Captain_Orso wrote:Once the fort was build I dived on it to have a look at those nasty cannons lurking in there . Where are they, where'd they go ? Gone, two batteries of 6lb.ers and 2 of 12lb.ers @ 12 cannons each, 48 cannons in all - vanished .
soloswolf wrote:... And a fort in it's place.
Degataga wrote:While I grant it doesn't make much sense from a logical perspective, IMO its a good way to check fort-spamming. If there was just a raw resource cost plus a supply wagon the Union player could build forts in every city he takes quite easily.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Captain_Orso:
If you want to post a question about features in the game all you have to do is post that question straight out, there are dozens of forumites here that are generally quite willing to try to give you some helpful answers and tips. As a "newbie", ridicule of the game design features while trying to get answers from the more experienced "oldsters" is not really conducive to getting the answers you really want.
Captain_Orso wrote:Hola arsan,
okay, I accept.
But just imagine my surprise. Me sitting up there in Washington admiring the glistening paint on my freshly built fortification through my field glasses, when suddenly Campbell's Brigade comes hoot'en 'n holler'en over the fields. I'm thinking, "just you wait, just a little closer ... little closer ...". Suddenly nothing but necked rebel-butts waving at me from the battlements. Glad this was just a test.
arsan wrote:
As a personal comment... IMHO forts ar not too interesting in AACW. I rarely build them, except maybe some with the CSA on the big rivers to block naval movement.
I don't think i have ever built one with the USA.
Forts were beginning to get outdated by the AACW times... armies deployed on 100 miles long trench lines were the new fashion! Ask Lee and Grant!
ShovelHead wrote:Not fortifing Washington or Richmond (or your moved capital) invites disaster from easy capture by your opponent. Forts allow even small/battered forces to hold key positions. The Confederate player cannot garrison all of their key ports with their limited forces and benefits greatly by using forts. Fortifing ports allows small garrisons to hold against a Federal invasion while a reaction force is sent to relieve the garrison.
A lot of problems players have in the game are due to inadequate garrisons of their rear areas.
W.Barksdale wrote:Just like Johnston relieving Pemberton at Vicksburg!
Captain_Orso wrote:My dearest Gray,
Let me blow off a little steam with people who might understand me. I'm trying to learn the game the best way I can and I spent HOURS today getting this little experiment to run.
If I'd have asked, "how do you build a fort?" do you really think anybody would take me terribly seriously? I know I wouldn't, because the question is answered it the manual and elsewhere. I don't need anybody to take me on the hand like a little child. I can read. If I can't find what I'm looking for, I ask.
I work in software support for one of the worlds major computer manufacturers. It irks me to no end when a customer it too lazy to open the manual and look for themselves. But if one comes and points out that something doesn't make sense to them I try to explain why it is the way it is. Sometimes the features a customer wants just aren't there. That's why we have a 'Request for Improvement'. And I've laughed with numerous frustrated customers about surprising discoveries and passed on a lot of RFIs.
But why do you find it so offensive that I point out things that are surprising or illogical to me?
I wanted to know what happened to the artillery that I had to collect to build a fortification. How do they compare to the Fortification Batteries that I've already encountered in the game? Does it make a difference if the artillery used is 6lb-er or 12lb-er or 10lb-er Parrotts or Rodmans?
Do you really think that I should have expected the artillery to be used-up like building material?
Just my $.02
Orso
Gray_Lensman wrote:Now my $.02
I'm not offended, just incredibly bored with the occasional newbie that thinks he can garner a better response to his questions about the game by posing them in such ways as to ridicule AGEod's game design. You're not the first to employ this approach nor will you be the last but as for me personally I don't think I'm going to bother responding and/or furnish any detailed database answers to such posts anymore.
In contrast to this post, DaemoneIsos' post (another recent newbie) at this link: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15348 is a good example of someone really interested in finding out answers to game design issues without feeling the necessity to ridicule the game design itself.
Captain_Orso wrote:This is the - what - third or fourth time that you've titled my critic and comments as ridicule, which is a derogatory remark. Then you say that I bore you. You ACT like you are personally attacked by my critic. And ACT like you speak for the 'veteran' community telling me the manner in which I have to approach this forum and threatening me with exclusion through ignoring. Those are all personal attacks, regardless of how emotionless you try to present them.
But you have yet to lose one word about the content of my critic other than to point me toward documentations that I had already listed as having known about and read.
If you feel personally attacked, then I'm sorry about that. But stop picking on me just because I don't present issues with the humbleness you expect.
Big Ideas wrote:I think the level 1 forts represent the pre-war forts that where built after the War of 1812. As such they are much easier to breach- being outdated to modern artillery and ammo types. The level 2 forts represent modern forts that have only recently been made- using improved techniques of protection and siting. These forts are much harder to breach.
Big Ideas wrote:The supply wagons and artillery units used in the construction can be recruited again as they appear in the force pool (F2)- so you can build as many forts as you want/can afford. So there isn't a blackhole for your arty.
Big Ideas wrote:Though of course if you use arty from a state that has been over-run then those arty won't be able to purchased without risk of enemy occupying their city while still training.
Big Ideas wrote:I have played only as the CSA in 13 PBEM games and I don't build forts as I think they are a trap for your units inside. Once your forces surrender you are giving away heaps of NM. My experience is that the Union has enough troops to invest the fort and continue his advances. I try instead to use counter-moves to the Union offensives.
enf91 wrote:During a siege, the game computes a "siege roll value" dependent on special abilities, existing breaches, artillery, and a few more things. If that value exceeds the average discipline of the defending troops, and the defenders have no supply wagons, they surrender.
enf91 wrote: HOWEVER, as Banks showed in his fight against soundoff, while his fortress line was eventually breached, it took soundoff the better part of a year to do so.
.
Captain_Orso wrote:*I work in software support for one of the worlds major computer manufacturers. It irks me to no end when a customer it too lazy to open the manual and look for themselves.
Orso
Topeka wrote:I know I'm just pouring gasoline on the fire, but this is an IT support attitude that I find way too typical. All customers are treated with disdain, while the IT support, who don't earn a red cent for the company, ridicule the people who actually earn money just because only they have the special knowledge that you need to press function-F8 to get 2 monitors to work from one computer.
Sorry to hijack the thread. [/VENT]
Gray_Lensman wrote:Now my $.02
I'm not offended, just incredibly bored with the occasional newbie that thinks he can garner a better response to his questions about the game by posing them in such ways as to ridicule AGEod's game design. You're not the first to employ this approach nor will you be the last but as for me personally I don't think I'm going to bother responding and/or furnish any detailed database answers to such posts anymore.
In contrast to this post, DaemoneIsos' post (another recent newbie) at this link: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=15348 is a good example of someone really interested in finding out answers to game design issues without feeling the necessity to ridicule the game design itself.
Colonel Dreux wrote:You're too salty Gray. Nobody cares that certain posters bore you. If you have nothing good to say just ignore the post. Everyone respects the immense amount of work you've done, but you need to chill out and not take every little comment so seriously.
Allow people to have their opinions about the game.
arsan wrote:C'mon guys!
Was really needed to bring back from the dead like this a two weeks old post ??
Are you bored too?? trying to pick fights or start flame wars??
Sorry, but i don't think your post offer anything positive to the discussion at hand, really.
I think you could also take note of your own advice and chill out too.
Or use the PM to offer personal attitude advices to other forum members.
Just my 0,2 cents
Cheers!
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests