Economic Settings Suggestion

[richfed]

How about adding some game setting options - like those for AI, Naval, etc. - whereby a player can choose to have money, supplies, and/or men raised at historical levels, rather than the default - or at least limited in that direction.

This might help to satisfy everyone!?!

[rwenstrup]

I agree. I love this game...the only element I don't like is the micromanagement of the reinforcements/replacements. If one could choose historical levels and eliminate the hassle it would be great. Or there could be a simple fixed choice...emphasize replacements, develop naval assets, develop artillery, etc.

The game is very well done...this is only nitpicking...thanks for the excellent job with the game!

[Guru80]

If you eliminated the replacement/reinforcement aspect of the game the player would have no real control over the game and be destined to relive history over and over again.

I actually would like MORE things I could micromanage, at least an option to do so!

[GShock]

Well you know there's 2 aspects not just related to these figures but to the whole situation that could be modded into different scn files. One with balanced economy, politics, manpower and events and another one with historical values.

In both cases, the player may choose his actions to alter history so to be still in control of the game. After all you just load the scn you want and you play it more historically accurate or more balanced....as u like.

[richfed]

Yes, I wasn't really desiring less micro-management, though I could see how adding an option such as this could lead to that. I was, after reading the forums, just suggesting a possible solution to the oft-heard complaints that the South can build much more in the game than it could in reality. So, my suggestion speaks to this; an option where the CSA is more historically limited in its production of war supplies, manpower, etc. The player still chooses what to build and when, he just has less to build with. It would just be an "OPTION".

[McNaughton]

The problem with historic values is that it is static. It will reflect things only according to history, and not have the ability to react to how your particular game is going.

For whatever reason, should you have more or less casualties, realize that your use of war supplies is greater than historic due to heavy losses in artillery or warships, the game with a static form of replacements, reinforcements and resources means that you will always be on the same 'timetable'.

To me, that is what wrecks many historic wargames, that you are fully aware of your replacement and reinforcement schedules. For example, the old Pacific War Game, you knew when you would be getting your set of carriers, and knew when you would have overwhelming numbers as the USN. Plus, should you experience unhistoric rates of casualties (i.e., for whatever reason say you lost more cruisers than historically) your replacements will not reflect this (it will build according to what historical losses were, even if your losses do not match).

Replacements based on history do not really work, as once the player clicks the 'next turn' button they have swayed from the historic path in any wargame.

[McNaughton]

Yes, I wasn't really desiring less micro-management, though I could see how adding an option such as this could lead to that. I was, after reading the forums, just suggesting a possible solution to the oft-heard complaints that the South can build much more in the game than it could in reality. So, my suggestion speaks to this; an option where the CSA is more historically limited in its production of war supplies, manpower, etc. The player still chooses what to build and when, he just has less to build with. It would just be an "OPTION".

This has more to do with resource balance over the existing system of building units.

The option that you request will take substantial effort to reproduce, and will probalbly result in the same 'problems', since it isn't the choices that the players are taking that are 'incorrect', but the resulting gain and required usage of resources (the drain on manpower is not adequately reflected).

This won't really solve the problem, just make the game more predictable.