Reinforcement Locations

[tagwyn]

BB666: I think some research in that area is already completed/readily avilable. Tag

[Spruce]

in the game the amount of ammo and general supplies is just infinite. Even for the CSA that does moderate industrial upgrade and fields fairly large armies of ANV and AT.

I've faced my stocks rising and rising and rising. I frown my wrinkles ...

Another thing is that you can recruit virtually all of your armies from TN and VA. This is something that makes me frown my wrinkles again.

Others state not to repair stuff that isn't broken.

I would say that having the option to recruit from multiple states is something there is already in the game and we should work it out all right. In other words - the game engine could also determine a random brigade - but that's really no fun ... So if the potential is there, we should use it - that's my point of vue.

So = states that are seeing a lot of recruitment should have their supply and ammo production cut back until you reach the point where you should invest in industry.

I think recruitment of brigades should pose a temporary malus to a state - f.e. -25% production (suppose that brigade needs to gather some food, ammo and workers and farmers are drafted for military service (less production). Each turn this malus is upped by f.e. 5%. And if you reduce the malus below 50% - the next draft will give you a -90% malus ! So this means the state production is hovering between 10% and 100% of its normal value - depending on how many recruitment is done.

That means that if you over-recruit in VA your production there will be drastically "disabled", but it will grow back in time. So it's an incentive to spread out your drafts - so you'll get a more historical result - and the fact to simulate set backs in ammo and general supply production.

Perhaps we should propose =

- drafted infantry brigade = -25% state production,
- drafted militia = -5% state production,
- drafted cavalry = -5% state production,
- drafted artillery = -5% state production,
- other untis = no malus,

[Conhugeco]

I absolutely agree with Stonewall and McNaughton

Me too. Although there are some interesting ideas in this thread. I would put any changes far down on the list of things to spend time on.

Dick

[jimkehn]

Spruce, I like your idea, although I think it may be a bit aggressive. I don't see this as just flavor. I see this as an exploit. Being able to "stack the deck" with border units not only is ahistorical, (never would you see ALL the units come from Tennessee, Virginia and Missouri, while Georgia and Alabama produce none), it unhinges the balance as troops are not having to be trained and transported to the front. What you are suggesting is saying to the player...sure you can bring in all your manpower from 3 states, but it will cost you in production from those states....and I think this is a reasonable payoff for the unreasonable, fantasy-type ability we have now. And I bet almost everyone of us, including me, exercises this exploit.

[Spruce]

Spruce, I like your idea, although I think it may be a bit aggressive. I don't see this as just flavor. I see this as an exploit. Being able to "stack the deck" with border units not only is ahistorical, (never would you see ALL the units come from Tennessee, Virginia and Missouri, while Georgia and Alabama produce none), it unhinges the balance as troops are not having to be trained and transported to the front. What you are suggesting is saying to the player...sure you can bring in all your manpower from 3 states, but it will cost you in production from those states....and I think this is a reasonable payoff for the unreasonable, fantasy-type ability we have now. And I bet almost everyone of us, including me, exercises this exploit.

yes I agree - it's just an idea - something better might be worthwhile to explore. It's a pitty we are now having a whole "scala" of recruitable forces from many states - and the pitty is that the only incentive is the historical flavour and the ability to "narrow down the site of construction".

I think the current setting can bring us much more gameplay fun with some small improvement.

[McNaughton]

I don't see it as a 'flawless' strategy, since you are taking a great risk by recruiting in border states (your newly built brigades being destroyed without a fight, losing all of those resources and money in the process or risking to build in border states). I have had units being deployed in cities under seige. It isn't a perfect exploit, as you risk the chance of a unit being wiped out without a fight if it happens to appear in a city that is vulnerable.

I personally tend to build my brigades from New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana, based primarily on the fact that they are 'safe' areas, and the primary source of Union forces. I tend to play according to historic trends and restraints, making my performance on the battlefield to chance history (i.e., I 'win' by planning my campaigns effectively, not attempting to maximize production or other aspects). I group my brigades in mustering cities (Baltimore in the East, Cincinati in the West) to organize them into divisions and corps, then deploy them in the front lines. Personally, it doesn't matter if they are in a rear state, or a border state, as one turn is required (no matter where they are) to transport them to a mustering centre to be organized. Usually it takes one turn to get from anywhere in New York to Baltimore by rail, just like it takes one turn to get from Washington to Baltimore, yet my troops are less vulnerable in New York.

It is risky in PBEM, as players are significantly aggressive enough to have border states as very vulnerable places. Even against the AI will you encounter a unit built in a border state in a risky city (some even under seige at that moment!).

It isn't a game breaking exploit, as you are limited by finances and manpower, so building 20 brigades from Tennessee, or 20 brigades from Louisiana, will still result in you having 20 brigades.

However, with everything said, I agree that there should be some effect on a state's loyalty and/or production if they are facing a very high level of drafting (i.e., 20 brigades from New York has more of an impact on the state population than 5 brigades from Pennsylvania, 5 from New York, 5 from Maine, 5 from Ohio). Yet, this is more of an addition, that will add to the game, rather than to fix something broken, or to plug a major exploit.

[jimkehn]

Mcnaughton, I agree that it isn't a major exploit. Nor do I think the presses should stop to fix it. I think it is more than just flavor, but a valid improvement to the way it is now. And I like the suggestions put forth by guys like Spruce and Aryaman.

There is one thing I am sure we will agree on. This is one damn fine game and simulation of the war. And AGEOD's commitment to make it better all the time is unmatched in the industry. I just can't wait to see what they can do with the Victorian Age and possibly down the road with WWII. It's good to be a wargamer again.

[veji1]

The simplest way to make sure troops are recruited in a homogeneous way would be to adjust the recruiting pool, to make 2 brigades of anytype available at most in any state to begin with, and then slowly increase... Simple and efficient enough.

[McNaughton]

The simplest way to make sure troops are recruited in a homogeneous way would be to adjust the recruiting pool, to make 2 brigades of anytype available at most in any state to begin with, and then slowly increase... Simple and efficient enough.

That doesn't represent the fact that a state like New York could easily field significantly more brigades than a state like Maryland, without facing significant unrest (due to massive population differences, New York could afford much higher troop concentrations).

[jimwinsor]

Like I said earlier, another really simple painless way to do this would be to incorporate an additional day delay when forming up...locked with that orange band, in other words.

Each state would be allowed to recruit X units, based on population; every unit built after that would incur Y additional days readiness time to prepare. Which would be cumulative.

Naval units would be the same, except X would be determined by relative shipbuilding capacity (ie, port levels).

[bboyer66]

Like I said earlier, another really simple painless way to do this would be to incorporate an additional day delay when forming up...locked with that orange band, in other words.

Each state would be allowed to recruit X units, based on population; every unit built after that would incur Y additional days readiness time to prepare. Which would be cumulative.

Naval units would be the same, except X would be determined by relative shipbuilding capacity (ie, port levels).

I agree , sounds like that could be implemented without making things overly complicated for the player, and more important the designer.

[McNaughton]

Before the word 'easy' is thrown around, lets consider the fact that we don't know the ins and outs of the game, and what necessarily is possible, or even worth implementing. It is easy to say something is easy, if you aren't the one having to implement this.

In the end, this is a very minor issue, and the solutions to it appear to be more complicated than the problem itself. Simply impose personal restrictions, and problem is solved without tricky reporgramming.