandon it. Once two of my divisions got stuck in mud and I had to abandon all heavy equipment to enable troops to move out of the region faster. That equipmement was later captured by the enemy. Would be nice If I could have had it destroyed.

Fourth suggestion is to enable units to be disbanded, again that goes for artillery or naval units which could be scraped for war materials.

There is no question that it can get very cold at night in the SW deserts, but the game indicates there is snow. I have seen it snow in the Mojave Desert, but it only hangs around for a day or two at the most, and only causes delays where highways cross mountain passes. In 17 years of doing desert fieldwork, I can't recall ever having winter weather that delayed my work or field trips more than a day. On the other hand, extreme summer heat and thunderstorms have caused me some unexpected delays in July and August, and would make military maneuvers impractical during the summer rather than the winter.