CSA gift wraps Manassas and ties it with a bow?
I was surprised that the CSA only had a very small garrison in Manassas (PWR 17) before mid-September of '61. With the prospect of handing the USA a 10 NM hit, I would think the AI would put a higher priority on defending it. Instead, it marched out a 1000 PWR stack to West Virginia and had at least 500 PWR in Richmond (more understandable).
Ace, that makes sense. However, if the developers are so intent on creating the circumstances for the first major battle in the war, why did they handicap the CSA by (1) not having 18,000 men ready to fight in Manassas (surely that could be hard-coded) and (2) not following through with those late CSA reinforcements of the Army of the Shenandoah railing in?.
Of course, the problem with hard-coding this is that in a human vs AI game, the human will know what is happening and will adjust his game plan to make more likely a win in this situation! But if the developers are looking to start the war off historically, they should not handicap the already handicapped CSA by not attempting to get those reinforcements in. If, in my game, the Army of the Shenandoah would have attempted to rail in, but couldn't get there because maybe I stuck a force on the road and blew up the rail, then at least the developers would have re-created historical fact more closely than just giving the USA the order to get military control of Manassas by mid-September or lose 10 NM and have the CSA clueless.
Personally, I don't think there is the need to try to replicate the First Battle of Bull Run (as it is now, it works very well in a PBEM game). Just let the game start organically. I am pretty sure that the human USA player can get the war off with a bang without having to "risk" losing 10 NM.
If the game started with the First Battle of Bull Run all set to flare up (as it does with the less than exciting Ft. Sumter event) I think the game would be better off. I understand that Ft. Sumter is a more traditional "start" of the war, but for balancing, it would be nice if the USA had a chance to actually lose that 10 NM.
Of course, the problem with hard-coding this is that in a human vs AI game, the human will know what is happening and will adjust his game plan to make more likely a win in this situation! But if the developers are looking to start the war off historically, they should not handicap the already handicapped CSA by not attempting to get those reinforcements in. If, in my game, the Army of the Shenandoah would have attempted to rail in, but couldn't get there because maybe I stuck a force on the road and blew up the rail, then at least the developers would have re-created historical fact more closely than just giving the USA the order to get military control of Manassas by mid-September or lose 10 NM and have the CSA clueless.
Personally, I don't think there is the need to try to replicate the First Battle of Bull Run (as it is now, it works very well in a PBEM game). Just let the game start organically. I am pretty sure that the human USA player can get the war off with a bang without having to "risk" losing 10 NM.
If the game started with the First Battle of Bull Run all set to flare up (as it does with the less than exciting Ft. Sumter event) I think the game would be better off. I understand that Ft. Sumter is a more traditional "start" of the war, but for balancing, it would be nice if the USA had a chance to actually lose that 10 NM.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests