Convince me to upgrade to the latest patch.

[Longshanks]

Sorry, I don't have the time (or inclination) to get in a debate with you, CitX. That's the way I see it. Take it or leave it.

[Citizen X]

Are you of the opinion that the new railroad destruction rules favor the Union?

I have never done that extensively myself, for reasons of style mostly. However, the Union is high by the numbers already. Every change that goes the road of "less effect for higher costs" naturally favors the Union. I don't see the sense any more in having raiders, partisans, Indians or the appropriate leader traits in the game. Other than flavor that is.

My biggest concerns are the new building rules for artillery and ironclads and the distant unload. It is my concern and conviction that these are robbing the CSA the facility of effectively conducting warfare to a satisfiable conclusion.

With two to three divisions and fleets the Union can lay havoc to (almost) the entire Confederation with a "one-rests-one-runs" strategy. Having the rate doubled at which Union troops and generals get experience being doubled (Hooker for 3-star!) only as a side effect.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I have never done that extensively myself, for reasons of style mostly. However, the Union is high by the numbers already. Every change that goes the road of "less effect for higher costs" naturally favors the Union. I don't see the sense any more in having raiders, partisans, Indians or the appropriate leader traits in the game. Other than flavor that is.

It depends on your style more than your side on how much effect this rule has. Since the south has a more vulnerable rail network, making it harder for the Union to break it gives as much or more advantage to the south than the north. This is probably my favorite change in the new patch just because raiders always had an outsized advantage imo.

My biggest concerns are the new building rules for artillery and ironclads and the distant unload. It is my concern and conviction that these are robbing the CSA the facility of effectively conducting warfare to a satisfiable conclusion.

So far, the effect has been barely noticeable for me. So your arty shows up in LA instead of arky or tx? 1-2 more turns transit time. I think you're vastly overstating the effects of this one.

With two to three divisions and fleets the Union can lay havoc to (almost) the entire Confederation with a "one-rests-one-runs" strategy. Having the rate doubled at which Union troops and generals get experience being doubled (Hooker for 3-star!) only as a side effect.

Not sure what you mean by this? Couldn't they always do that? What change in this patch results in that?

[dolphin]

Quote:
With two to three divisions and fleets the Union can lay havoc to (almost) the entire Confederation with a "one-rests-one-runs" strategy. Having the rate doubled at which Union troops and generals get experience being doubled (Hooker for 3-star!) only as a side effect.

Not sure what you mean by this? Couldn't they always do that? What change in this patch results in that?

I too would be interested to hear more about how this allegation stands up to argument.

For me having no experience with either the Union, or invasions/fleets for that matter this change is the obvious concern I would have.

With regards to the new build rules for artillary; while I can see why some would frown upon the change and can even see why it could be seen as more negative for the CSA I tend to agree with Cleburne about the negligible effect on game play and balance. So they enter in Lousianna. Its a short river transport to Texas if that is where you want them. To be fair though I do see this as most definately a weighted negative against the CSA. I can imagine the Union invading South in MO and the game changing issue might very well be getting Price some artillary in time to stop the advance. Two turns delay in getting his artillary could easily cost the CSA MO and part of Arkansas.

Most games I have played as CSA the delayed Ironclad build rule would not even make a difference since I usually never build them til later anyway against Athena.

However, in the one major PBM game that I played I did build a good number of them (x6 I think), but I can't remember how early I started their builds. Since I had actually won that PBM game partly due to my increased river boat power using Iron Clads I would have to say that it very well may be your right about it being a potential game changer. My Union opponant was agravating me to no end with his river boat fleet until I got my new CSA Iron Clads launched. As I recall the Union built a few too and actually got them launched before me. That was what forced me to respond with my major construction project. Its possible I did not start building mine until after the new date anyway whereas the Union player had built them before the new date. Both sides do have the delay build rule to contend with and the CSA has the free ones that unlock. I am more inclined to regard the Iron Clad build delay rule as somewhat benign for now until I discover otherwise through play testing.

[Citizen X]

I too would be interested to hear more about how this allegation stands up to argument.

For me having no experience with either the Union, or invasions/fleets for that matter this change is the obvious concern I would have.

I refer here to a discussion in the appropriate thread where I made my statements. The difference mainly is that before you loaded the troops on ships and then drove them to the destination. Then in the next turn you ordered the unload, which gave the CSA a response time of one turn.
Now you load and unload in the same turn which gives the CSA a response time of zippo. If you were onto coast-rampage you needed at least two turns for the next target, now it is one. I refer here only to traveling time. They still need the same amount of turns to recover of course. The more divisions you send out as the Union, the higher the benefit. Also as the CSA you now constantly need to guard Richmond against the highest anticipated evasion force because there will be no more warnings.


As to the cannons in the West. I never said it is a gamebreaker in all instances. It weakens the South. How much is open to discussion or evaluation. All I ever wanted was that to take place before it is implemented.
For the ironclads, where do they spawn when New Orleans gets blitzed?

[dolphin]

I refer here to a discussion in the appropriate thread where I made my statements. The difference mainly is that before you loaded the troops on ships and then drove them to the destination. Then in the next turn you ordered the unload, which gave the CSA a response time of one turn.

Now you load and unload in the same turn which gives the CSA a response time of zippo. If you were onto coast-rampage you needed at least two turns for the next target, now it is one. I refer here only to traveling time. They still need the same amount of turns to recover of course. The more divisions you send out as the Union, the higher the benefit. Also as the CSA you now constantly need to guard Richmond against the highest anticipated evasion force because there will be no more warnings.

This is most definately a major game changer. As primarily a CSA player myself I can see where this completely changes things.

Imagine if instead of having to pass through two adjacent regions to qualify for being shot at by Coastal Guns you were fired at upon by merely approaching them by entering a single adjacent region and again while passing through another adjacent region?

I have heard that suggested in another thread as a rule change. Such a change would have the Union players howling "unfair", but it would be more realistic if that is what your after rather than play balance.

As it was and still is you can just steer right into your amphibious invasion target region with complete impunity from any coastal guns. That having to move through two adjacent regions of coastal guns has always bothered me, but I live with it and don't complain.

I recollect when I was a total newb to this game reading a thread where it talked about the fact that you at least had a turn warning that the Union was going to invade due to the naval mechanics.


This change to the naval rules and invasions is that big and is definately a game changer that potentially forces the CSA to guard against impending threats by having to designate more powerful reactionary force as well as beefed up garrison contingents from the front line armies to guard the rear. Any way you slice it the change is a major negative to the CSA and gives the Union player opportunities the original game design did not intend for.

As to the cannons in the West. I never said it is a gamebreaker in all instances. It weakens the South. How much is open to discussion or evaluation. All I ever wanted was that to take place before it is implemented.

I think where we are at is wishing the changes had been implimented in such a way that patches only fixed things that were broke and the rule changes were released more as a Mod.

For the ironclads, where do they spawn when New Orleans gets blitzed?

I see your point. Partularly given that the blitz could easily come right out of Fort Pickens with no warning with the new naval/invasion rules.


P.S. Certainly these rule changes are all fine for a tournament where everyone has to play both sides, but if I was just interested in a good PBM with someone I am leaning heavily towards sticking with 1.6 rc4a.

I could live with the changes involved to destroy the railroads, but the build changes and naval invasion changes are a bridge too far for my taste.

The sad part is there are quite a few cleanups and fixes spread throughout all these release candidates that taken together could have made for a steller New Official patch worthy of an Official AGEOD Stamp of Approval had the rule changes been left out with the exception of the new railroad rules which does seem to be a change that most agree was needed.

At the very least imagine had a 1.6 rc4b been made available with just the ammunition fix. That alone would have been awsome.

[Citizen X]

It depends on your style more than your side on how much effect this rule has. Since the south has a more vulnerable rail network, making it harder for the Union to break it gives as much or more advantage to the south than the north. This is probably my favorite change in the new patch just because raiders always had an outsized advantage imo.

Raiders were always subject to houserules for a reason. I agree that this is will most likely not effect gamebalance too much.
I answered a question here.

So far, the effect has been barely noticeable for me. So your arty shows up in LA instead of arky or tx? 1-2 more turns transit time. I think you're vastly overstating the effects of this one.

Given two players of equal skill who are equally determined in MO. Then these 2 turns might well make a difference. No more, no less.

Not sure what you mean by this? Couldn't they always do that? What change in this patch results in that?

Answered in above post.

[Captain_Orso]

Two points. First the reason that I believe you are receiving resistance in discussions in the thread, and the reason for my answer to your opening this thread, is that you are not asking to discuss the changes in the public betas, you challenged the forum to convince you.

To your question of whether the change to damaging railroads, I will post a counter question:

Was the way it was previously fair and realistic?

My answer is 'no' it was not. The change has made raiding to damage railroads much more fair and realistic. The challenge it posses to the CSA-Player is legitimate.

[dolphin]

Two points. First the reason that I believe you are receiving resistance in discussions in the thread, and the reason for my answer to your opening this thread, is that you are not asking to discuss the changes in the public betas, you challenged the forum to convince you.

To your question of whether the change to damaging railroads, I will post a counter question:

Was the way it was previously fair and realistic?

My answer is 'no' it was not. The change has made raiding to damage railroads much more fair and realistic. The challenge it posses to the CSA-Player is legitimate.

Perhaps to you it may have seemed that way, but from my perspective it was merely a statement that I was unsure about if I wanted to update my patch. Simple as that. The title of the thread is not a rule, nor was it meant to be taken as a literal challenge. It was merely the first words that came to my mind that described my apprehension at diving in with the new patches in total ignorance as to what changes were made. As I had mentioned I have been away from the forum and the game for quite awhile and had just returned, so I wanted to make an educated choice was all.

The new railroad rule is beyond criticism as that has obviously gained an overwhelming consensus of approval from all sides of the issue. It having been a focus of house rules for so long it was begging to be changed.

[lodilefty]

Compare new Distant Unload to "old method":

Distant unload:
load troops, move to coastal region adjacent to target, select Distant Unload. Troops will start to debark on arrival of fleet. Fleet move may be delayed from port [random], debark takes ~ 5 days.
So, "same turn ashore" limited to ~ 10 or fewer regions away in fair weather.

"Old Way":
load troops, move to ocean region near target [not coastal, deep water]. Next turn, use riverine movement to transport troops to target. Opponent will not see the fleet at end of turn 1 unless they have a fleet nearby. Riverine movement may reduce cohesion losses to troops while landing.

So, in both cases, the opponent has little to no warning of impending invasion, and in many cases, will have less with the old way, as the range of targets for the fleet is broadened by riverine move (up rivers, along the coast)

So, Distant Unload coupled with the new restriction of Riverine to coastal/shallow seems better to the design team.

[dolphin]

Compare new Distant Unload to "old method":

Distant unload:
load troops, move to coastal region adjacent to target, select Distant Unload. Troops will start to debark on arrival of fleet. Fleet move may be delayed from port [random], debark takes ~ 5 days.
So, "same turn ashore" limited to ~ 10 or fewer regions away in fair weather.

"Old Way":
load troops, move to ocean region near target [not coastal, deep water]. Next turn, use riverine movement to transport troops to target. Opponent will not see the fleet at end of turn 1 unless they have a fleet nearby. Riverine movement may reduce cohesion losses to troops while landing.

So, in both cases, the opponent has little to no warning of impending invasion, and in many cases, will have less with the old way, as the range of targets for the fleet is broadened by riverine move (up rivers, along the coast)

So, Distant Unload coupled with the new restriction of Riverine to coastal/shallow seems better to the design team.

I am very happy you decided to elaborate and clarify.

Are you saying that in the new way (Distant Unload) the troops landing never suffer a cohesion loss?

I think a good case could be made that at least some cohesion loss should be automatic. I always thought it was automatic up until you mentioned there being only a chance for it in the old way.

I recall reading a thread on the landing issue where someone did some tests with the new way and it did seem that if there were not enough days left in the turn to complete the 5 day landing it still allowed it with whatever days were left in the turn. In the test mentioned in the thread the landing occured with only 3 days left. One could infer from that test that they can be permitted to land if there is even a single day left.

Perhaps an automatic cohesion loss to troops debarking could be instituted in a new patch to address the concerns of those arguing play balance is being compromised in favor of the Union?

It occurs to me the basic code for it is already written within the Kentucky event that causes a cohesion loss if you enter the state too early after Kentucky enters the war.

[lodilefty]

I am very happy you decided to elaborate and clarify.

Are you saying that in the new way (Distant Unload) the troops landing never suffer a cohesion loss?

I think a good case could be made that at least some cohesion loss should be automatic. I always thought it was automatic up until you mentioned there being only a chance for it in the old way.

I recall reading a thread on the landing issue where someone did some tests with the new way and it did seem that if there were not enough days left in the turn to complete the 5 day landing it still allowed it with whatever days were left in the turn. In the test mentioned in the thread the landing occured with only 3 days left. One could infer from that test that they can be permitted to land if there is even a single day left.

Perhaps an automatic cohesion loss to troops debarking could be instituted in a new patch to address the concerns of those arguing play balance is being compromised in favor of the Union?

It occurs to me the basic code for it is already written within the Kentucky event that causes a cohesion loss if you enter the state too early after Kentucky enters the war.

The distant unload troops also suffer cohesion loss while landing, as it is considered movement.

Are you sure the debark was fully completed? I'd like to see a save game of that if true...

Writing an event requires we know the region. No command exists to do that...

By the way, the Distant Unload will remain part of 1.16, so your only alternative would be to "mod it out" or stay with 1.15

[dolphin]

The distant unload troops also suffer cohesion loss while landing, as it is considered movement.

Are you sure the debark was fully completed? I'd like to see a save game of that if true...

Writing an event requires we know the region. No command exists to do that...

By the way, the Distant Unload will remain part of 1.16, so your only alternative would be to "mod it out" or stay with 1.15

I am currently using 1.16 rc4a which I installed long before the change to Distant Unload was ever made? Are you saying that my current version of the 1.16rc4a patch is no longer available for download if players choose to do a PBM using it?

Back when I was playing that was pretty much what everyone one using.

P.S. Here is the post I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Citizen X
Happy Holidays.
There is a thing in recent patch that I only slowly began to think about: distant unload. I have a question about it.
How is the time for unloading calculated? Is it the same modifiers as moving from land region to land region? Is unloading immediate so that spare days in the turn of arrival already get used to unload?
I didn't have the time to test it myself. Maybe someone can share some experience here?

Originally Posted by Normalguy

I just ran some quick tests:

Test 1
Fleet already in destination sea/river sector day 1
Troops disembark into target sector day 5 = 5 days to disembark

Test 2
Fleet arrives at target day 9
Troops disembark day 14 = 5 days

Test 3
Fleet arrives day 12
Troops on shore day 14 = 3 days.

Test 4
Fleet sails direct into (friendly) port/town on day 5
Troops appear to be unloaded on day 5.

Conclusion - disembarkation via distant unload takes 5 days or to the end of the turn whichever is shortest time.

Target sector did not seem to affect the timing i.e. using distant unload into a swamp, a port or grass sector seems to give the same results. That seems reasonable - you are unloading troops that are 'offshore' into the ship's boats and then rowing them ashore onto a beach (unlike in Test 4 where the fleet unloads direct onto the dock side).....a beach is a beach is a beach...
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=23706ct

[lodilefty]

I am currently using 1.16 rc4a which I installed long before the change to Distant Unload was ever made? Are you saying that my current version of the 1.16rc4a patch is no longer available for download if players choose to do a PBM using it?

It's still there, but if you use it, don't bother reporting any bugs!

If distant unload is really giving you an ulcer, mod as follows:

1. Open UserInterface.opt found in \ACW\Settings [use notepad or other text editor]
2. Find the line SpecOrder14 = 0 // DistUnload
3. Change it to SpecOrder14 = -1 // DistUnload
4. Save file

nuff said.

[dolphin]

The distant unload troops also suffer cohesion loss while landing, as it is considered movement.

You mentioned that in the old way that riverine movement may reduce cohesion losses to troops while landing.

That implies a cohesion hit over and above the normal cohesion hit due to movement.

The new Distant Unload feature negates that chance since it bypasses the technicality of having to use the riverine movement string to disembark.

I was trying to make a case that adding an automatic cohesion hit for troops diembarking from naval transport might go a long way towards addressing the concerns some people have regarding the play balance issue.

Add that into a patch and I am thinking I could happily play the CSA without concern to the new changes weighting the play balance in favor of the Union.

I would be willing to say that up to a 25% loss in cohesion if not 50% would be in order for troops disembarking from Naval transport.

I guess what I am saying is that if you are one that agrees with CitizenX that these changes seem to all benefit the Union and a good case can be made that they do then why not address that issue by adding a rule that makes sense for everyone that is in favor of the CSA to even out the play balance.

Not necessarilly a cohesion hit to debarking invaders, but something.

[dolphin]

It's still there, but if you use it, don't bother reporting any bugs!

If distant unload is really giving you an ulcer, mod as follows:

1. Open UserInterface.opt found in \ACW\Settings [use notepad or other text editor]
2. Find the line SpecOrder14 = 0 // DistUnload
3. Change it to SpecOrder14 = -1 // DistUnload
4. Save file

nuff said.

It was giving me an ulcer before your rebuttle explaining in detail the old way and the new way. Now I am back to being undecided, but open to using it.

Thats great though that you offered a simple way to disable it.

I must admit though I am still a bit uncomfortable with the new artillary build rules (just a little) and the modified dates to building Iron Clads.

When it is all said and done though I am leaning towards being open to using the new patch with all the changes depending on how my as yet unknown PBM opponant feels about it.