Close to Richmond event : erroneous regions list ?

[Mickey3D]

There is a $Close_to_Richmond area defined and used with the event checking if an Union force of 40 or more elements is in a 2 regions radius around Richmond.

The list of regions is the following :
$Spotsylvania_VA|$Caroline_VA|$King_and_Queen_VA|$ Louisa_VA|$Buckingham_VA|$Amherst_VA|$Appomattox_V A|$Henrico_VA|$Charles_City_VA|$New_Kent_VA|$Willi amsburg_VA|$Prince_George_VA|$Richmond_VA|$Surry_V A|$Waverly_VA|$Dinwiddie_VA|$Camden_VA|

Albermale, 2 regions from Richmond, is not in the list. On the other hand, Warverly, 3 regions away, is in the list.

[FelixZ]

There is a $Close_to_Richmond area defined and used with the event checking if an Union force of 40 or more elements is in a 2 regions radius around Richmond.

The list of regions is the following :
$Spotsylvania_VA|$Caroline_VA|$King_and_Queen_VA|$ Louisa_VA|$Buckingham_VA|$Amherst_VA|$Appomattox_V A|$Henrico_VA|$Charles_City_VA|$New_Kent_VA|$Willi amsburg_VA|$Prince_George_VA|$Richmond_VA|$Surry_V A|$Waverly_VA|$Dinwiddie_VA|$Camden_VA|

Albermale, 2 regions from Richmond, is not in the list. On the other hand, Warverly, 3 regions away, is in the list.

The Manassas event in AACW could be avoided by occupying Manassas before the event was announced in a message.

Will Union occupation of a listed region before the event is announced by a message also accomplish prevention of the NM penalty?

[Captain_Orso]

As with all events, they check a condition: --does the player control the Manassas location?, --does the player have =>40 combat elements within this area?, and then do something: --take 10NM from the player, --pat the player on the head for not losing 10NM.

If you capture Manassas before the event checks if you control it the first time, when it checks it the first time, the results will be positive and you immediately win the event. If you take and then lose Manassas before the event fires the first time, the event will not be able to recognize that.

So if you manage to get 40 combat elements into the "Close_to_Richmond" area and then remove them before the event fires the first time, the event will have no idea of that and will continue as if you had never been there.

One could have another event firing much earlier and silently, so that it's not telling the player --hey, you have to lunge at Richmond now--, and if the player manages to fulfill the requirements of the secret even, it turns off the original event and tells the player something like, "newspapers report ecstatically, sudden advances an Richmond may end the war".

This might be seem fair to the very experienced player who knows the real event will fire then-n-then, and that this secret event is waiting for him to trigger it, but it doesn't sound terribly fair to a player who doesn't know all the 'secrets' of the game.

[ajarnlance]

This might be seem fair to the very experienced player who knows the real event will fire then-n-then, and that this secret event is waiting for him to trigger it, but it doesn't sound terribly fair to a player who doesn't know all the 'secrets' of the game.

I agree. There needs to be more transparency about these events. They should be clearly documented.

[FelixZ]

If you capture Manassas before the event checks if you control it the first time, when it checks it the first time, the results will be positive and you immediately win the event. If you take and then lose Manassas before the event fires the first time, the event will not be able to recognize that

I believe that Manassas could have been captured and then lost before the event and would still have avoided the -10 NM. (But perhaps my memory is wrong - and we are referring to an AACW event)

So the question's answer (On to Richmond) is still not definite … .

[FelixZ]

I agree. There needs to be more transparency about these events. They should be clearly documented.

And I disagree, just like a real General, one needs to learn the trade - not be handed a textbook. A player who learns by experience will make faster progress - hard lessons are more effective.

Another reason for self-taught lessons is that the new player will explore actions the old experienced players never considered. Liberty Bell has followed this route and I've learned more ways/methods/actions from watching his games as a host and by playing against him.

[ajarnlance]

And I disagree, just like a real General, one needs to learn the trade - not be handed a textbook. A player who learns by experience will make faster progress - hard lessons are more effective.

Another reason for self-taught lessons is that the new player will explore actions the old experienced players never considered. Liberty Bell has followed this route and I've learned more ways/methods/actions from watching his games as a host and by playing against him.

And just how are you even supposed to know that an event has fired if you don't even know it exists? If your experienced opponent decides not to tell you about it... that is not learning the trade. Yes, new players will try out new tactics, but you can't try out something if you don't know it is part of the game: "I think I'll try out a new way to get 40 units two regions away from Richmond... oh, wait a minute... nobody has told me about this event... therefore I can't even try it!" This is not a hard lesson it is an unfair advantage because one player knows about a rule that isn't written down in the manual. It is stumbling onto these hidden land mines that adds to the frustration of new players trying to get a grasp on this deep, complex game.

[Ace]

And just how are you even supposed to know that an event has fired if you don't even know it exists? If your experienced opponent decides not to tell you about it... that is not learning the trade. Yes, new players will try out new tactics, but you can't try out something if you don't know it is part of the game: "I think I'll try out a new way to get 40 units two regions away from Richmond... oh, wait a minute... nobody has told me about this event... therefore I can't even try it!" This is not a hard lesson it is an unfair advantage because one player knows about a rule that isn't written down in the manual. It is stumbling onto these hidden land mines that adds to the frustration of new players trying to get a grasp on this deep, complex game.

Union player gets the message he needs to get 40 regiments near Richmond. It seems fair, CSA player should get a message notifying him of it as well.

[Ace]

There is a $Close_to_Richmond area defined and used with the event checking if an Union force of 40 or more elements is in a 2 regions radius around Richmond.

The list of regions is the following :
$Spotsylvania_VA|$Caroline_VA|$King_and_Queen_VA|$ Louisa_VA|$Buckingham_VA|$Amherst_VA|$Appomattox_V A|$Henrico_VA|$Charles_City_VA|$New_Kent_VA|$Willi amsburg_VA|$Prince_George_VA|$Richmond_VA|$Surry_V A|$Waverly_VA|$Dinwiddie_VA|$Camden_VA|

Albermale, 2 regions from Richmond, is not in the list. On the other hand, Warverly, 3 regions away, is in the list.

You are right. I posted it way way ago, but it must have got lost on the way. If they read this, please fix it.

[ajarnlance]

Union player gets the message he needs to get 40 regiments near Richmond. It seems fair, CSA player should get a message notifying him of it as well.

Same with the Manassas event. I don't know why only one side is informed. Are there any other Union events I should know about in my PBEM?

[Ace]

None too important

[pgr]

Same with the Manassas event. I don't know why only one side is informed. Are there any other Union events I should know about in my PBEM?

Of course to be fair, even on the Union side, the Manassas event isn't too clear. There is no warning that you should take Manassas before a certain time or else... And when it fires, it simply says northern papers clamor for an immediate offensive without really making it clear what specific places one should go.