Matrix Games Forums

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Imbalance in Ironclad Production

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Imbalance in Ironclad Production Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 1/13/2009 7:27:19 PM   
kwhitehead

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		Taking a quick count of the initial production capacities of both sides I find it rather odd that the CSA can produce more Ironclads than the USA. And, also that the Union lacks the ability to produce Ironclads on the Mississippi although I realize part of the problem here is by definition Ironclads are deep water only.

Regardless, the Union under the new release can produce Ironclads only in New York with a maximum rate of 6 (six factories there). The supposedly agricultural South on the other hand can produce 12 Ironclads of which four will be available on the Mississippi if they can hold Memphis long enough.

The problem is compounded by the FOW option since it doesn't show any information on ships in production. This means that the South can suddenly have 12 ironclads at sea before the Union realizes they need to produce any. And, even if the Union put all the ironclads in production they could they would still be out numbered. Even once they realize they need more there will be about an eight turn wait before they are available and again the South could out produce them again since ocean ports can produce 8 ironclads to New York's six in the same time.

A Southern player can also take advantage of FOW to further out produce the Union by building factories in the Ports. Then after a year but very large number of ironclads in production so they all come on line at the same time. This creates a delima for the Union player. The time lag forces and having only one port capable of ironclad production forces them to dedicate that port to ironclad production even though they have little use of ironclads except countering the Rebel's. Since they only have on port capable and that one not able to match CSA production they can never really out produce the South even if they expand factories there.

< Message edited by Joel Billings -- 2/9/2009 6:21:21 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Embalance in Ironclad Production - 1/14/2009 6:02:25 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 18456
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		We're currently awaiting feedback on this to see if it's really a problem. Yes, technically the Confederates could build more ironclads given the current situation, but the reality is that the south doesn't usually have the production available to build many ironclads without seriously undermining their supply situation (and thus their defense of southern territory). We've considered limitiing Confed ironclad production to fewer locations, although this has it's own disadvantages. I don't remember off hand the latest thinking among the active testers about this issue, but I know it's been discussed. As I said, at the moment we're really waiting for more feedback on how the system in the last patch is playing out. There are some differences of opinion among the core tester group, although there are a few things that most agree on. I'd be very interested in hearing the actual game experience that players have had with games using the last patch (both PBEM and versus the AI). I don't see this as a bug though, but a game balance issue. Often what seems unrealistically possible at first glance, isn't actually as possible as it appears.

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 2
RE: Embalance in Ironclad Production - 1/14/2009 6:38:34 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 31225
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: kwhitehead
Taking a quick count of the initial production capacities of both sides I find it rather odd that the CSA can produce more Ironclads than the USA. And, also that the Union lacks the ability to produce Ironclads on the Mississippi although I realize part of the problem here is by definition Ironclads are deep water only.


Keep in mind that the Union Gunboats get a higher defense (increasing over time) to reflect the river "tinclads" and ironclads as well, so Union gunboat production on the Mississippi, especially in the later war, is basically all river ironclads in effect.

The rest of your points are well taken, though in practice the South usually loses some Ironclad production before it can finish even the first wave. Also, the South pays a much steeper price in terms of the opportunity cost it pays for tying up so much of its limited factory capacity producing Ironclads. From what I've seen, this can cause a serious early supply crisis for the South if the go all out with that strategy.

The Union on the other hand can start producing Ironclads from the start with all capable ports and still have enough production capacity left over to do everything else including expand its industry. It should be advisable for the Union to start building at least some Ironclads right away just in case the South does. Keep in mind that historically, had the Union not had some ironclad production going, they would have been in real trouble and they also saved themselves from having to deal with more ironclads on the Mississippi thanks to their conquest by land of production areas. Those same strategies and concerns do apply in WBTS.

I agree with you that this is something to monitor though and it may well need some tweaking. The latest update reshuffled some of the economic balance and we're definitely looking to get as much feedback on that as we can before the next round.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development and Business Relations


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 3
RE: Embalance in Ironclad Production - 1/15/2009 5:23:19 PM   
jecunningham

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		Hi,

In the "feedback and for what it is worth" department, playing South on normal vs the AI, I used that exact strategy and was ultimately able to completely eliminate all AI ships on the Mississippi, Gulf and Eastern seaboard and win a decisive victory. Of course the AI production algorithms couldn't adjust to my strategy and as such once I had built up my original fleet I was always able to eliminate the AI fleets that were sent against me in 1s and 2s. A human player would probably have more success.

-Jim

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 4
RE: Embalance in Ironclad Production - 2/2/2009 2:23:42 PM   
kwhitehead

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		Because the Unit report does not tell the Union that Ironclads are in production the Union is forced into overproducing ironclads.  They must put their six production available into ironclads and keep it that way until certain the South isn't.  I haven't tried this to counter the South so I don't even know if it will work.  The basic problem is:

The South can start on turn one building 2 ironclads in Memphis and two in New Orleans.  Because of how the game works it is very difficult for the Union to take New Orleans as they historically did if the South doesn't want them too.  If the Union has reasonable initiative they should be able to take Memphis before the South finishes production but this is somewhat iffy.  If they succeed they will have four ironclads on the Mississippi.  Combining these with level 2 Forts and they have a solid cork in the Mississippi.

But the real ironclad arms race occurs in the East.  If the South puts Charleston and Wilmington into factory production they can by 1862 bring there ability to produce ironclads in these two ports well above the Unions.  If the Union hasn't overproduced ironclad, the South can set all these to max production so they can field in one turn (when all become avaiable) 8-12 ironclads.  This will usually catch the Union off guard.  I usually sail the main group out of Wilmington, cleaning the sea regions as I go, down to Charleston to pick up the second largest group.  With a little luck the South may pick off half of the Union ironclads in the process.  Then the fleet starts port hopping to pick up the smaller port productions.  Meanwhile they put a whole new set of 8-12 in production since the Union can't manage more than 6.  The South has won the arms race.  Cleaning out the blockade more than compensates for the loss of production for making the ironclads.

Part of this is the port hopping tactic.  As long as you don't leave your fleet at sea the Union has a hard time concentrating against it.  It also allows you to only come out when you have initiative which give you movement of 7.  Once you break through the port blockade force you can range the whole coast taking out smaller fleets.  I also have found Union gunboats useless against ironclad fleets.  They are quickly wiped out.  Cruisers if in sufficient numbers may damage an ironclad before they are wiped out.

I haven't played the Union against this strategy so can't say how well they can counter it.  I suspect their only counter is overproduction of Ironclads.  If the South breaks past their blockades of Charleston and Wilminington to combine they will probably have to withdraw all their sea forces to ports and wait for a new set of ironclads to be produced.  I am not sure they can recover from the South having full supply for the nine months this takes.

(in reply to jecunningham)
Post #: 5
RE: Embalance in Ironclad Production - 2/9/2009 3:46:10 AM   
XLegion


Posts: 126
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		Having been at the receiving end of Kennon's Southern Ironclad strategy I can attest with definite certainty that it works. Once launched there was no stopping them. As Kennon pointed out the Union could only produce 6 ironclads at a time and they would have needed notice that the south was producing them or they wouldn't bother.

This is a serious weakness of the game. Generally, I like this game a lot but when this kind of ridiculous scenario leaks in it seriously hurts the simulation. Come on, I don't care if it costs the south in production, the south was not capable of producing an Ironclad fleet at all. If they can in the game it is wrong pure and simple. I will not accept the fact that the south will pay in other areas if they do so. If they win the game with this kind of strategy what kind of simulation is it?

While I'm at it, I might as well comment on initiative. I KNOW the whole game depends on initiative but it seems to me this is becoming more of thing of pure luck rather than skill. Yes, I know all of the 'modifiers' that enhance the probability chance of getting an army general to move. But, when you have a general like GRANT sit in Paducah Kentucky for 8 Months without getting initiative it gets to be a bit much. I had such a game against the AI. Grant's army was in supply with two depots, in command with his theatre commander and just sat there while the AI built up its forces for the inevitable defence of Memphis.

Also, for  Gods sake, lets get a bit more initiative West of the Mississippi. There was a whole other war out there you know.


(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 6
RE: Embalance in Ironclad Production - 2/9/2009 1:58:45 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I will say, the kicker for this strategy is that the Confed Ironclads will have ample opportunity to pick up 1 2 or even 3 stars feeding on Federal transports and gunboats.  So the final result is that the union ironclads end up facing the southern ones outnumbered and woefully out crewed.  The generally superior union Naval leaderships doesn't make nearly enough difference.

And the MAIN problem is NOT that this is a must do southern strategy, it is that it becomes a MUST counter strategy.  If the south does it or not it seems to me the union player must plan to counter which means the union needs to detail the entire production of NY State to producing ironclads (with perhaps some factories.  4 Ironclads and 2 factories might not be a horrible compromise).

I really don't see what problem occurs with allowing New England to produce Ironclads also.  This would allow the Union player to spread out his iron clad production between the two places, and to have a viable reaction if they see an 'ironclad gap'.  I think even a third Ironclad producer wouldn't hurt.  At least as far as game balance goes, I don't think allowing an additional 1 or 2 ironclad producers for the Union give the Federals any ability to unbalance the game, it would I think only allow them to get back in the game if they find the Confeds have gone with an ironclad gambit.

The only problem I see is if its the game designers intent that one strategy for the south should be ironclad heavy, and that this strategy should be pervasive enough that its threat is enough to cause NY State to do nothing but concern itself with Ironclads for the first year or two of the game?  If that is the case then we need to keep the game as is to retain that tension.  I am not by any stretch a Civil War expert, but I wouldn't think this is the case?!

(in reply to XLegion)
Post #: 7
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/9/2009 5:10:13 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 18456
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		I don't know what ultimate change we'll make in the game to deal with this situation. Our intent was not to create a super ironclad strategy for the south when we limited production to certain areas (the law of unintended consequences scored big time here). Until we put out a patch that changes some of the rules, a house rule seems to be in order. I'm sure many of you have ideas on this subject. One possibility would be to limit total CSA ironclad production to no more than a fixed number per turn. Perhaps no more than 2 could be in production at any given time, and no more than 1 at any location. This would include any damaged and sent back to the production track, so a player would have to place on hold any more than 2 in production. Just a thought, feel free to propose a house rule that you think might work for now.

I'm not sure if in the next patch we'll end up putting a global limit on Ironclad production for the south, increase the ability of the north to produce ironclads, or reduce locations where Ironclads can be built in the south (or some combination of the 3). There may also be changes in supply costs of other items that would impact the south's ability to produce lots of ironclads, but even so, it would seem that we have to do something to limit the south's ability to produce ironclads as it is clearly unrealistic to think they could have built the huge navy that is possible in the game.


As for initiative, I remember dicussing with Gary the idea of having the chance of initiative increase each turn that a leader did not get initiative. This would be a major change that would require code changes, interface changes, and it could greatly impact play balance. It's something for Gary to think about. It's one of those things that's much easier to add early in development than to add after release, but I'll bring it up with Gary and see if there's a relatively simple way he could add it into a future patch. Even so, the nature of the war (and the game) is going to be long stretches of inactivity.

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 8
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/9/2009 9:37:56 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 500
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		If the game allows the CSN significant ironclad production, the fix is to allow the USN unlimited ironclad production.

FOW is hell, just watch for ironclad icons to appear in southron ports. If the CSN ironclads get loose and in the convoy lanes it will be hell because they will gain experience stars on the cheap.

However, the CSN ironclads will be built and the icon will appear and the USN will have a turn to prepare, either by massing outside the port or clearing their transports from the ocean.

In fairness, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The South faces the same problem on the Mississippi with USN riverine gunboats getting experience points on the cheap (although they get batteries in forts). If the USN masses their gunboats in the river region next to the land region where the Mississippi defense batteries are massed, after taking fire for one turn then one or more of those USN gunboats can cruise down the river and up its tributaries and tear the southern riverine transport fleet system to pieces. I have done it (great fun, that) and had it done to me (aaargh, now I got me a big problem).

Talented players inevitably find something to exploit in a game system.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 9
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/9/2009 10:49:16 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I agree with goose and gander argument treefrog.

I think the simplest solution is to allow the Union more ability to build their own ironclads.  The problem isn't really that the South can go with an ironclad heavy strategy, its that the union's response will be in just about every game to hog up all of NY's production and invest it in ironclads.  If they had three ironclad producers they could still build say 4 Ironclads, but be able to jump to 10 or so ironclads if they needed to.

I don't think we need radical change, allowing New England to build ironclads would be a good fix I think, allowing one more state to build them would be even better!

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 10
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/10/2009 2:02:54 AM   
BossGnome

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		There's one thing about confederate ironclad production though: like it's been mentioned before, 4 of the potentials are in the Mississippi. For some reason this has been mentioned as being an advantage. It's not. There's not much you can do with ironclads in the mississippi apart from preventing union gunboats to get in; but those ironclads won't save memphis or Corinth from capture once the ground troops get rolling. Try to take your ironclads out of the mississippi, and face the brunt of Union fire from Ft. St Philip. If the union hasn't taken the place by the time you're building ironclads, well, there's a good chance you're going to win anyways then. Building ironclads on the atlantic coast is not as appealing; union ironclads are closer, and the blockade fleet is usually thicker than in the gulf. Sure, it's annoying for the union to have a bunch of southron ironclads pop up in the atlantic coast all of a sudden, but then again they're not impossible to kill, and their production puts a strain on the southern economy anyways. That pretty much leaves Mobile, maybe Jacksonville (I forget if the place can even produce ironclads - it usually falls fairly early in the game anyways), as the best "cost/effect" tradeoff places for building ironclads.

I am not denying the efficacity of one ironclad in the Mississippi. I hate having union gunboats roaming all over the place. But if the southern ironclad stays in the mississippi (which it will unless it wants to take op. fire), it's not going to go on a rampage killing union boats and transports and gaining stars like crazy like some people mentioned here.

ps: I don't know about other union players, but I usually build at least 4 ironclads from the get-go anyways. The economy can afford it, and besides, I think they look pretty cool.




_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 11
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/10/2009 6:47:40 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		I believe a house rule is the easiest way to deal with this- limit the Southern Ironclad Production to 6 which just about matches their historic capabilities- two on the Mississippi- Four on the Atlantic coast- there- you have the historic capabilities of the Southern Navy. Any more than that would really be hard to justify- _
Also think perhaps one more Union Ironclad foundry- Maybe New England. That would have to be patched in.
   The Confederate Super Ironclad NAvy should not be allowed - Even The British Navy- with all its capabilities- wasnt able to get up a good Ironclad fleet from scratch until 64. The Only national government that had the Iron and the coal( something the south didnt have a lot of at least in 1861.) Was the Northern States of America- Rich in both Iron and Coal- and with many existing Iron works. Plus the Naval architechs of the US Navy and all the major Fleet building yards and experience in New England and The Mid Atlantic States. The North had quantum leaps of available reasources to put towards this project plus the natural go-get-it-ness to get the job done- those Yankee Merchants... 
  These posters are totally right- this isnt an intended consiquence and needs to be fixed.  

< Message edited by Doc o War -- 2/10/2009 6:48:18 AM >

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 12
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/10/2009 1:32:48 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 528
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		BossGnome,

The south will build 2 Ironclads in New Orleans and one in Mobile.  Mobile can certainly fall to a union assault before that Ironclad gets produced but it won't be an easy thing for the Union to pull off.  new Orleans won't fall this early outside of the Confederacy making a huge mistake.

Hvy Arty is not that effective against IronClads, granted they won't have experience yet, but if you take two of them and pull them out into the gulf they will get it pretty quickly.  Along with the one in Mobile that is 3 ironclads in the gulf.  Even if your arty damages one that leaves two in the gulf, which is frankly two more than the Union can deal with if the atlantic coast is also putting out ironclads.  While this is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, four Southern Ironclads (or is it 5?) are breaking out of their ports, trying to combine, in the process they are hitting transports gunboats and cruisers and gaining stars doing so.

I don't think the war is won by the South building heavy ironclads from the get go, but if they build 6 or 7 along with a few factories in ironclad locations then follow the 6-7 with 9-8 more for the next cycle, the Union better have built at LEAST 4 Ironclads, and 2 more factories so they can follow up with 8 Ironclads of their own.  They also better have prodigiously built cruisers and transports.  If the Union doesn't do the 4 Ironclads + 2 Factories or 5+1 or 6, then I think the South will be close to a defacto victory.  The south will break the blockade in short order with this sort of ironclad supremacy, and by the time union ironclads come online, the south will have 5-6 3 star ironclads (or more) waiting to meet them.

Your PS mentions you building 4.  That is a good thing, and should be a minimal deterrent to this strategy, thing is, you shouldn't HAVE to do that.  I know you don't feel you have to, but I think faced with this possibility you do have to build the ironclads and factories just in case.

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 13
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/11/2009 6:22:28 PM   
BossGnome

 

Posts: 621
Joined: 5/29/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Alright, I'll agree - the south's ironclad production is probably too high. 

_____________________________

"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 14
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/11/2009 7:14:44 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		Aren't most if not all the confederate ironclads conversions of an existing ship? Some were so small as to be of little or no impact. Only a few southern cities had shipyards and a manufacturing capability to support such builds. The south also bought ironclads from the French and Brits (a Scottish yard built one monster). Maybe the south needs two types of ironclads. A true ironclad that takes forever to build and tin/timberclads that are built at the normal ironclad rate.

Check out these websites:

http://www.wideopenwest.com/~jenkins/ironclads/confed.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-us-cs/csa-sh/csa-name.htm

< Message edited by Capt Cliff -- 2/11/2009 7:20:57 PM >

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to BossGnome)
Post #: 15
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/11/2009 7:54:38 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 500
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Capt'n,
Idiosyncratic units are fun, but, IMHO do not good simulations make.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 16
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/12/2009 6:20:19 AM   
Rexor

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The great, great Garden State
Status: offline 		What about requiring more resources for ironclads? I haven't totally thought this through yet, so forgive me if it sounds really dumb. But that way the North could still outbuild the south, though at a premium, while the Rebs might have to choose more carefully about building what and where.

_____________________________

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."—Samuel Johnson

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 17
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/12/2009 7:57:11 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		The situation is being looked at by higher powers lads- stay tuned..

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Rexor)
Post #: 18
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/14/2009 2:48:48 AM   
kwhitehead

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline 		I am still testing a Union strategy to counter but I am not sure they can even if going into all out ironclad production.  However, my opinion is as cute as having the South produce ironclads is in reality they produced very few and they were easily countered before they accomplished anything by the superior Union navy.  Just remove the ability for the South to make them.

Also the Mississippi ironclads are necessarially isolated.  The strategy I used is more long term.  I first double the production capacity by building factories in Mobile, Charleston and Wilmington.  These are completed in March 62 along with the Mississippi ironclads which will be 2 or 4 if Memphis is held that long.  Then I put 12 ironclads into production.  The Union will only see the Mississippi ones on FOG so they will not expect it.  Even if they do they can only have 12 total if they put New York back into ironclad only production.  This will give the South 14-16 ironclads in about Dec 62 to counter the Union's 12 max.  The only thing going for the Union, assuming they built ironclads as fast as they could, is trying to contain the Souths in their production ports.  If the 4-6 ironclads on the Mississippi break out they will link up with the 2 at Mobile.  If the Wilmington group of 4 breakout they will link up with Charleston or vise versa.  The Union on the other hand must spread their 12 between two regions that have to be able to defeat four Southern ironclad, two regions that can bring out two ship groups, and 2-4 more ports that can have one ironclad.

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 19
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/14/2009 7:20:52 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Indeed- this ironclad production problem is serious- and is being looked at right now- high up. It was not an intended consiquence and until something better comes along a house rules that maxes the south out at 6 Ironclads is the easiest to enforce- really anything more than that is Sci fi and we are not allowing for Jules Verne type craft or nuc powered subs- or impossible numbers of Confed Ironclads- might as well allow Tanks and Zepplins if we do continue to allow this overbuild issue to exist. I know the developers were as suprised about this as anyone. In any programmed game when you toy about with the system coding- you can create outcomes you didnt consider possible. 
    So while yes- the game currently allows that this can happen- I would suggest that the players agree amoung themselves to house rule this and stop it; and then move on with an otherwise really good civ war simulation.

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 20
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/14/2009 2:51:57 PM   
Yohan

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 21
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/14/2009 5:12:39 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 18456
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Yohan)
Post #: 22
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/14/2009 11:24:24 PM   
Treefrog


Posts: 500
Joined: 4/7/2004
Status: offline 		Bless his soul, Darren is prone to do things like that. He is a resourceful and worthy adversary.

_____________________________

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 23
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/15/2009 7:40:47 AM   
Jutland13

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by Jutland13 -- 2/15/2009 7:08:04 PM >

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 24
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/16/2009 7:08:49 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treefrog

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



_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Treefrog)
Post #: 25
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/17/2009 2:41:28 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		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...

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to Capt Cliff)
Post #: 26
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/17/2009 5:11:38 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline 		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. 

_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 27
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 2/28/2009 10:50:27 PM   
kwhitehead

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

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. 


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.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 28
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 3/1/2009 3:13:16 AM   
Doc o War


Posts: 345
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		Not to worry- this is being addressed...

_____________________________

Tell me the story of the common foot soldier, and I will tell you the story of all wars.
... Heroditus.

(in reply to kwhitehead)
Post #: 29
RE: Imbalance in Ironclad Production - 12/6/2011 2:44:32 AM   
CLEVELAND

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA
Status: offline 		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? 

(in reply to Doc o War)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> Imbalance in Ironclad Production Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.281