Hi chaps, I have just received Robert Lee in Sept '61 and the tooltip says he is permanently fixed unless attacked. I assume if he is not attacked he will eventually be released through an event? If so this tooltip must confuse a lot of new players. Other generals also have this message - will they all be released through events?
Cheers, Chris
-
Zoetermeer
- Sergeant
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:08 pm
- Location: Memphis, TN
Yes, he will be released sometime around July 1862 (could be a little earlier or later than this, I can't remember exactly).
But I agree - I was mislead by this the first time I saw it also, and posted something on this forum much like yours.
I think this is one example of a pervasive theme in the game - whether certain things should be purely scripted, or determined by events that occur during the course of gameplay. The Lee event is a good example of this - Lee might never have taken command in 1862 during the Peninsula campaign if Johnston hadn't been wounded, so if Johnston is still around in the game this event doesn't make much sense in the context of the game. But it's obviously not very appealing to make Lee unavailable to the CSA player for the entire game because he's done a good job of protecting his active generals.
Since I don't have too much experience with the game, I constantly am making costly mistakes because I'm unaware how/when certain events will be triggered, if they exist at all. Where do I need to concentrate on manufacturing my own units instead of relying on future events to provide them? Which generals do I need to expose to combat situation where the probability of success is high, so they can be properly promoted (i.e. Grant, etc.)? These are just a few of the things that sometimes give me the impression that playing the game is a balancing act between conducting the war how I "should" be conducting it (i.e. doing what was done historically) and experimenting with my own unique strategies.
But I guess this is the paradoxical nature of "historical simulations", as it were. This is not really a knock on the game per se, as I enjoy it tremendously - and these problems are not specific to AACW. The same sort of thing is present in games like Europa Universalis, etc.
But I agree - I was mislead by this the first time I saw it also, and posted something on this forum much like yours.
I think this is one example of a pervasive theme in the game - whether certain things should be purely scripted, or determined by events that occur during the course of gameplay. The Lee event is a good example of this - Lee might never have taken command in 1862 during the Peninsula campaign if Johnston hadn't been wounded, so if Johnston is still around in the game this event doesn't make much sense in the context of the game. But it's obviously not very appealing to make Lee unavailable to the CSA player for the entire game because he's done a good job of protecting his active generals.
Since I don't have too much experience with the game, I constantly am making costly mistakes because I'm unaware how/when certain events will be triggered, if they exist at all. Where do I need to concentrate on manufacturing my own units instead of relying on future events to provide them? Which generals do I need to expose to combat situation where the probability of success is high, so they can be properly promoted (i.e. Grant, etc.)? These are just a few of the things that sometimes give me the impression that playing the game is a balancing act between conducting the war how I "should" be conducting it (i.e. doing what was done historically) and experimenting with my own unique strategies.
But I guess this is the paradoxical nature of "historical simulations", as it were. This is not really a knock on the game per se, as I enjoy it tremendously - and these problems are not specific to AACW. The same sort of thing is present in games like Europa Universalis, etc.
We could have a debate about how much should be scripted. I think it's been touched on a few times but I would be interested in peoples views (if nothing else I can get something interesting to read tomorrow at lunch)
But I'm in the UK so must go to bed. As Lee and others are released by event I do think the tooltip should be changed so novices don't think that they might have to invite an attack just to get Lee released!
Thanks for the reply Zo.
Cheers, Chris
But I'm in the UK so must go to bed. As Lee and others are released by event I do think the tooltip should be changed so novices don't think that they might have to invite an attack just to get Lee released!
Thanks for the reply Zo.
Cheers, Chris
I agree fully with what you stated. However by the same token that is what keeps the game interesting.
Relating to Lee, I had a interesting experience related to the Lee issue however in my current game. I captured Richmond in October of 1861, Lee appeared in the battle screen, the city was captured every garrison unit was destroyed with large numbers of prisoners taken. Later on, in August or so of 1862 Lee appeared at the Union fort way in the south that you begin the game with, leading a siege army. I had thought I was rid of him at Richmond.
Relating to Lee, I had a interesting experience related to the Lee issue however in my current game. I captured Richmond in October of 1861, Lee appeared in the battle screen, the city was captured every garrison unit was destroyed with large numbers of prisoners taken. Later on, in August or so of 1862 Lee appeared at the Union fort way in the south that you begin the game with, leading a siege army. I had thought I was rid of him at Richmond.
Zoetermeer wrote:Yes, he will be released sometime around July 1862 (could be a little earlier or later than this, I can't remember exactly).
But I agree - I was mislead by this the first time I saw it also, and posted something on this forum much like yours.
I think this is one example of a pervasive theme in the game - whether certain things should be purely scripted, or determined by events that occur during the course of gameplay. The Lee event is a good example of this - Lee might never have taken command in 1862 during the Peninsula campaign if Johnston hadn't been wounded, so if Johnston is still around in the game this event doesn't make much sense in the context of the game. But it's obviously not very appealing to make Lee unavailable to the CSA player for the entire game because he's done a good job of protecting his active generals.
Since I don't have too much experience with the game, I constantly am making costly mistakes because I'm unaware how/when certain events will be triggered, if they exist at all. Where do I need to concentrate on manufacturing my own units instead of relying on future events to provide them? Which generals do I need to expose to combat situation where the probability of success is high, so they can be properly promoted (i.e. Grant, etc.)? These are just a few of the things that sometimes give me the impression that playing the game is a balancing act between conducting the war how I "should" be conducting it (i.e. doing what was done historically) and experimenting with my own unique strategies.
But I guess this is the paradoxical nature of "historical simulations", as it were. This is not really a knock on the game per se, as I enjoy it tremendously - and these problems are not specific to AACW. The same sort of thing is present in games like Europa Universalis, etc.
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests