Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy

 
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 >> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 7:54:19 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		I didn't want my "Aggressiveness" pool idea to only apply to the Union. (Although, historically, the Union did seem to be more pressed for action. The CSA would win by default if the Union never launched an attack...)

I forget why Lee needed to go into Pennsylvania (the CSA thought that they needed a European diplomacy boost?), but I don't think he launched that campaign on his own accord...

And if the Union player is asked to swallow the idea of suffering from a penalty that the CSA player never has to worry about, it would leave a little bit of a bad after taste...

This "Agressiveness" requirement should be modified by the difficulty setting, too.

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 31
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 7:55:47 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		Well alot of people think he came north for Shoes, I wonder if they had BOGO back then?

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 32
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 7:58:03 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		Im not sure the CSA would need to suffer a penalty. The South would be happy if the North left them alone, I think you touched on it when you say the South should win by default.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 33
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 8:00:14 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		That would be a victory point "hit" then. The CSA suffers less of a hit than the Union does, so that there is a slow slide towards CSA victory if the Union just sits back and fortifies Washington for a year... (?)

Basically, I am concerned about a fair and balanced approach.

< Message edited by mlees -- 12/4/2006 8:10:42 PM >

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 34
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 8:06:23 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Im not sure the CSA would need to suffer a penalty. The South would be happy if the North left them alone, I think you touched on it when you say the South should win by default.



Agreed..., which is the whole point of the "did they make the South's economy too strong, or the Union's too week" discussion. The South can "win" simply by not "losing"; but the Union has to pretty much conquer and garrison the Confederacy to triumph. A much more arduous task, and requiring greater resources to accomplish. I'm not going to go farther until I've finished a few games..., but that's one of the big questions looking for an answer right now....

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 35
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 8:07:30 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, I think that would work. Then you would have the Normal VP's for winning and losing and to controling enemy provinces. The North would then be forced to (or Suffer the -VP's) press the war, and if they lose battles (which often happned early) they would have double trouble, -VP's and National Will. The South should only suffer -VP's for having territory taken and then no attempt to reclaim it.(which the game may model now without tinkering) This would give the South a chance to force a surrender and win the Game by NW or VP's without having to give them Bonus's that the game does now for play balance.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 36
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 8:10:27 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		I think so to mike. I started one as the North and I am having alot of trouble just bringing the Army up to what was done IRL. I seem to lack supply and money, and if I alter how much supply I dole out, I lack money for the troops that I get.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 37
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 8:15:35 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		One can hardly deny that historic realities were thrown out the window for play balance here. All one has to do is compare the economies, the starting navies, the HUGE disaster that disease is on any army in an enemy province, the limits placed on raising troops ( for both sides)

Does this play balance at the expense of historical accuracy effect whether the game is a good one? Well yes if you were expecting a historical simulation, but as a game, I have to say I enjoy playing it. Just wish it were really about the Civil War and the advantages and disadvantages each side had.

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 38
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/4/2006 8:27:47 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		Couldn't agree more, I really Like the game, and I am sure I will be up to late playing it. I would like it to be a more historic simulation ( the tactical battles are well done) on a strategic level, and I think as matrix has done in the past they will make patches or allow modding, which for me is money well spent on their games.

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 39
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 12:19:34 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

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

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

One can hardly deny that historic realities were thrown out the window for play balance here. All one has to do is compare the economies, the starting navies, the HUGE disaster that disease is on any army in an enemy province, the limits placed on raising troops ( for both sides)

Does this play balance at the expense of historical accuracy effect whether the game is a good one? Well yes if you were expecting a historical simulation, but as a game, I have to say I enjoy playing it. Just wish it were really about the Civil War and the advantages and disadvantages each side had.


I'm happy to say that for once I completely agree with you. Although it's not necessary to destroy historical accuracy to get play balance. You could make a historically accurate game with adjustable handicaps for each side (which this game has anyway), and let the players handicap one side or the other when and if they want to.

The war in reality was unbalanced, but not hopelessly unbalanced. The CSA was doing well at times. It lasted for four years. That's not a walkover.

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 12/5/2006 12:29:47 AM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 40
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 1:59:35 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Does this play balance at the expense of historical accuracy effect whether the game is a good one? Well yes if you were expecting a historical simulation, but as a game, I have to say I enjoy playing it. Just wish it were really about the Civil War and the advantages and disadvantages each side had.

I'm happy to say that for once I completely agree with you. Although it's not necessary to destroy historical accuracy to get play balance. You could make a historically accurate game with adjustable handicaps for each side (which this game has anyway), and let the players handicap one side or the other when and if they want to.



The big disappointment in the approach they took is that they didn't go with an historically accurate "base game" from which you could add in modifiers/advantages to suit your needs and desires. It's always easier to start from "dead-on correct" when making adjustments. Maybe they thought it wouldn't sell.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 41
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 2:05:18 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		The south's economy isn't too strong it's just that the north's economy is too weak. The south's navy is too strong. The south should have no navy at start except blockade runners. The North's navy is also too weak.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 42
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 2:28:03 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline 		Just got home and must say I enjoyed reading the replies here and am impressed at how civil the discussions have remained.  Thanks to everyone for discussing this in a rationale manner.

As suspected, I think many are still experimenting with the game and are not yet ready to make concrete suggestions.  One that came through on a couple of posts is the initial Naval balance.  Eric has already suggested he will remove the Southern ironclad.  I wonder if anyone has look at the rest of the Navy to determine if that would address the issue entirely.  I believe the ship counts in the game are roughly historical but if anyone believes otherwise feel free to mention it.

To the "aggressiveness pool" suggestion, the game does begin to award one victory point to the South each turn beginning in (I think) 1864, which seems to be roughly the same concept.  If the North doesn't take the proper steps to win, they will lose through their inaction as the calendar is not on their side.  To the blockade running suggestions, I am still thinking they might require more work than we are likely to see in a patch, but I applaud your effort.  Who knows... if future wars to be covered by this engine had a lot of blockades, they might consider some of these ideas.

As also mentioned a couple of times, we likely will see a set of modified data files that attempt to be more historically accurate.  For any interested in such a project, I might suggest a new thread in the MODS subsection where you might coordinate research, begin collecting modified files, and get feedback from folks willing to test the impact of your mods. 

Did I miss any additional suggestions for specific changes?

Again, thanks to everyone for keeping this a rationale conversation.  As suspected initially, this discussion might have been a bit premature but we have had a few ideas emerge.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 43
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:08:29 AM   
kentul

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/25/2006
Status: offline 		one of the problems that i see as far as severly limiting offenisve ops is how long the seiges take. and also, just for to let you know, not all cities were fortified to the extent that they are in fof. but i have a question for yall. if you occupy an enemy territory, but dont start a seige, just how long will the garrision hold out? will they eventually starve to death or wil their food stores last forever? why are they casualites for sieges so enormous? that is very a-historical and not even based in reality.

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 44
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:15:42 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kentul

one of the problems that i see as far as severly limiting offenisve ops is how long the seiges take. and also, just for to let you know, not all cities were fortified to the extent that they are in fof. but i have a question for yall. if you occupy an enemy territory, but dont start a seige, just how long will the garrision hold out? will they eventually starve to death or wil their food stores last forever? why are they casualites for sieges so enormous? that is very a-historical and not even based in reality.


Without a siege, it is assumed you are in the same province but not surrounding or cutting off access to the city and therefore it will never starve. The siege is what indicates you are trying to cut them off and encirclement is a siege option.

Also, if you do not like the pace of sieges, faster or slower sieges is an option.

(in reply to kentul)
Post #: 45
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:23:02 AM   
kentul

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/25/2006
Status: offline 		one more question. how and what is the process for building a fort in a territory? several times i have selected the engineering option to build a fort with a div or a corps, built no fort ever appears. am i doing something wrong?

(in reply to jchastain)
Post #: 46
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:30:37 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		I seem to poor a lot of money into the Three pools in Europe playing at the basic level, Sargent?.. and even with wmancipation they are pooring liberal amount sof aid.. what gives? do I need to blockade every port?

(in reply to kentul)
Post #: 47
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:37:45 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

I seem to poor a lot of money into the Three pools in Europe playing at the basic level, Sargent?.. and even with wmancipation they are pooring liberal amount sof aid.. what gives? do I need to blockade every port?


That's what the union did. They either captured or blockaded every port.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 48
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:42:16 AM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: kentul

one of the problems that i see as far as severly limiting offenisve ops is how long the seiges take. and also, just for to let you know, not all cities were fortified to the extent that they are in fof. but i have a question for yall. if you occupy an enemy territory, but dont start a seige, just how long will the garrision hold out? will they eventually starve to death or wil their food stores last forever? why are they casualites for sieges so enormous? that is very a-historical and not even based in reality.


Kentul, two things. First, if sieges take too long for your taste, use the "faster sieges" option. And if you want them to go even faster, choose the "attack fort" option in the siegeworks (instead of encirclement, subterfuge, or one of the other options) and you'll get to fight a battle for a fort. Second, you are right that not all cities were as fortified as we have them, but that's because not all cities were in danger of attack. Had a Union city sensed itself in danger of an attack it would have quickly beefed up its defenses, as Pittsburgh began to do when its citizens thought that Lee was heading their way shortly before Gettysburg. So, it's quite realistic for an army to spend one or two weeks marching on an enemy city, only to find it heavily fortified upon arriving there.

(in reply to kentul)
Post #: 49
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:43:12 AM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: kentul

one more question. how and what is the process for building a fort in a territory? several times i have selected the engineering option to build a fort with a div or a corps, built no fort ever appears. am i doing something wrong?


Do you have enough money/iron/labor when you do that? If not, it won't work.

(in reply to kentul)
Post #: 50
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 3:55:15 AM   
kentul

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/25/2006
Status: offline 		thanks gil, that was the problem.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 51
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 4:02:40 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline 		Based on my play so far, I'm pretty happy with the current balance. I would like to see the battle results (whether march attrition or not) tweaked a bit to reduce the number of lopsided battles. One of the most distinctive characteristics of the ACW was that victories were often as bloody as defeats and the victor often could not follow up a victory because its own losses were so great. In fact, that may well have been the rule rather than the exception. If one play balance concern is to prevent the Union from steamrolling the South, then making victory more costly might help.

As for historical accuracy in general, the biggest problem in an ACW game is that it is difficult to model historical disparities in national will when the player has the benefit of hindsight and the fortitude that comes from losing cyber-soldiers instead of real ones. For most (if not all) of the war, the North lacked the same level of national will that fortified the South. How do you model that accurately when the player shares no such ambivalence? When the player is perfectly willing to fight a remorseless war of attrition right from the start? Perhaps you could model national will in terms of limits on the availability of resources - much as the current Governors feature does - but the Union player would still feel artificially handicapped.



< Message edited by Queeg -- 12/5/2006 4:12:03 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 52
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 4:56:34 AM   
Johnus

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline 		Frankly gentlemen, after just a few days, and the complication involved in this game, how can anyone intelligently critique it for being ahistorical ?? I deleted the southern ironclads as per Gil R's instructions. I don't like the casualty figures, unless I am misreading them. Other that that, however, it is way too early for me to critique the game on the basis of history.

In spite of all its "advantages," the North took years to conquer the South. Also, the fact that it is difficult and time consuming to build up an efficient army of invasion, or defense for that matter, is very historical. Is the North insufficiently empowered with respect to amphibious invasion capability ?? I can't tell, I haven't got that far into a game, although I have started a few. How many players have gotten that far with a good working knowledge of the game ??

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 53
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 6:05:30 AM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy
I would say the causality numbers need to be tweaked a bit so that you don’t see 15,000 for one side and 3,000 for another.


Cold Harbor, 1864

Union casualties: ~13,500

Confederate casualties: ~2,500


_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to histgamer)
Post #: 54
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 6:18:30 AM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

The south's economy isn't too strong it's just that the north's economy is too weak. The south's navy is too strong. The south should have no navy at start except blockade runners. The North's navy is also too weak.


And the Union's leaders are ridiculously overrated. With any generalship better than utterly pathetic the Union would have won the war by 1863, but if the Union had generals as good as this game makes them then the war would have ended long before then.

On top of that, the general's order of battle for the game is wacky. I have Galusha Pennypacker in my current game as a three-star Union general in late 1861. The only problem with this situation is that he was born in 1844, and thus would have been 17 in 1861. Admittedly, Pennypacker was the youngest man ever to hold the rank of general in the United States Army, but this is still pretty silly.

On the plus side, my Civil War general ancestor is both in the game and has his name spelled correctly...

_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 55
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 6:28:44 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Steely Glint,

If you're referring to ratings of Union 25-percenters and 100-percenters, those were determined in the generals' ratings sub-forum with input from numerous visitors to the site; if you refer to the 9-percenters who make up the bulk of generals for both sides, those were determined randomly but will be gradually made more accurate as the biographies project continues.

Also, as noted in that sub-forum, it is easy to modify the generals spreadsheet so as to change generals' ratings to one's liking. In fact, I think I'll post something about this in the mods sub-forum.

I'm curious -- who is your ACW ancestor? Pennypacker is an ancestor of the wife of none other than Matrix's own Erik Rutins (which may be way we get him into the game sooner).

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 56
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 6:46:18 AM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline 		My ancestor? I'll PM you a clue, but he is no one to be particularly proud of.

The Union had a bigger and better economy, better armaments, better logistics, more troops, and a far better railroad system. Despite this they could not manage to win the war until 1865, and the war could very well have ended in a draw. How could this have happened?

Leadership.

The South's leadership advantage over the North was immense. Whether it was Lee et al at the army level (leaving the abominable Braxton Bragg out of this), Jackson et al at the corps level, Mahone et al at the division level, or Forrest et al with the cavalry, the superb leadership of the South consistently enabled outnumbered, outarmed, and outsupplied men to not only hold their own against vastly superior forces time after time, but to defeat them over and over again. Until the advent of Grant, whose strengths lay in his refusal to quit and his willingness both to take risks and to engage in a war of attrition on a shocking scale, the Union never had a prayer.



_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 57
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 7:06:00 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

My ancestor? I'll PM you a clue, but he is no one to be particularly proud of.

The Union had a bigger and better economy, better armaments, better logistics, more troops, and a far better railroad system. Despite this they could not manage to win the war until 1865, and the war could very well have ended in a draw. How could this have happened?

Leadership.

The South's leadership advantage over the North was immense. Whether it was Lee et al at the army level (leaving the abominable Braxton Bragg out of this), Jackson et al at the corps level, Mahone et al at the division level, or Forrest et al with the cavalry, the superb leadership of the South consistently enabled outnumbered, outarmed, and outsupplied men to not only hold their own against vastly superior forces time after time, but to defeat them over and over again. Until the advent of Grant, whose strengths lay in his refusal to quit and his willingness both to take risks and to engage in a war of attrition on a shocking scale, the Union never had a prayer.




You overstate the south's advantage in leadership. Only in Virginia did the south have a significant edge in quality leaders. In the west the Union generals were at least the equal of their southern opponents.

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 58
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 7:14:44 AM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827
You overstate the south's advantage in leadership. Only in Virginia did the south have a significant edge in quality leaders. In the west the Union generals were at least the equal of their southern opponents.


Nonsense. Until Grant (and Sherman) showed up in the West the Union forces there were run by the usual collection of clowns. The only Union victories gathered there were the results of brute force and massive ignorance. Which is not to say that there weren't some clowns in gray, too...but they were the exceptions and not the rule.

And no Union general in the West (or anywhere else) could hold a candle to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Bryce's Crossroads will still be being taught in military academies when they are training officers for the Space Marines.


_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 59
RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy - 12/5/2006 7:21:34 AM   
jchastain


Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint
Bryce's Crossroads will still be being taught in military academies when they are training officers for the Space Marines.


Second only to Captain Garth's achievements at Axanar. If I am not mistaken, I believe those lessons come immediate before the Kobayashi Maru scenario in the curriculum.

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Game Balance & Historical Accuracy Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

1.846