As 1.05 continues to evolve, I'm going to make a plug for two little game play tweaks.
1: Remove the cap on destroying depots
As it currently stands, a stack can currently destroy only level 1 depots. In RC3 the "Raid Depot" card has been nerfed (appropriately in my mind) so that only 1 level of depot is removed per use. Allowing stacks to torch depots, up to level 4, to the ground seems like a good way to throw a bone to raiders AND it would allow a defender the chance to destroy his depots before he withdraws from a region.
2: Reform Fort Building
The requirement to have 2 supply wagon units and 4 artillery units to build a fort has always struck me as weird, especially because the arty vanishes once the fort is built.
I would suggest either having the arty units that are used in the construction become permanently fixed in the fort OR having the new fort spawn with a fixed "fort artillery" unit.
Otherwise, I am quite happy with the Ageod team's openness and speed in the patching process. Well done.
-
Captain_Orso
- Posts: 5766
- Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
pgr wrote:As 1.05 continues to evolve, I'm going to make a plug for two little game play tweaks.
1: Remove the cap on destroying depots
As it currently stands, a stack can currently destroy only level 1 depots. In RC3 the "Raid Depot" card has been nerfed (appropriately in my mind) so that only 1 level of depot is removed per use. Allowing stacks to torch depots, up to level 4, to the ground seems like a good way to throw a bone to raiders AND it would allow a defender the chance to destroy his depots before he withdraws from a region.
I agree 100%. If I own a depot--regardless of whether I captured it o3 built it--and want to insure that it will not fall--back--into enemy hands I must be able to destroy it. Currently if I have to abandon a depot, it's a Christmas present to the enemy. This makes not sense what so ever. I was just coincidentally reading up on the Johnson Depot Raid. If Forrest can destroy a huge depot from across the Tennessee River with just some artillery, if I have troops with control of the depot, there should be nothing to stop be from torching it.
Burn, baby, burn!!
[INDENT]Speaking of depots:
Drop the special need for a supply train/transport to build them. Give the player 5 Build Depot RGD's that cost $5, require between 1 and 3 elements to build it, get out of the way and let the player do what he needs to do. EVERY TURN renew the Build Depot RGD's.
Add a Close Depot RGD to reduce the level of a depot by 2-3 in a turn so that the player can control where he has his supply move. Reducing the level of a depot will not destroy any of the supplies, but will reduce the pull to that depot and allow the 'excess' supplies to be pulled away by normal distribution. Once the Depot hits level 0 remove it from the map.
[/INDENT]
pgr wrote:2: Reform Fort Building
The requirement to have 2 supply wagon units and 4 artillery units to build a fort has always struck me as weird, especially because the arty vanishes once the fort is built. I would suggest either having the arty units that are used in the construction become permanently fixed in the fort OR having the new fort spawn with a fixed "fort artillery" unit. Otherwise, I am quite happy with the Ageod team's openness and speed in the patching process. Well done.
The requirement is to 1. assess a cost to building the depot, and 2. pull a certain number of CC's out of the pool while the depot is being built. Once the fort is built, all the cannons and supply trains are returned to their respective pools, just not the money and WSU
.
If you want to have artillery to be at the fort the second you open it with ribbon cutting ceremony and everything, I can fix that for you now. Let's say you want to have a 2 battery fort. When you start building the batteries and supply trains to build the fort, the cost has been increased to 6 batteries--sorry, nothing comes for free--. When you start building the fort, put two batteries aside in their own stack and start building the fort with the other stack. So, when the fort is completed, take the two batteries you put aside and drop them into the fort. And there you have it!
A brand-spanking-new fort with 2 batteries already inside right from the get-go 
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
I mean come on, a depot should be the simplest thing to destroy. All that gunpowder lying around, its a pyromaniac's paradise. 
It seems like a funny way of judging the cost. (Plus, where do the cannons go, by god!) All other fort like objects, stockades, redoubts etc, are done by a RDC for a fixed cost. Why not just have the build fort button deduct the WS cost directly from the stockpile? (I rip up rails in friendly MC territory, and I get WS back in the pool right? When I repair rail it takes WS from the pool.) Of course, if the fort ends up having no guns, one could ask why it costs WS in the first place. We aren't building re-enforced concrete bunkers here, we're talking big earthworks here. Really it should only take engineers and time. *end of rant*
Captain_Orso wrote:The requirement is to 1. assess a cost to building the depot, and 2. pull a certain number of CC's out of the pool while the depot is being built. Once the fort is built, all the cannons and supply trains are returned to their respective pools, just not the money and WSU
It seems like a funny way of judging the cost. (Plus, where do the cannons go, by god!) All other fort like objects, stockades, redoubts etc, are done by a RDC for a fixed cost. Why not just have the build fort button deduct the WS cost directly from the stockpile? (I rip up rails in friendly MC territory, and I get WS back in the pool right? When I repair rail it takes WS from the pool.) Of course, if the fort ends up having no guns, one could ask why it costs WS in the first place. We aren't building re-enforced concrete bunkers here, we're talking big earthworks here. Really it should only take engineers and time. *end of rant*
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Merlin wrote:Why not just change the cost and expand the pool of redoubt RGDs? Make them equal to the cost of two wagons and four guns and give each player 12 per year.
and just do away with the fort build button? I kinda like the idea of a stack being able to build a fort (while deducting cost from the supply pools).
I take it Merlin, that you don't object to the depot idea?
I am in favor of pgr's suggestions. If it's possible for something as small as a partisan unit (flavored as 60 or so men) to reduce and eventually destroy any depot, or even entire settlements, it should be possible for any unit. I don't recall from history an instance of any depot in the war being too big to destroy, 'except for this small group of poorly equipped guerillas.'
I would remove the requirement/ability of supply wagons + artillery to build a fort at all. I'd rather increase the number of RGD forts, or maybe have variable costs depending on the level of fortification desired. It ought to be possible to construct forts in regions without cities as well.
I would remove the requirement/ability of supply wagons + artillery to build a fort at all. I'd rather increase the number of RGD forts, or maybe have variable costs depending on the level of fortification desired. It ought to be possible to construct forts in regions without cities as well.
It would make more sense to have rgds to build a fort, with a cost in money, ws and recruits. No fiddling with guns and supply. Same for building depots.
As for destroying, have brought it up several times that the game lacks the ability to reduce/burn cities and their reduction. At this time it is hard to follow a scorched earth strategy. It would help the csa to buy some time before the hordes hit the front
As for destroying, have brought it up several times that the game lacks the ability to reduce/burn cities and their reduction. At this time it is hard to follow a scorched earth strategy. It would help the csa to buy some time before the hordes hit the front
pgr wrote:and just do away with the fort build button? I kinda like the idea of a stack being able to build a fort (while deducting cost from the supply pools).
I take it Merlin, that you don't object to the depot idea?
No, I'd keep the fort build order, since it will still have its uses. I agree, depots should be destructible.
minipol wrote:It would make more sense to have rgds to build a fort, with a cost in money, ws and recruits. No fiddling with guns and supply. Same for building depots.
As for destroying, have brought it up several times that the game lacks the ability to reduce/burn cities and their reduction. At this time it is hard to follow a scorched earth strategy. It would help the csa to buy some time before the hordes hit the front
I don't necessarily want to see cities destroyed, but I've said before that the plunder card should be altered to reduce every structure type in the region by 1 point. That would damage everything and destroy all industry as well as special structures like state capitols.
No, I'd keep the fort build order, since it will still have its uses.
I fail to see them. I don't know what the common consensus is, but I rarely build more than a handful of forts during a game, even if I have the resources for it. With additional RGDs available (and possibly capable of being modded to a higher number), the build order on units is redundant.
I don't necessarily want to see cities destroyed, but I've said before that the plunder card should be altered to reduce every structure type in the region by 1 point. That would damage everything and destroy all industry as well as special structures like state capitols.
Agreed, or something very much like this. I haven't looked into it closely. I know I used to get messages in the log resulting from partisan units supposedly burning farm fields and other production resources. But I don't know if those resources were actually destroyed, or if they can be destroyed by deliberate action in the game.
grimjaw wrote:I fail to see them. I don't know what the common consensus is, but I rarely build more than a handful of forts during a game, even if I have the resources for it. With additional RGDs available (and possibly capable of being modded to a higher number), the build order on units is redundant.
If you gave both sides say, 10 cards, as the Union I would most likely burn through them and still probably build a few forts with the order. They help immensely in keeping Forrest out of critical points.
Agreed, or something very much like this. I haven't looked into it closely. I know I used to get messages in the log resulting from partisan units supposedly burning farm fields and other production resources. But I don't know if those resources were actually destroyed, or if they can be destroyed by deliberate action in the game.
They can be destroyed by partisans and Indians. If you kick the Pimas out of AZ during the US-Dakota War, they teleport to NV and destroy the mine if you don't have a garrison. I've never seen industry or internal unique structures like capitols get damaged, though.
They can be destroyed by partisans and Indians.
Another good point. Historically much more damage to property and infrastructure was done by regulars of both sides, yet up until now regulars seem to lack that ability in the game.
If you gave both sides say, 10 cards, as the Union I would most likely burn through them and still probably build a few forts with the order. They help immensely in keeping Forrest out of critical points.
You can always play with the numbers if you want to try to balance it, and giving fewer cards to the Union would more closely match historical anyway. IIRC, the Union didn't build that many forts (I don't count heavily entrenched positions) beyond the original secession line. More often they manned Confederate fortifications, didn't they?
grimjaw wrote:You can always play with the numbers if you want to try to balance it, and giving fewer cards to the Union would more closely match historical anyway. IIRC, the Union didn't build that many forts (I don't count heavily entrenched positions) beyond the original secession line. More often they manned Confederate fortifications, didn't they?
The Union garrisoned and fortified nearly every town or city of significance which they occupied. When Hood got to Nashville, the main reason he didn't try for another Gaines' Mill (aside from getting shredded at Franklin) was because the city was protected by a double ring of fortifications rivaling those around Richmond and Petersburg which had been improved over a similar period.
There were modern fortifications everywhere. Memphis, Springfield, MO, Lexington, MO, St. Louis, Helena, Murfreesboro, Lexington, KY, and on and on and on. Both the Union and Confederacy did this.
For example, they built over 2 dozen forts and batteries around Cincinnati in response to Confederate threats in 1862.
There were modern fortifications everywhere. Memphis, Springfield, MO, Lexington, MO, St. Louis, Helena, Murfreesboro, Lexington, KY, and on and on and on. Both the Union and Confederacy did this.
Well, then the limit should be by resources, and any number of cards should be available. We're talking about money, time, men and dirt/lumber, aren't we? Someone in the thread mentioned a conscript cost, but I don't think there should be one. I prefer the current requirement of keeping a minimum number of troops in the region while construction is underway. If you want another restriction to attempt to keep it in check, require engineers and/or a leader with some kind of engineering trait (many of them were trained in that discipline) be in the region to supervise construction.
-
pgr
- General of the Army
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:33 pm
- Location: Paris France (by way of Wyoming)
Well it looks like people seem pretty ok with the depot idea! (And if I get just that, I'll be happy 
)
As for forts, they are kinda weird ducks anyway. We could plunge into historical comparisons if we want (i mean we have the forts and entrenchments overlapping...i tend to think of a stack entrenched to level 6etc, as pretty well representing the Washington defenses), but it might be simpler to stick to the game play implications.
I tend to think of forts as an amphibious warfare thing. If I am wanting to build one, I am generally looking to slow ships down or block supplies along a river (and it should be noted that only a fort WITH GUNS blocks river supply). That means I'm probably the CSA, so I don't really have too many supplies to play around with.
Current fort building, using the build button, is an all around bad option because it costs a lot and is unarmed. So I figure it should either cost the same, and come with some fixed guns, or cost a lot less and come empty...
Of course, I suppose we could debate how much it should cost. I would say, lets keep it simple and have it be the same as a "Redoubt" RDC...or 2 supply wagon units.
)As for forts, they are kinda weird ducks anyway. We could plunge into historical comparisons if we want (i mean we have the forts and entrenchments overlapping...i tend to think of a stack entrenched to level 6etc, as pretty well representing the Washington defenses), but it might be simpler to stick to the game play implications.
