Imbalance in Ironclad Production

[YohanTM2]

I am facing this issue myself now and it is a bit daunting to see. The CSA ironclads indeed cleaned out my transports etc. and most of them are now 3 EXP. Darren attacked me last turn with 7 souped up ICs against 17 of my ships and nailed me for 7 losses without a scratch.

[Joel Billings]

My suggestion until we fix this in a patch is to limit the number of CSA ironclads in production at any one time to 2. Any more than 2 should be placed on hold by the player. I can't say this will be the final patch solution, but until we publish a patch, this is a reasonable house rule for players to agree on before they start a game.

[Treefrog]

Bless his soul, Darren is prone to do things like that. He is a resourceful and worthy adversary.

[Jutland13]

Treefrog is generous in his compliments. He has already humbled me at this game. I agree that some restriction on CSA builds might be needed. That said the onus does fall on the Union player to be aware of this and not ignore it. The North actively sought out and pushed their schedules for action to diminish and destroy CSA ironclad production on the Mississippi. Some of the situations occuring in games may be the result of USA players not factoring this issue into their strategies and then getting punished for it. Against experienced USA players my ICs have always been contained. Only once have I enjoyed success, but this was vs a new player, who I am sure will not let it happen again in our next game.
The production needs work, but an historical consideration and attention by the USA will negate this issue early everytime that I have played vs an opponent that is aware.

[Capt Cliff]

Froggy,
What the CSA built as Ironclads can not be compared to what the Union built. Only the Virginnia and one or two other could compare. The rest were medium sized rams cobbled together with what ever was available. They should be different from the Union ships.

ORIGINAL: Treefrog

Capt'n,
Idiosyncratic units are fun, but, IMHO do not good simulations make.

[Doc o War]

Gents- I think there is a patch in the wind- and Ironclad production is being looked at - there will probably be some sorts of limits on confederate ironclad production.
 
Which follows the historic blueprint- they just really didnt have that capability- certainly not to go into a massive ironclad ship building construction program- Britain did one, by the way-a crash emergency building program,  in 1862 to 1865 to catch up and modernize their navy, and to begin to compete with the Ameriicans and the French and everyone else- (even the Austro Hungarians laid down Ironclads) - The Monitor and the Merrimac fight and the sinking of the Cumberland really changed naval warefare forever after. 
  The Brits, with all their power, were only able by 1864 to put 2 ironclads in the water- the First was, I think. called the Britainica- with 6 or 12 more built within a year or so after- The British- with the largest iron making industrial complex system in the world- drawing on large reserves of Iron and coal- could not produce 18 ironclads in 3 years in a crash program that had the full monetary and resource pool of the British Empire at its Zenith behind it.  To have the Southern Confederacy- with 1/3 or less the Iron and Coal reserves as the North ( and much of that in Appalachia Kentucky and Alabama where the infractucture and rail lines were weak) Is just a historic impossabilty.
  So noted.
  
So hang on- a major shift is in the wind- I can smell it...

[GShock]

it's all interconnected to supplies and manpower...the easiest of all fixes, fix one and fix many other issues but the point as joel explained is balance...still, i believe this to be like "much to do about nothing". If CSA builds those ironclads it might dominate the river...but the Union will capture land much more easily and block them and ultimately sink them with hvy arty. [8D]

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: GShock

it's all interconnected to supplies and manpower...the easiest of all fixes, fix one and fix many other issues but the point as joel explained is balance...still, i believe this to be like "much to do about nothing". If CSA builds those ironclads it might dominate the river...but the Union will capture land much more easily and block them and ultimately sink them with hvy arty. [8D]

Not with the ability to produce them they have now. It's is more the threat that throws a monkey wrench into the game mechanics. On the Mississippi the South can build 4 ironclads in March 62. If the Union fails to take Memphis before this happens they have lost the Mississippi except for blockading. One the Memphis end the Union gunboats can't touch two ironclads supported by heavy artillery. On the mouth end you just place them next to Baton Rouge with at level 2 fort and lots of heavy guns.

On the Coast the South just plays poker with the Union. First they build up their capacity by putting factories into production at Wilmington, Mobile and Charleston to double their production capacity. Then you do some bluffing. The Union can't tell if you go into ironclad production in March for a Jan 63 naval offensive. Do it once to an opponent though and you can be sure from then on they waste enormous resources on naval production just in case, because you will totally overwhelm the six ironclads that come out of New York if they don't.

[Doc o War]

Not to worry- this is being addressed...

[SteveD64]

I just bought the game so I'm going over old topics.  Was there ever a rule change for this?  I've been playing the South against the Northern AI and going to an ironclad fleet seems tough- how can you build everything else that needs to be done? 

[Treefrog]

The problem was addressed, but ................
BEfore it was addressed it was fun to build a CSA ironclad fleet and sweep the USN and all their pesky blockade ships and transports from the seven seas !!

[Chuske]

Yes it is sorted.  You need the latest patch 1.04 from here http://www.matrixgames.com/products/357/downloads/

Included with the patch is a rules addendum that shows you all the rule changes.