Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Generals: historical, random, or ?

 
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] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals: historical, random, or ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/15/2006 7:07:19 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
It seems that FoF will offer the same alternatives as other games have done:

1. Generals with their actual historical abilities. This gives a lousy simulation, because in reality no-one knew at the start of the war how good each general was, and it was really important that no-one knew. It meant that Lincoln, for instance, had to rely on a series of poor generals because he didn't know which ones were good.

2. Generals with randomized abilities. This gives a much better simulation, but it's very unsatisfying to players who are aware of the history and to whom each name means something. The effect of randomization is that the names of the generals become meaningless.

Is there no other way to do it? Well, yes, there is. My proposal:

3. Use generals with historical abilities, but don't tell the player at the start of the game which general is which. Assign to each general a randomly generated number instead of a name. When he's done enough fighting to show how good he is, replace the number with his true name. Et voilà! You get a good simulation plus meaningful names, and everyone should be happy.

This system doesn't reflect reality 100%, because in reality it seems that most of the Confederate leadership didn't realize how good Forrest was until after the war was over. But I think it comes close enough. If you want to be really meticulous, you could randomize the amount of fighting a leader has to do before his real name is revealed. And/or take into account the size of the battles (Forrest's battles were relatively small).

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 10/15/2006 7:28:06 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 6:18:47 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
It's unclear to me if you noticed this in the options screen screenshot, but one option is "Hidden Stats," whereby you're told, say, that a general has "Leadership ???, Initiative Good, Command ???, Tactics Poor" and you, like Lincoln, don't know just how good that general is. Over time, presumably, you'll be able to figure out whether the general is helping or harming you (and whether those hidden stats are good or bad). That's similar to what you describe, but still runs the risk of a great general (Lee, Grant, etc.) having poor numbers.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 2
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 6:26:33 PM   
Oldguard


Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline
Jonathan, there's another factor that should weigh into this -- that is, the list of good generals in the ACW who either suffered from a bad run of luck, interfering political pressures, or early deaths is a long one. From the sounds of it, FoF's system will always give you the chance of seeing a Stonewall at Gettysburg or a McClellan taking Richmond in '62. I like that approach.

If all stats are completely randomized, turning a Pope into a Lee or a Banks into a Jackson, the reality of pre-war reputations would be useless. There has to be some basis for our subjective evaluation of generalship before the first shots are fired, otherwise it would be virtually impossible to manage our armies.



(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 3
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 7:53:49 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
Yes, I was assuming that 'hidden' would always be used with 'randomize'. I don't see any point in 'randomize' without 'hidden'.

And yes, the problem with that combination, as I mentioned, is that the names of the generals become meaningless, which tends to be unsatisfying for players.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 4
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 8:10:42 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
There has to be some basis for our subjective evaluation of generalship before the first shots are fired, otherwise it would be virtually impossible to manage our armies.


My impression is that pre-war reputation was a rather poor guide to actual performance, as things turned out. Maybe it was a bit better than no information at all; but it didn't seem to serve Lincoln very well. I seem to remember that Grant had a rather poor pre-war reputation.

You seem to be arguing for 'partial randomization', whereby we could expect a particular general to perform more or less as he did historically, but his actual ratings in any particular game would be subject to some degree of random variation; so there would be pleasant or unpleasant surprises in some cases. This partial randomization option was available in Frank Hunter's ACW game.

Personally, I don't think that full randomization would make it "impossible to manage our armies". Whenever you find out that someone's useless, you replace him, just as Lincoln and Davis had to do.

If pre-war reputation had been a useful guide to performance, surely there were quite a few useless generals on both sides who would never have been given command.

(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 5
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 11:25:21 PM   
Oldguard


Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
My impression is that pre-war reputation was a rather poor guide to actual performance, as things turned out. Maybe it was a bit better than no information at all; but it didn't seem to serve Lincoln very well. I seem to remember that Grant had a rather poor pre-war reputation.

Actually, the stickler for Union command wasn't pre-war reputation (Winfield Scott had a great reputation but he was too old and decrepit to command in the field) -- it was politics. Too many generals got their brass through political connections. Too many others had earned reputations in Mexico that turned out not to be so well deserved. Still, you have to have a starting point. What better starting point than pre-war reputation? As both you and Gil say, you can then promote/dismiss according to performance. In many cases, such as R.E. Lee, pre-war reputation actually downplayed their considerable real talents.

quote:


Personally, I don't think that full randomization would make it "impossible to manage our armies". Whenever you find out that someone's useless, you replace him, just as Lincoln and Davis had to do.

If pre-war reputation had been a useful guide to performance, surely there were quite a few useless generals on both sides who would never have been given command.

Maybe I wasn't clear. When I think full randomization, I think of allowing the AI to scramble all the rankings at a whim before a new game starts. That would be unrealistic -- say what you want about how the pre-war Army was so much smaller and how some of the commanders didn't deserve their stars, but the fact remains that most of them had some value. When pitched against better commanders, their quality may have been lacking but it doesn't mean that command quality as an absolute value was zero. That's what I would fear with full randomization -- important generals with zero value. I much prefer to have generals with 1s or 2s and test their mettle under fire than to risk finding out that they couldn't even command a brigade, much less a corps or an army.




< Message edited by Oldguard -- 10/17/2006 11:29:20 PM >

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 6
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 11:56:23 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
In many cases, such as R.E. Lee, pre-war reputation actually downplayed their considerable real talents.


Oh, indeed. Sometimes a general's pre-war reputation was too high, sometimes it was too low. My point is that it was often seriously inaccurate one way or the other. And some people of course had no pre-war military experience or reputation at all -- such as N.B. Forrest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
Maybe I wasn't clear. When I think full randomization, I think of allowing the AI to scramble all the rankings at a whim before a new game starts. That would be unrealistic -- say what you want about how the pre-war Army was so much smaller and how some of the commanders didn't deserve their stars, but the fact remains that most of them had some value. When pitched against better commanders, their quality may have been lacking but it doesn't mean that command quality as an absolute value was zero. That's what I would fear with full randomization -- important generals with zero value. I much prefer to have generals with 1s or 2s and test their mettle under fire than to risk finding out that they couldn't even command a brigade, much less a corps or an army.


I think you misunderstand the effect of full randomization (though only Western Civilization can say for sure). A low-rated general is not the village idiot: he's merely similar to one of the worst generals who actually took part in the war. All generals have a certain minimum level of competence, even the low-rated ones. At least, that's what I'd expect.

(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 7
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/17/2006 11:57:31 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

Maybe I wasn't clear. When I think full randomization, I think of allowing the AI to scramble all the rankings at a whim before a new game starts. That would be unrealistic -- say what you want about how the pre-war Army was so much smaller and how some of the commanders didn't deserve their stars, but the fact remains that most of them had some value. When pitched against better commanders, their quality may have been lacking but it doesn't mean that command quality as an absolute value was zero. That's what I would fear with full randomization -- important generals with zero value. I much prefer to have generals with 1s or 2s and test their mettle under fire than to risk finding out that they couldn't even command a brigade, much less a corps or an army.


I don't know whether the change you're proposing would be adding through a patch -- we'll have to get feedback from you and everyone else once the game is out -- but I'm sure that it's a very easy thing to minimize or eliminate the odds of a general getting a "0" rating. My guess is that Eric has already programmed the randomized generals function to do so.

(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 8
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/18/2006 7:11:23 PM   
Oldguard


Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline
Gil, sorry, I wasn't proposing a change.  I was simply giving my uninformed opinion.  If it's been tested (i believe it has) and works, that's good enough for me.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 9
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/18/2006 7:36:32 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Generals with their actual historical abilities. This gives a lousy simulation, because in reality no-one knew at the start of the war how good each general was, and it was really important that no-one knew. It meant that Lincoln, for instance, had to rely on a series of poor generals because he didn't know which ones were good. Generals with randomized abilities. This gives a much better simulation, but it's very unsatisfying to players who are aware of the history and to whom each name means something. The effect of randomization is that the names of the generals become meaningless.


The randomization point is clear, but I think it overlooks several issues. First, the game would lack the historical element. I am uncertain about how others think, but I want to know those generals I am placing in command. And though you are correct in noting that Lincoln [and Davis] did not know how the leadership and tactical skills on battlefield would play out with any given general officer, he did have information and data concerning their previous service, command responsibilities, military records, etc. Next, historically all general officers have started with a “pre-war reputation” or at least some type of an initial “ratings” or assessment so to speak and these [in this game – leadership, command, initiative, tactics and cavalry] have generally changed (increased or decreased) according to their battlefield successes. There are many examples of this, but Heinz Guderian makes the point well. He was not viewed as having excellent tactical skills and even had difficulty persuading his senior officers about the tactical importance of tank warfare in any combat. However, with Guderian’s plan and leadership in the Poland campaign, he gained immediate success. Finally…

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
…[the game] still runs the risk of a great general (Lee, Grant, etc.) having poor numbers.


…and in my opinion, the game would become “a lousy simulation” and lose historical significance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
If pre-war reputation had been a useful guide to performance, surely there were quite a few useless generals on both sides who would never have been given command.


…and vise versa with great commanders being removed from command due to political differences. As such, I agree with Gil and Oldguard in that historically there has always been a “rating” or pre-war reputation for any general officer. Furthermore,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard
There has to be some basis for our subjective evaluation of generalship before the first shots are fired, otherwise it would be virtually impossible to manage our armies.


…possible solution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Use generals with historical abilities, but don't tell the player at the start of the game which general is which. Assign to each general a randomly generated number instead of a name. When he's done enough fighting to show how good he is, replace the number with his true name. Et voilà! You get a good simulation plus meaningful names, and everyone should be happy.


This solution is Doubtful. In addition, I think a “starting point” or ratings for all general officers as noted in this game are much more realistic. In fact, established fixed “ratings” through a pre-war reputation has always been available to leaders and how these skills actually unfold is measured on the battlefield. On the other hand, Jonathan your points are still meaningful in how the ratings relate to combat successes. This was why I had initially argued for the general officers to be given “prestige ratings” in addition to their “ratings” on their military skills. In this manner, all generals would have a start “rating” as currently noted in this game, but their “prestige ratings” would either increase or decrease as determined by promotions and battlefield successes or failures. As to the randomization, in these types of strategy games, you [the player] are truly the random aspect and to suggest a general officer abilities or “ratings” be based on the ignorance or the genius of your orders [as Davis or Lincoln] would be unfair as in real life. So, I think the “ratings” should be fixed and not held against the commanders for following your orders.

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 10/18/2006 7:48:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 10
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/18/2006 11:33:58 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
Hello dh76513, thanks for your comments, but after reading them several times I'm still unsure which system you'd prefer!

No-one seems to like full randomization very much. I get the impression that people prefer historical ratings, but perhaps modified in some way.

Simple historical ratings are already available in the game, and I'm not suggesting that any of the game's existing options should be removed. So, if you like historical ratings, all you have to do is to select that option, and you're happy.

However, if you don't like full randomization, and you're not entirely satisfied with historical ratings either, what other options are there?

I've suggested two so far:

3. Use historical ratings, but don't reveal the names of each general until they've done some fighting.

4. Use historical ratings with a random modifier, so that a particular general will on average (over a series of games) perform as he did historically, but in any particular game he might be a bit better or a bit worse.

Are there any other suggestions? You mention the idea of starting with an initial rating and then modifying it during the game; but then you seem to decide against that idea.

Maybe it would be interesting to do a poll and ask which option people would select, if four or more options were available.

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 11
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/18/2006 11:55:07 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

3. Use historical ratings, but don't reveal the names of each general until they've done some fighting.




I certainly understand the thinking behind this idea, but I wonder how many people will want to play a game in which Gen. 8675309 or Gen. X leads their army around.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 12
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 12:29:18 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

3. Use historical ratings, but don't reveal the names of each general until they've done some fighting.




I certainly understand the thinking behind this idea, but I wonder how many people will want to play a game in which Gen. 8675309 or Gen. X leads their army around.


Well, it would be only until the general had fought a couple of battles, say.

I don't suppose Lincoln enjoyed the process of finding out how good his generals were, either. Perhaps you're suggesting that my proposal is too realistic to be enjoyable...

What do you think of the 'partial randomization' idea? That was actually implemented by Frank Hunter, and some players seemed to like it.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 13
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 6:24:57 AM   
Oldguard


Posts: 94
Joined: 9/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I certainly understand the thinking behind this idea, but I wonder how many people will want to play a game in which Gen. 8675309 or Gen. X leads their army around.

Smith. General James Smith.


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 14
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 6:27:09 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
Of the options that we have at the moment, turning on 'Randomized Stats' and 'Hidden Stats' actually gives quite a good simulation, but it feels unhistorical because the names of the generals are all wrong. Whereas turning off both options gives you the generals as they were historically, but it's actually a lousy simulation because you can immediately put Grant and Forrest (for instance) in charge of whole armies in 1861, which is completely unhistorical because it just wouldn't have happened.

Given only these options, I'm rather tempted by the further option of turning off generals completely and doing without them...

By the way, I have a question about the 'Hidden Stats' option. Does this mean that the generals' ratings are hidden throughout the game, or are they gradually revealed as the game progresses? Frank Hunter implemented it the latter way, which I think is better.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 15
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 6:46:02 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I certainly understand the thinking behind this idea, but I wonder how many people will want to play a game in which Gen. 8675309 or Gen. X leads their army around.

Smith. General James Smith.




How about Generals Joshua Smith and Thaddeus Jones? (For those of you old enough to remember.)

(in reply to Oldguard)
Post #: 16
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 6:51:54 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
... turning off both options gives you the generals as they were historically, but it's actually a lousy simulation because you can immediately put Grant and Forrest (for instance) in charge of whole armies in 1861 ...


I get the impression from reading another thread that in fact the game limits both the availability of generals and what you can do with them; so immediate promotions for Grant and Forrest may not be feasible. That's good; but it's still unhistorical that you know exactly how good your generals are as soon as they appear in the game.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 17
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 6:56:53 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Of the options that we have at the moment, turning on 'Randomized Stats' and 'Hidden Stats' actually gives quite a good simulation, but it feels unhistorical because the names of the generals are all wrong. Whereas turning off both options gives you the generals as they were historically, but it's actually a lousy simulation because you can immediately put Grant and Forrest (for instance) in charge of whole armies in 1861, which is completely unhistorical because it just wouldn't have happened.



That's not completely accurate -- as I wrote elsewhere, generals don't enter the game before roughly the time that they became generals, so Forrest and Grant will never be anywhere to be seen in the first 50 or so rounds of the game.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 18
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 3:27:18 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
I don't want to suggest in this thread that there's a major problem in the game because of this issue. I think most players, including me, can probably live with at least one of the options you have already: randomized & hidden ratings, historical ratings, or no generals at all. I get the impression that you've implemented the historical ratings option well, so that it's not as much of a travesty as it might have been.

I just thought it's rather a pity that the trial-and-error process of appointing generals that both Lincoln and Davis had to go through in reality is represented in the game only by the randomized & hidden option, which few players seem likely to use.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 19
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 5:44:44 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Hello dh76513, thanks for your comments, but after reading them several times I'm still unsure which system you'd prefer! You mention the idea of starting with an initial rating and then modifying it during the game; but then you seem to decide against that idea.

Hi Jonathan,
Hopefully everything is going well for you? My preference would be to have both. I initially suggested a “prestige rating” in addition to a historical “rating” as already established in the game as I indicated in my original post below:

quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
I think that a rating system for general officers as noted by Gil in an earlier post is very important, but will there be any overall “prestige” scores for these generals? In addition to the ability of general officers defined as by rating system, I think a prestige rating should also be given or is it? Prestige could be directly linked to either a general officer’s success or failure on the battlefield. For example, battlefield failure should diminish a general officer’s status and combat success should amplify any their standing in prestige while not altering their combat abilities. In reality, a general officer’s prestige rating might increase or decrease for a number of reasons (via promotion, demotion, recognition, replacement, battlefield success or defeat, commanding soldiers from his state, experience, etc), but their skill or ability should remain the same. For example, an excellent general might lose an engagement due to just overwhelming numbers. While this defeat on the battlefield might decrease his “prestige” rating, it should not change his ability as a general officer and he would still retain his “ability” rating as an excellent tactician.

The Eisenhower analogy is a perfect case in point to establishing a sound reason for using a “prestige” rating in such games. In the Second World War, Eisenhower would have been rated with very high prestige; perhaps higher than any other Allied general officer. As a battlefield commander, however, he would have been likely rated as “Good” when compared to warriors like George S. Patton or Heinz Guderian who would have been rated as “Superb” (using the game criteria).

To illustrate the historical significance of this point – Patton’s “rating” (initiative, command, leadership, tactics, and cavalry) would not have decreased when he was placed in command of the First U.S. Army Group (FUSAG) which was part of a façade to invade France at Calais. Should Guderian’s “rating” be lowered because he disagreed with Kleist's view that the panzers needed the support of the infantry? In fact, Kleist sacked Guderian in what some historians say is one of Kleist’s worse decision. The same is true for Hood. Let’s not forget that Johnston failed to attack Sherman as ordered by Davis which eventually led to his replacement by Hood. As such, let’s not forget that Hood was following “Presidential” orders to attack. Hood’s defeat from following orders [not his plan] would certainly lower his “prestige” but not his military skills. Let’s not forget that Hood actions in the Atlanta Campaign were not “his skills” at work, but “Jeff’s orders” and therefore these actions should not reflect his military skills or “rating” in the game. A prestige rating would secure a general’s actual abilities via a “rating” regardless of the decisions made by his leadership structure [Lincoln and Davis in this game]. Furthermore,
quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers
That seems in concept like a pretty good idea to me. Tie battlefield success, political pull, and seniority into a prestige rating, or something of the like. Helps to determine political repercussions of removing a politically important general, and justify promotions (once a one-star leader makes a certain prestige, he can be considered for is promotion to two-star, etc.)

In addition to battlefield successes, promotions could also lead to increases in prestige ratings. These increases could also entice great influences on governors, increase unit moral, and have a magnitude of other impacts on other aspects of game play. Finally,
quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce
I like the prestige idea - very much - there's the talent on the one side and the result on the other side. I think some negative penalties on some skills might be applied - but not too drastic. The most important thing from "negative prestige" should be that the human player should decide to either keep a low prestige general and causing unrest in the general staff - or to demote him and give him a new chance at a lower tier level and bring back some tranquility.

However, since the “prestige” ratings are nothing more than a pipedream, I vote for the “ratings” to be fixed. I think this approach is the next best thing and it more accurately reflects history as the player’s [Lincoln and Davis] decisions in the game [good or bad] are not held against the commanders' military skills for following “your” orders. And besides,
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
[who] wants to play a game in which Gen. 8675309 or Gen. X leads their army around [the battlefield].

…not I!

< Message edited by dh76513 -- 10/19/2006 7:01:40 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 20
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 6:34:18 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
I certainly have no objection to the idea of a prestige rating. It's clearly an identifiable attribute of military leaders in any historical period, and as such perhaps deserves to be represented, though I'm not sure exactly what its effects should be in the game.

My proposal #3 was to hide the real names of each general until he's fought a couple of battles. Thus, the generals are not really anonymous: just in temporary disguise. If you don't like that idea, you're very welcome to choose one of the other options.

It was rather naïve of me to suggest that my proposal would make everyone happy. In reality, if you get a bunch of people together, you can never get all of them to agree that the world is round, let alone which game options they prefer. In an ideal world, best to have as many options as possible, so that everyone can choose his own favourite. (But it all makes work for the programmer to do...)

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 21
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 7:24:48 PM   
dh76513


Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
…if you get a bunch of people together, you can never get all of them to agree that the world is round, let alone which game options they prefer.

…very true!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
In an ideal world, best to have as many options as possible, so that everyone can choose his own favourite. (But it all makes work for the programmer to do...)


As the player [Lincoln or Davis] in this game would it not be interesting if the programming technology had the know how to incorporate war plans or “recommendations” from your generals [based on their historical ratings or personalities] for your approval [like in the real world] to advise you, upon your request, or to hear from them following a bad decision you make? They would be there advising you throughout the entire battle, war and/or campaign. In the future, I think such interactions will likely be a possible reality in strategy games.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 22
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 7:55:24 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dh76513
As the player [Lincoln or Davis] in this game would it not be interesting if the programming technology had the know how to incorporate war plans or “recommendations” from your generals [based on their historical ratings or personalities] for your approval [like in the real world] to advise you, upon your request, or to hear from them following a bad decision you make? They would be there advising you throughout the entire battle, war and/or campaign. In the future, I think such interactions will likely be a possible reality in strategy games.


Yes, I suppose this is quite likely. I think that some chess programs already include this kind of advice. The difference is that these chess programs are better players than most humans and are therefore well qualified to give advice. At some time in the future, perhaps programs will also be better wargame players than most humans.

(in reply to dh76513)
Post #: 23
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/19/2006 9:44:59 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
At some time in the future, perhaps programs will also be better wargame players than most humans.


It's statements like this that will eventually provoke an absolutely fascinating math-heavy exposition by Eric regarding the limitations of AI when it comes to war games. (He previously posted it somewhere on the COG forum.)

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 24
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/20/2006 5:30:35 AM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
I would like to think that things balance out.

The South should have better generals. Simply to offset the large material advantage the North has.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 25
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/20/2006 6:18:39 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

I would like to think that things balance out.

The South should have better generals. Simply to offset the large material advantage the North has.


Yes, plus there are more 100-percenters (15 vs. 10) and 25-percenters (13 vs. 10), which ensures that the South always gets more good generals. Definitely helps game balance.

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 26
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/20/2006 8:07:06 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
At some time in the future, perhaps programs will also be better wargame players than most humans.


It's statements like this that will eventually provoke an absolutely fascinating math-heavy exposition by Eric regarding the limitations of AI when it comes to war games. (He previously posted it somewhere on the COG forum.)


I've been a programmer myself in the past, in a small way, and I understand something of the difficulties. In fact I'm impressed by how well game programs manage to play these days.

However, some people believe that computers will become more intelligent than people in time. In that case, I suppose it won't be necessary to program them in the same low-level way. Just show your computer the task and say, "Get on with it."

I can imagine intermediate stages in which programming gradually becomes a higher-level activity than it is now. Perhaps people will create general-purpose learning functions, so that you still have to define the task, but then you just call the learning function, which figures out for itself how to perform the task in the most efficient way.

This may seem like black magic, but we've already experienced relatively fast progress in the computer world. The first Fortran compiler was delivered in 1957, when I was three years old; before that, there were only machine and assembly languages.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 27
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/20/2006 1:59:26 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Do the British or French forces if they appear get Generals or will they be so outclassed that a single Union Corps could take them ?

i.e. is playing the European politics actually more grief than its worth for the South as all it does is give the north some free provinces.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 28
RE: Generals: historical, random, or ? - 10/20/2006 2:47:53 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
I have not seen any Generals with the English, but it is not a good thing for the Union if the English join the war

the Union fleet is a thing of the past, total control of the sea is history, the Union may win a sea battle or two, but they can not control the seas any longer

and there is not normally too much in Union Troops in the North, so to counter any threat from the north, means weaking the south, a no win either way

plus which way do the English decide to come in from the North, it is not a good thing to have happen

the Union will and should do all that it can, to stop it from ever happening

I do not think a decently led AI Union Div can stop any advance from the North, it would take at least a Corps or larger




_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals: historical, random, or ? Page: [1]
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

1.156