AGEOD Forums

I thought a nice feature would be the ability to have your ships automatically return to port when their supply drops too low. It would make managing the blockage and shipping squares a lot easier.

IMHO, the problem in your suggestion is 'which port ?' (last port, most proximate port). What if the port is taken by the ennemy during the return trip ? etc ...

Could be interesting to have a message in the log though ...

saintsup wrote:IMHO, the problem in your suggestion is 'which port ?' (last port, most proximate port). What if the port is taken by the ennemy during the return trip ? etc ...

Could be interesting to have a message in the log though ...

I had thought about that, and figured the nearest port that's above a certain number, e.g. size 5 or larger. Or a unit could be assigned a home port.

How many ships in a fleet should be out of supply for the entire fleet to return to port?

Dunno.

Rafiki wrote:How many ships in a fleet should be out of supply for the entire fleet to return to port?

if you merge them, logically seen the entire fleet.

if you keep in them in singles or pairs - off course only those ones.

I would like to ad that you should set the "home port" for a fleet which they'll visit if short of supplies. Just to have some level of control still - and still limits the micromanagement,

Well. I have to tell you that I dislike this idea. I don't see deciding which naval forces stay on station and where as micromanagement.

Mebbe I'm a stubborn old controlling fart, but I don't want the consarned computer playing the game for me. I felt, and still feel, the same way about division HQ units, but I got left so far behind on that one I can't even smell the exhaust fumes anymore.

When it comes to the naval system (particularly the blockade system), I think it needs more structure and demands, not less. When any naval unit sets to sea, it should have to be assigned to a recognizable command (under a recognizable commander present either within the unit itself or already in charge of the operational area to which the unit is proceeding). As "commander of that commander," you, the player, should have to decide what the force will consist of and how many vessels can be detached for refit, resupply and repair - and where they're going for it. Naval units assigned to a particular mission in a particular place should be incorporated into one "force" under a single commander. If there is no such commander, penalties ought to apply.

In short, I think naval command, though currently a good feature of the game, should be, if anything, more formal and subject to the same strictures and influences as army command. I hate being able to throw an entire major river's worth of gunboats out there by twos and threes with nobody but Tom Sawyer in charge of the entire interdiction effort. Being able to transport significant ground forces on ships or boats commanded by "Ensign Hewuzaroundhereaminuteagocheckbelow" just doesn't capture the realities of naval command for me.

Of course, I also enjoy complexity and have no use for printed manuals, so, you know ...

pasternakski wrote:Well. I have to tell you that I dislike this idea. I don't see deciding which naval forces stay on station and where as micromanagement.


When it comes to the naval system (particularly the blockade system), I think it needs more structure and demands, not less. When any naval unit sets to sea, it should have to be assigned to a recognizable command (under a recognizable commander present either within the unit itself or already in charge of the operational area to which the unit is proceeding). As "commander of that commander," you, the player, should have to decide what the force will consist of and how many vessels can be detached for refit, resupply and repair - and where they're going for it. Naval units assigned to a particular mission in a particular place should be incorporated into one "force" under a single commander. If there is no such commander, penalties ought to apply.


Of course, I also enjoy complexity and have no use for printed manuals, so, you know ...

Ya know I think that`a a great idea but ....of course here`s the BUT

Playing Union in the full April Campaign it`s now Sept. 1863 and the AI turns are taking **5 min.** with the setting at giving the AI a little more time to think since that`s the only way I could avoid CTD `s during large battles.

At default settings it was 3 min + turns.....

I`m running a new dual core IBM with 2 Gigs of Ram.

Now I think this is the best Grand Strategy Game since Grigsby`s original Dos WIR and WITP, and that`s an acceptable issue to play so fine a simulation but....

With much respect, and IMHO, the Devs need to look at ways to reduce the processing requirements, and not add "features" that will need more horsepower, and more mouse clicking to play the large scenarios since for even a old time hard core gamer it at the limits in both those areas.

Thanks

Black Cat wrote:the Devs need to look at ways to reduce the processing requirements, and not add "features" that will need more horsepower, and more mouse clicking to play the large scenarios since for even a old time hard core gamer it at the limits in both those areas.

Thanks

I completely agree. I may not have been clear that I was not asking for new features, only preservation and development of the existing ones.

I don't think it asks too much of the game to require command integrity for naval as well as land forces.

One side thought. If waiting five minutes for the AI to move is too long, why are so many willing to wait hours and even days for a PBEM player to get jiggy wit' it?

If we want to give poor little Athena a chance to strut her stuff, don't we need to let her consider her options for a little while?

pasternakski wrote:If we want to give poor little Athena a chance to strut her stuff, don't we need to let her consider her options for a little while?

Amen!

deleted

Gray_Lensman wrote:Too many people expect instant gratification.

My god, it's great to see some criticism leveled at post-Baby Boomer generations for a change.

pasternakski wrote:My god, it's great to see some criticism leveled at post-Baby Boomer generations for a change.

That's not necessarily the post=Boomers.... the Boomers are getting up there in age to where the senility starts kicking in. Then they need the 20 seconds between turns because that's about as long as their short-term memory holds out.

[And for some of the more terminally clueless folk out there who can't tell the difference even with the smilies.... that was a JOKE]

Well, I didn't expect all this discussion, but my suggestion stemmed from the current options regarding ships - either you handle them like regular units, or you can turn off supply issues and they operate at a penalty. I didn't want to worry about a ship's supply, but at the same time didn't want to suffer a penalty. I thought a better option would be to have the ship return to port. Nothing fancy, just a simple supply check calculation for the counter with a designated port as it's destination once low on supplies.

The penalty is the abstract way to have ships goes to harbors, and thus not being able to help the blockade. You can't have both, this would not be realistic (until nuclear powered ships are made).