SCENARIO: The United States Civil War

[Ed O'War]

Originally posted by Fatwreck

why not call em Musketmen and then Riflemen?

They already were using muzzle loading rifles at the beginning of the war. Maybe they can be called "Carbiners" or "Breechloaders".

[Fatwreck]

Correct me if I´m wrong but as I stated i my previous post: Was´nt carbines only used by the cavalry?

Anyway why not just call them Early Conf./Union Riflemen and Late Conf./Union Riflemen or Riflemen and Adv. Riflemen?

And Trip I must insist do not increase Offfence as much as Defence on the later ones, attacking was VERY hard especially during the later years (ask Grant who had to outnumber the Rebs at least 2 to 1 to bee able to win the war)

I´m counting on you Trip

BTW go D/L the new patch right now at firaxis.com!!!

[Velociryx]

I like the look and feel of this mod, but have some questions:

* How will the South's Leadership advantages be manifested? Will they start with a GL and 1 or more armies?

* How will certain famous (and infamous) units be manifested (saw this being discussed earlier)? One possible way might be to create an entirely new class of unit, tech dependent, on a tech that no one has, and use the new editor to place a few of those "super units" on the map at game start. That way, they're pure gold. Irreplacable and--with the right stats--awe inspiring (I'm thinking in terms of Jackson's Foot Cavalry as but one example (make them a souped up infantry that treats all terrain as roads....perhaps there are only three units of this in the whole game, all in an army on the side of the south at game start...that'd be sweet). Similar things could be done to model the Iron Brigade, the 20th Maine (which saw some truly classic--and fierce--small scale action at Gettysburg), Forrest's Raiders, Steuart's Cavalry....many, many others....

-=Vel=-
(watching with interest!)

[Jon Shafer]

Ick... the lack of objectives, diplomacy, etc. will make things very difficult. Hopefully Gramps can get something good going with the CMT to help fix this.

I'll address the suggestions soon, after I'm done placing cities and units.

[trevor]

Another idea would be to make two different worker units, Federal & Confederate. The Federal unit would be a regular worker and the Confederate wouldn't be able to make railroads. This would represent the lack of ironworks (Richmond's Tredgar Works not withstanding) in the Confederacy. So that means that the only way the Confederates could make railroads is to steal a Federal worker, thus making raider units that much more important. Just a thought...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by trevor
Another idea would be to make two different worker units, Federal & Confederate. The Federal unit would be a regular worker and the Confederate wouldn't be able to make railroads. This would represent the lack of ironworks (Richmond's Tredgar Works not withstanding) in the Confederacy. So that means that the only way the Confederates could make railroads is to steal a Federal worker, thus making raider units that much more important. Just a thought...

Good idea, and realistic too.
I'll have to playtest that though... don't want to give the North too many advantages now, it may be hard enough for the South to win as it is.

Progress report:
All of the cities and most of the tile improvements have been added to the map. I'm going to run an initial test run to see if everything works good, and if so, I'll probably finish up all of the tile improvements by the end of today. Tomorrow morning I'll probably start working on units.

[Ed O'War]

Originally posted by trevor
Another idea would be to make two different worker units, Federal & Confederate. The Federal unit would be a regular worker and the Confederate wouldn't be able to make railroads. This would represent the lack of ironworks (Richmond's Tredgar Works not withstanding) in the Confederacy. So that means that the only way the Confederates could make railroads is to steal a Federal worker, thus making raider units that much more important. Just a thought...

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure this would work. I don't believe that you can capture units that you do not have the technology to build. For example, if your opponent has Metallurgy and you don't, you can't capture your opponent's cannons--they'll simply be destroyed instead.

Fatwreck:

Carbines were used primarily by the cavalry, but mainly because they didn't come into use until later in the war and were relatively scarce. If the war had continued on past 1865, it is likely that more and more infantry units would have been equipped with repeaters as the weapon's advantages became more apparent and as more repeaters became available. So, repeating rifle could be a late game technology that allows an advanced infantry unit to be built. Just an idea, anyways...

[trevor]

good point, Ed, maybe it wouldn't work afterall. Eh, as is life. Trip I'd be happy to help if I still can.

[Kramerman]

You should allow settlers to simulate westward expansion and allow the players to have more control of their respective side's destiny, but make their pop cost real high, like 4 or 5 citizens or something. As for Indians, you could just make them barabrians who use warriors (stats edited of course), mounted warriors, and if the new editor allows more than 2 barbarian units, I downloaded a cool horse archer at civ fanatics that they could use too.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ed O'War


It's a good idea, but I'm not sure this would work. I don't believe that you can capture units that you do not have the technology to build. For example, if your opponent has Metallurgy and you don't, you can't capture your opponent's cannons--they'll simply be destroyed instead.

The south would have the tech that the northern unit would have, only the southern worker units wouldn't have the build railroad flag checked in the editor. I think this would work, and it is a good idea.

[Jon Shafer]

Hmmm. IIRC, if you 'capture' a unit that you can't build naturally, then it's always destroyed. So since the South can't build Northern "RailRoad" Workers, I'm afraid that it would always be destroyed if you tried to capture one. I'll have to test that though since I'm not 100% sure about that.

Anyways, back to the scenario.

I've run into a big problem. The scenario doesn't want to load the two civs correctly. It always defaults to the Union side when both civs should be playable, except your opponent is listed on the right as the Confederates, but you have no choice of which civ. And another problem is that either side can build any unit (even if it's a UU you shouldn't have... all Union cities were producing "Confederate Raiders", for some reason), and the whole thing is messed up. I tried making it so that only the Confederates are playable, and you get the Southern cities and the name "Confederate States of America", but all your cities are blue instead of grey, and your leader is "President Lincoln of the Confederates"... I'm thoroughly confused, and I've tried every combo of scenario and player settings, and the thing is still messed up. Hopefully I can talk to the Firaxians tomorrow about it. I think all the problems are related, but I can't be sure.

I didn't get a chance to finish the tile improvements yet (since I was trying to fix that huge problem), so I'll do that and the units in the morning.

As always, all help, advice and suggestions are welcome.

[Level]

Another thing about the workers is that the AI has to have all the worker flags checked.

[Sixchan]

Looks good, Trip!
I read a whole batch of Harry Turtledove novels on holiday, so I'm in a very civil war-ish mood.

Hee hee, maybe I should add in confederate infantry armed with AK-47s...

[Jon Shafer]

Glad people are so interested.

While trying to fix that big problem, it seems that I somehow deleted all of the North's cities. Back to the drawing board.

[Jon Shafer]

Alright. I re-did all of the cities, and here's the mini-map view of the map currently...
I don't think I'll go further west, since it will simply be more needless micromanagement and anything further west didn't have much impact on the war.