Thu Sep 11, 2014 6:22 pm
The "cost" of 4 supply elements and 4 artillery elements are actually just costs, because once they have been used to starting building the fort the units are returned to build pool.
I have two issues with the way forts are built:
1. To be the most cost effective you need to use 6lb-ers to build the fort. I'm not sure of the CS side, but the Union gets about 4 in Delaware and about another 4-5 in Kansas or Iowa, I believe, which IIRC can be build in an alternate location if the actual build state isn't producing WSU.
Sometimes I want to actually use these as combat units and not have to save them all up in case I want to build a fort or have to pay a higher cost for using 12lb-ers.
Adding a support unit who's only purpose would be to use to build a fort and who's cost is fixed and not dependent on my usage of 6lb-er artillery would fix that.
2. The concept of having to first build a unit and then actually move it to a location is only fitting the process to current game mechanics. In reality supplies for building a fort would be moved into place over the time of building a fort and certainly not all at once. Also, depending on the fort, I rather question whether WSU--which generally represents iron in the game--would even be involved to such an extent.
--
Maybe a more realistic way to do it would be to start building with an RGD card and then pay a certain amount of money and GS each turn. Require an engineering, pioneer or leader with the Engineer ability and at least 2--or maybe 4--supply elements to be present and in supply or building does not take place, which would also allow for the use of riverine or oceanic transports/flatboats to be use in harbor locations.
But that would require coding in the engine--the RGD itself would be the least of it--so it's not going to happen. Suggestion 2. I believe would also require coding for the game to recognize the necessary unit, so that's not going to happen either, and so we're back to square one.