I tend to think of forts as an amphibious warfare thing. If I am wanting to build one, I am generally looking to slow ships down or block supplies along a river (and it should be noted that only a fort WITH GUNS blocks river supply). That means I'm probably the CSA, so I don't really have too many supplies to play around with.
Current fort building, using the build button, is an all around bad option because it costs a lot and is unarmed. So I figure it should either cost the same, and come with some fixed guns, or cost a lot less and come empty...
Of course, I suppose we could debate how much it should cost. I would say, lets keep it simple and have it be the same as a "Redoubt" RDC...or 2 supply wagon units.
I think I do agree on both points. As for depots, someone mentioned they were interested in a Hard Supply mod and this would fit in with that.
As for forts, I really don't know much about how they work in game nor how they worked during the war. I think that well entrenched stacks should have as strong of a defensive effect as Far West forts, while coastal forts were more like citadels, often very hard to overrun. In my games, I use forts mainly in the Far West as supply lines. To me, the idea is that I can stick a partisan or militia element in a fort and maintain military control and a supply chain against enemy partisans or whatever. Beyond that I have a hard time using them effectively and don't know how much of an effect they have in battle.
Comparing how forts (and cities/settlements for that matter) are used in the game verses historically, I'd say that the game overestimates their tactical importance for forces larger than a single regiment or brigade. It would be meaningless to talk about trapping an army inside, for instance, Corinth, Mississippi (population in 1860 about 1,500). I do use forts/cities/settlements for the cohesion recovery bonus (I'm not sure if I get one, but I think so), but even this doesn't quite fit with my expectation. It makes sense to get a cohesion recovery bonus to an troops resting inside a large city with existing barracks and an army close to commissary kitchens, but even in Washington DC, Richmond, and Atlanta, troops stationed there stayed in camps outside of town for the most part - more or less like they would in any camp (Vicksburg bluff is an exception, I think, with troops staying on the heights; Knoxville not being an exception, as that camp would have become a prison in that valley like that even if there had been no town next to it).
grimjaw has done a lot more research on how forts were actually manned and used, and I really don't know how many were built during the war and what it cost, so I defer to him on this, for sure. I can say that winter quarters were built by regulars before the war very quickly and with timber and supplies on hand. I also can say that I agree that it is frustrating to have to use up guns to build a fort. With that in mind, I'd support a cheap-ish RGD or button that took 1-4 weeks.
As for forts, I really don't know much about how they work in game nor how they worked during the war. I think that well entrenched stacks should have as strong of a defensive effect as Far West forts, while coastal forts were more like citadels, often very hard to overrun. In my games, I use forts mainly in the Far West as supply lines. To me, the idea is that I can stick a partisan or militia element in a fort and maintain military control and a supply chain against enemy partisans or whatever. Beyond that I have a hard time using them effectively and don't know how much of an effect they have in battle.
Comparing how forts (and cities/settlements for that matter) are used in the game verses historically, I'd say that the game overestimates their tactical importance for forces larger than a single regiment or brigade. It would be meaningless to talk about trapping an army inside, for instance, Corinth, Mississippi (population in 1860 about 1,500). I do use forts/cities/settlements for the cohesion recovery bonus (I'm not sure if I get one, but I think so), but even this doesn't quite fit with my expectation. It makes sense to get a cohesion recovery bonus to an troops resting inside a large city with existing barracks and an army close to commissary kitchens, but even in Washington DC, Richmond, and Atlanta, troops stationed there stayed in camps outside of town for the most part - more or less like they would in any camp (Vicksburg bluff is an exception, I think, with troops staying on the heights; Knoxville not being an exception, as that camp would have become a prison in that valley like that even if there had been no town next to it).
grimjaw has done a lot more research on how forts were actually manned and used, and I really don't know how many were built during the war and what it cost, so I defer to him on this, for sure. I can say that winter quarters were built by regulars before the war very quickly and with timber and supplies on hand. I also can say that I agree that it is frustrating to have to use up guns to build a fort. With that in mind, I'd support a cheap-ish RGD or button that took 1-4 weeks.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests