There must be some way out of here

[Pocus]

This would need a tweaking of data, instead of the states as the recruiting area (PA eg), a custom area with only the desired harbors would be better.

[Charles De Salaberry]

It may not be a problem for you...that's great. But I assure you, it is a problem for me.

If I need ocean-going vessels to participate in blockades, I expect to build those from the Ocean vessels tab.

If I need river-going vessels to participate in riverine warfare, I expect to build those from the River vessels tab.

There are numerous work-arounds or alternative uses for already built ships, but frankly I don't want to have to use a work-around or alternative...I want the ship that I requested to be built in a reasonable place.

Certainly not a huge bug...far from game-breaking...but an issue that I think should be addressed when resources are available.

I repeat, it is not a bug. It may be an annoyance to some people but it is what historically occured. Monitors were built at river ports and at coastal ports - they are not deep water vessels and would be swamped in a storm at sea - which is what happened to the USS Monitor. If you are complaining about the fact that you can't choose which port your vessels are built at then that is different concern.

[Charles De Salaberry]

Sure, but that's not what this is about. This is about (river) ironclads and (river) gunboats being built in ocean ports.

I'm not saying that they can't be useful along the coast, it's just that if you build river ships because you feel you need them on the Mississippi, and they then get built in ocean ports with no realistic chance of being of use on the Mississippi anytime soon, if at all, you can't help but feel you have wasted a good amount of resources.

AS ABOVE, Monitors are coastal or river class vessels - not deep water ships. What you are arguing about is the fact that you can't choose where to build your ships.

[Charles De Salaberry]

This would need a tweaking of data, instead of the states as the recruiting area (PA eg), a custom area with only the desired harbors would be better.

If you are considering this then you should also consider restricting the number of vessels that can be built at each port at one time - there are only so many slipways at each port that can be used to construct these vessels and, in my opinon, allowing the players to decide where they can build these vessels gives the player far too much control. I think that the process as it stands works fine and forces the player to consider that if he wants to build more gunboats in Pennsylvania than there are ports available then some of those boats are going to be built in Philadelphia because he just doesn't have the shipyard capacity in the river ports that he would want.

[Charles De Salaberry]

Another Historical note.

If you really want to get sticky about historical accuracy then none of your naval builds should appear in any of the Great Lake ports since by the Rush-Bagot Agreement of April 28, 1818

"All other armed vessels on these lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed."

http://www.aandc.org/research/rush-bagot_agreement.html

You may argue that that is not true because a large number of USN and RCN vessels were built on the Great Lakes during WW2 - but - that was as a result of an agreement between Canada and the United States in 1940 that stipulated that

"This would involve recognition that armament might be installed on naval vessels constructed on the Great Lakes provided that:--

(a) The vessels are not intended for service on the Great Lakes;

(b) Prior to commencement of construction, each Government furnish the other with full information concerning any vessel to be constructed at Great Lakes ports;

(c) The armaments of the vessels are placed in such condition as to be incapable of immediate use while the vessels remain in the Great Lakes; and

(d) The vessels are promptly removed from the Great Lakes upon completion."

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cts.1940.12.en.html

[Malagant]

I don't see how you can speak with any authority on what is and is not a bug.

Since it seems to be a game play mechanic that is unintentionally taking away from MY enjoyment of the game, then I think it's a bug.

You can continue to enjoy wasting resources by having things built in completely inappropriate places, knock yourself out.

If I want an ironclad or monitor to participate in the east coast naval warfare, I'll choose an appropriate building spot for it...such as CT or DE.

If I want ironclads to participate in the riverine warfare in the interior, I would like them to be built there, particularly in the ports with engineers.

Please note, I was not building another ship in PA at the time...the shipyard facilities in Pittsburgh were empty.

Why don't you find me an historical example of the War Department requesting the building of river ironclads to assist in the drive down the Mississippi but instead they were built on the east coast?

I repeat, it is not a bug. It may be an annoyance to some people but it is what historically occured. Monitors were built at river ports and at coastal ports - they are not deep water vessels and would be swamped in a storm at sea - which is what happened to the USS Monitor. If you are complaining about the fact that you can't choose which port your vessels are built at then that is different concern.

[Charles De Salaberry]

I don't see how you can speak with any authority on what is and is not a bug.

Since it seems to be a game play mechanic that is unintentionally taking away from MY enjoyment of the game, then I think it's a bug.

"A software bug (or just "bug") is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect result)." - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

You can call it a bug all you want, but since you are not the programmer how can you say that that is not what he intended. As far as I am concerned, if I were the programmer I would not consider it a bug - enough said on that.

You can continue to enjoy wasting resources by having things built in completely inappropriate places, knock yourself out.

If I want an ironclad or monitor to participate in the east coast naval warfare, I'll choose an appropriate building spot for it...such as CT or DE.

If I want ironclads to participate in the riverine warfare in the interior, I would like them to be built there, particularly in the ports with engineers.

Please note, I was not building another ship in PA at the time...the shipyard facilities in Pittsburgh were empty.

I do not waste my resources building things where I don't want them. When I want river boats for use on the east coast I build them in states which have ports on the east coast. When I want river boats for use on the Mississippi and its tributaries I build them in states which are not on the coast. A simple judicious use of your building capacity avoids wasting resources. It sounds from your description that you are already doing that to some extent and that the only thing that's annoying you is that some of the units you build in Pennsylvania show up in Philadelphia rather than Pittsburgh. The fact that your shipyard in Pittsburgh was empty does not preclude the possibility that the ships that you want will be built in Philadelphia - it has been my experience that the program spreads out the construction relatively evenly but it may be that it builds in Philadelphia before Pittsburgh.

Why don't you find me an historical example of the War Department requesting the building of river ironclads to assist in the drive down the Mississippi but instead they were built on the east coast?

Don't be such a fool - I have already provided examples of river class boats that were built on both the coast and on the rivers - the Monitors. Historically there is no possibility of river class boats being built on the coast and used to move down the Mississippi since access to the Great Lakes for warships of the United States would have violated the Rush-Bagot Agreement and resulted in war with Great Britain. However there is plenty of opportunity to use those river class boats built on the Atlantic Coast to travel up the Mississippi from New Orleans after the Union captures it.

If you are building so many river boats that you are ending up with them being constructed on the East Coast despite all my advice on how to avoid that, then either you have lost control of the northern tributaries of the Mississippi and the ports on the Great Lakes, or you have overtaxed your shipyards on the rivers to the point that the War Department is awarding contracts to the underutilized yards on the coast.

[Rafiki]

First of all, please do not call other posters "fools", since that detracts from the discussion and the subject at hand.Name-calling also lessens the strength of the points you want to make.

AS ABOVE, Monitors are coastal or river class vessels - not deep water ships.

Who is talking about monitors? I can't speak for too many others, but the monitors are being built exactly as I expect them to be.

What you are arguing about is the fact that you can't choose where to build your ships.

Sure. Because there is a rather large difference in getting a river ironclad at the coast or on the Mississippi when your intention is to strengthen the Mississippi river flotillas.

However there is plenty of opportunity to use those river class boats built on the Atlantic Coast to travel up the Mississippi from New Orleans after the Union captures it.

First of all, sending a river ship from New England to New Orleans will expose it to bombardment by every single CSA coastal fort along the way. Secondly, the CSA might still have a large degree of control of the lower Mississippi, so you have even more ways to loose the ships before they reach the place you wished to have them available in the first place. Thirdly, not every captures New Orleans at an early stage when they play the Union, so New Orleans might not be available for resting and refitting along the way.

I don't consider doing this to even be a feasible workaround.

If you are building so many river boats that you are ending up with them being constructed on the East Coast despite all my advice on how to avoid that, then either you have lost control of the northern tributaries of the Mississippi and the ports on the Great Lakes, or you have overtaxed your shipyards on the rivers to the point that the War Department is awarding contracts to the underutilized yards on the coast.

If you pursue a steady program of building river ships, it's rather easy to reach the pool limits for e.g. ironclads in all other states forcing you to build in Pennsylvania if you wish to increase the number of ironclads you have available.

"A software bug (or just "bug") is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect result)." - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

You can call it a bug all you want, but since you are not the programmer how can you say that that is not what he intended. As far as I am concerned, if I were the programmer I would not consider it a bug - enough said on that.

Pocus, OTOH, *is* the programmer, and though he doesn't outright say he considers this to be a bug, the fact that he puts forth an idea for how this can be addressed shows that he at least acknowledges the dilemma.

As for what is and isn't a "bug", there is no need to argue about semantics. It certainly is a problem for Malagant when it detracts from his enjoyment of the game.

[Charles De Salaberry]

My apologies to Malagant if he considers that as an insult - it was a direct response to the tone of his post.

Back to the discussion:

The monitors are being built as you desire, and as I desire as well. The point with singling out the monitors is that they are river class and were built both on the coast and on the rivers. Another example would be the Potomac River Flotilla - a Union fleet which was made up of river steamers and gunboats built around the Chesapeake. It doesn't exist in 1861 and in order for it to be built you have to build the vessels in Pennsylvania, since this is the only state where river class vessels can be built at coastal ports in the game; unless you want to create it by moving vessels built on the upper reaches of the Mississippi down the river past all of the Confederate defences on the river and then up the coast exposing them to all the coastal forts as well.

Since Pennsylvania is the only state that river class boats can be built for use on the coast and only three of the seven ports in Pennsylvania are on the coast, that means that approximately 3/7ths of your production of River boats in PA will end up appearing in a coastal port (I haven't tested this to be sure so my numbers are approximate). This leaves all of the river production in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio for use on the upper reaches of the Mississippi and approximately 4/7ths of your PA production. In my opinion, that is more than sufficient to satisfy all of your requirements without maxing out your river boat pools - which coincidently would represent you maxing out your shipbuilding capacity in all of your ports for river class vessels, regardless of whether they were being built on the rivers or on the coast.

To argue that all of the production of river class vessels should occur at river ports robs players of the choice to use a strategy using river boats to infest all the Confederate rivers on the East and Gulf Coasts; a strategy that was historically carried out, although to a limited degree, by the Union. I am satisfied with the way things are in the game with this right now and I don't think that POCUS needs to make any changes unless it can satisfy both Malagant's concerns and mine.

[Malagant]

I'm sorry you feel you have to resort to name-calling to make your argument. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that the problem does not lie in my handling of production.

I'd chosen to build gunboats and river ironclads in PA to take advantage of the shipyard engineer in Pittsburgh...one of only three (by my count) available in the interior.

To refute your argument, I did some simple (yet wasteful) testing and observing...nearly every ship I build in PA, regardless of how many are already being built or are ordered on the same turn are built in Philidelphia. Out of 12 'river' ships I've tried to buid in PA, ONE of them was built in Pitt.

Please don't waste anyone else's time (especially your own! ) on trying to convince me that this is working as intended...that it is somehow a good thing...or telling me how I'm the cause of this problem...or giving me historical examples of monitors/ironclads working in the 'ocean' (please note I've never made an argument that ironclads and monitors were not effectively used on the Atlantic coast...the only problem I've mentioned is that they're not being built in Pittsburgh, therefore wasting my resources when I try to take advantage of the shipyard engineer there)...or discussing possible work-arounds to a game mechanic problem that everyone (including Pocus...you know...they guy that's made the game!) acknowledges EXCEPT YOU.

I'm done arguing with you. It's quite clear to me that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'm happy you enjoy the random aspect of shipbuilding. I (and others, apparently) think it is problematic and detracts from the enjoyment of the game. I do not understand how giving me the option of building ships in particular regions could somehow be a problem for you.



<edit> Quick check in game...river ironclads built in Philly take 228 days to reach Cairo. Not a very practical alternative!

My apologies to Malagant if he considers that as an insult - it was a direct response to the tone of his post.

Back to the discussion:

The monitors are being built as you desire, and as I desire as well. The point with singling out the monitors is that they are river class and were built both on the coast and on the rivers. Another example would be the Potomac River Flotilla - a Union fleet which was made up of river steamers and gunboats built around the Chesapeake. It doesn't exist in 1861 and in order for it to be built you have to build the vessels in Pennsylvania, since this is the only state where river class vessels can be built at coastal ports in the game; unless you want to create it by moving vessels built on the upper reaches of the Mississippi down the river past all of the Confederate defences on the river and then up the coast exposing them to all the coastal forts as well.

Since Pennsylvania is the only state that river class boats can be built for use on the coast and only three of the seven ports in Pennsylvania are on the coast, that means that approximately 3/7ths of your production of River boats in PA will end up appearing in a coastal port (I haven't tested this to be sure so my numbers are approximate). This leaves all of the river production in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio for use on the upper reaches of the Mississippi and approximately 4/7ths of your PA production. In my opinion, that is more than sufficient to satisfy all of your requirements without maxing out your river boat pools - which coincidently would represent you maxing out your shipbuilding capacity in all of your ports for river class vessels, regardless of whether they were being built on the rivers or on the coast.

To argue that all of the production of river class vessels should occur at river ports robs players of the choice to use a strategy using river boats to infest all the Confederate rivers on the East and Gulf Coasts; a strategy that was historically carried out, although to a limited degree, by the Union. I am satisfied with the way things are in the game with this right now and I don't think that POCUS needs to make any changes unless it can satisfy both Malagant's concerns and mine.

[Rafiki]

This would need a tweaking of data, instead of the states as the recruiting area (PA eg), a custom area with only the desired harbors would be better.

If I had a better knowledge of the datafiles governing this, I'd take a stab at it; I'll see if I can look into this during the weekend.

[dutch81]

Maybe it can be solved by dividing Penn. into two regions?

[Rafiki]

Maybe it can be solved by dividing Penn. into two regions?

Yup, that's what Pocus is suggesting

[GShock]

I've come to realize the deep reasons behind the fact you have totally no control at all over where the units are actually built by playing my first campaign.

We are in the spoils of the President, and the Generals. The President takes strategic choices, the Generals take tactical choices. Neither of them has a say on recruitment centers.

I have to assault Fort Monroe, i took the Marines...they spawned in N.O....

Some sort of control would be appropriate for the units appearing in "All States"...basically it's about making them in color-coding and assigning them to a State.

[lodilefty]

I might as well get my two cents in:

I like it the way it is. I simulates quite nicely the rampant and militarily irrational Political Patronage that plagued both Lincoln and Davis. Remember, the States recruited, not the central governments. The central governments let contracts, but often to a political 'croney', not to the 'best yard'.

"River ironclad in Philadelphia? Thank you for supporting me in the last, and hopefully next election.."

"Marines in New Orleans? Thank you! I'll try to get the cotton on your docks to Jamaica..."

I don't favor any more selection of "where to build" unless a lot more modeling of the political issues with State Governors is done...

The ACW was extremely political (actually ALL about Politics and control). These events give a nice feel to what McClellan never understood....

[Charles De Salaberry]

I'm sorry you feel you have to resort to name-calling to make your argument. I'm sorry you refuse to accept that the problem does not lie in my handling of production.

Again, Please accept my apologies. I did not intend to insult anyone.

As I stated in my last post, I have not conducted trials for Pennsylvania, so I was assuming that the game engine was dividing up the builds evenly - and that was one of the reasons I did not see any problem with it. Since you have trialed that and have found that what I am assuming is not the case then I concede that I am in error.

I understand your concerns with the system as it stands and I have no problem if Pocus creates an option for players to choose where they want to build their ships - as long as he also has the option of leaving the system as it is so that my coastal strategy is not impeded and my enjoyment of the game does not suffer.