Supply Wagon's

[BOSTON]

Dale & Ironsight

Unit upgades (weapons) makes sense to me in the game, whereas, by capture or technological advances during the war made it so. Could it happen during the course of a three day battle? I don't know. I always felt somewhat relieved by eliminating long range Union sharpshooters. If captured, I wondered why the South could'nt employ those weapons against the North in suceeding carryover scenerios or later dated scenerios? Same thing with the artillary.
Officers' VP points (TC2M) eluded me when applied to promotions (promotions page) that did'nt occour till all the sceneros ended, kinda a mote/mute point. Hatches' being one of the few, only by King's elimination. Upgades and promotions would be a plus during gameplay in long/carryover scenerios.

I Don't know what IMO means. When it is a stand alone scenerio the VPs don't have any value to me, almost like OP without VPs, just go out and kickass, cause when the scenerio is over it is over. That's why I would like to zero out VPs on the Battle Results page, or at least one of the reasons. Giving promotions after the overall battle (game) is done dose'nt mean squat to me. I would rather see the units stats (performance kill/loss ratio):cheer: like in a Sid Miers' game, that can be viewed at anytime during the course of play OOB style.

[ironsight]

hoistingman,
IMO=In My Opinion
One of the big problems the South had utilizing some of the advanced Yankee weapons long term such as the repeating rifles was the ammo or more accurately the lack of it.

For example, the South had no immediate machinery to manufacture metalic cartridges for captured Henry, Spencer and other repeating rifles the North used later on in the war. More important, even if they could mass produce metalic cartridges, the South did not have enough copper to produce the hundreds of thousands of rounds needed for long term use of those weapons.

This is one of the reasons the South tried to get a foot hold in New Mexico and Arizona, for the copper reserves there. The South already had problems procuring enough copper needed to make percussion caps for their muzzle loading rifles.
Once any captured ammo ran out, those repeaters were useless. If the war went a little better for the South lasting a couple more years, who knows!

However, captured breech loading Sharps rifles were utilized by the South as the paper cartridges were relatively easy to manufacture or as a last resort they could be used as muzzle loaders.

When it is a stand alone scenerio the VPs don't have any value to me, almost like OP without VPs, just go out and kickass, cause when the scenerio is over it is over.

Yep! Just kicking ass the fastest way possible with the fewest casualties is why i play nonVP OP games.
Dam the VPs full speed ahead!

[BOSTON]

capture more union wagons! problem solved with hard to get ammo IMO!:)

[JC Edwards]

Clearly I have not missed too much in the last 3 days!:lol:

[BOSTON]

Wecome back Grandpa!

[BOSTON]

Jim wrote:

The idea of a carryover option in OP and/or MP battles is interesting. The code to do that is largely in place, it would just mean having the option to write out the carryover file at the end of the fight.

If you were having a carryover MP battle, what would be a fair way of deciding when the battle was over and the file written out to start with next time?

-Jim

Jim, Could you give us an idea as to how many scenarios are going to be in a string of SP carryover battles? The longer the better:cheer: as far as I am concerned , being that GB will be the "Mother of all battles to date".

Hoistingman4

[BOSTON]

That would be Awesome! cheer: B) :woohoo: :side:

[dale]

I see carry-over for scenarios that have a late evening attack and then the second phase would be the following morning. Territory gained or lost that evening would be the starting point for the next scenario. Losses sustained would be carried over. Artillery crews would be replenished to full complement. All units would be resupplied.
Morale and fatigue would be refreshed. A percentage of missing and wounded would return to the units. Command ratings would be refreshed for units that lost commanders to a standard level. (The loss of irreplaceable leaders such as a Jackson, Longstreet, Hancock would be sustained in the overall lowering of the command rating.

An example from Second Manassas for an ideal carryover scenario would be Hood's late evening attack down the turnpike to seize Groveton and Young's Branch. Hood's progress would be reflected in the following morning's setup.

A great campaign game of linked scenarios would be the Seven Days Battles east of Richmond in 1862. A victory condition would be to create an overall demoralization of one of the two armies based on losses and territorial objectives. McClellan would have a lower threshhold for defeat than Lee to reflect the historical reality. The overall demoralization score would be kept as a running score so that the campaign could effectively end without having to play out every scenario. This would also affect the Union strategy of needing to go on the offensive at some point to swing the momemtum of the campaign in the other direction. It would set up lots of tantalizing possibilities. (I think that I would like to develop this idea further when I have more time.)

[Gfran64]

I think in the carryover scenarios there will need to be an adjustment in the command structure when significant leaders are lost. If you loose a Army/Corp/Divisional commander, a Colonel would not take command but probably the ranking Corp/Division Commander would assume the new Corp command and his Division's command structure would fill in his position with the senior Brigade commander and so on down the line.

All command structures within that chain would take a hit due to the shuffle of Generals.

Regards,

Greg:)

[dale]

Some command structures would be improved by a commander's loss. Such examples are Lee for Johnston (1862), any first sargeant for McClellan, ditto for Sickles.