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: The historical test

 
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: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 3:29:32 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline 		Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________


(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 91
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 3:36:11 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Lava, not sure I agree with your premise. Was there anyone in 1861 that did not know what the Anaconda Plan was? Heck, The press gave it its name.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 92
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 3:45:39 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline 		Okay try this..

Where would you put this guy..

Appointed to the military academy, he found it distasteful and hoped that Congress would abolish the institution, freeing him. He excelled only in horsemanship for that he had displayed a capability early in life and graduated in 1843, 2lst out of 39 graduates. Posted to the 4th Infantry, since there were no vacancies in the dragoons, he served as regimental quartermaster during most of the Mexican War. Nonetheless he frequently led a company in combat under Zachary Taylor in northern Mexico.

He came to greatly admire his chief but was transferred with his regiment to Winfield Scott's army operating from the coast. He received brevets for Molino del Rey and Chapultepec. With the resumption of peace he was for a time stationed in Mexico, a country which he came to admire greatly, and then was posted to the West coast. Separated from his wife, he tried numerous business ventures to raise enough capital to bring her to the coast but proved singularly unsuccessful. On July 31, 1854, he resigned his captaincy amid rumors of heavy drinking and warnings of possible disciplinary action by his post commander.

His return to civilian life proved unsuccessful. Farming on his father-inlaw's land was a failure, as was the real estate business and attempts to gain engineering and clerk posts in St. Louis. He finally became a clerk in a family leather goods store in Galena, which was run by his two younger brothers. Before he had been there long the Civil War broke out. Offering his services to the War Department and to General George B. McClellan in Ohio, he met with no success in gaining an appointment.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/grantbio.htm

Given that knowledge, I wouldn't appoint him either. But I'm sure as soon as his name pops up, because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE most would make him an army commander.

Ray (alias Lava)

_____________________________


(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 93
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 3:49:50 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		That is why I play random-hidden leadership traits. Next question please.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 94
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 3:50:30 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		A game about a historical event SHOULD have as a base the REALITY of that event. From there one allows for "balance".

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 95
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 3:57:10 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		"Offering his services to the War Department and to General George B. McClellan in Ohio, he met with no success in gaining an appointment."


If "Little Mac" turned him down I'd make him General of the Armies just on the principle that McClellan was a moral coward and that anyone he didn't like was probably a fighter.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 96
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 4:33:18 PM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

About 2,750,000 men served in the union army ...


2,200,000 according to the Civil War Wiki.


And we all know if Wikipedia says it then it must be true.


Not necessarily, but at least I quoted my source. A lot of people have thrown out numbers in many threads here without doing that.


Dyer's Compendium of the War of Rebellion. A much better source than wikipedia

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 97
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 5:19:19 PM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Ray (alias Lava)


That's exactly my point.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 98
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 5:48:01 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lava
When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.


Please read how I defined the historical test at the start of this thread. Why should passing that test make the game any worse? Why should failing that test make the game any better?

No-one is suggesting that games should follow the historical path. I'm only suggesting that the game should permit the historical path to be followed, if both players choose to do so.

You're right that hindsight (and being able to play the game over and over again) may and indeed should enable us to improve on the strategies originally followed. That's fine, it's surely why many people play the game.

I merely point out that, if the game doesn't permit the original strategies to be followed (with all the original blunders), there must be something wrong with it as a simulation.

And if it isn't a simulation, what's the point of labelling it as a game of the American Civil War? In what sense is it a game of the American Civil War?

If it's just a game with Civil War flavour, like icecream with whisky flavour, to hell with that, I'm not interested. Give me a bottle of whisky.

How can you say that you've improved on the original strategies if the game doesn't honestly represent the original situation?

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 1/2/2007 6:00:25 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 99
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 6:26:56 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.

When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.

Ray (alias Lava)



Having pre-knowledge is a challenge, but not a show stopper.

If one simply wants to abandon history --- fine --- just advertise the game as "Civil War Fantasy" and add anything you want.

I suspect some of the people who are Confederate cheerleaders would be happy to have panzer divisions -- and would see nothing wrong with it in the name of a good "game."

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 100
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 6:51:39 PM   
LitFuel


Posts: 272
Joined: 10/21/2006
From: Syracuse, NY
Status: offline 		Let's face it historically anal dudes...you will never...ever... be happy no matter what the "game" makers do..you really won't. You know it , we know it...you have forgotten how to have fun and are stuck playing out history over and over in your heads. You want a movie where you already know the ending..or with little variation as possible. Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea...they never can win....just like the south if you have your way...lol.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 101
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 8:22:39 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		LitFuel, please do not take this the wrong way but your post sucks.  My guess is if you took a little time to learn about the history of the ACW you may actualy appreciate us HISTORICALLY ANAL DUDES, Dude.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 102
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 8:27:34 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		Lit, posts like yours contribute nothing to the discussion.

Casting those who do not agree with you into a position they would vehemently disavow is cheap and childish.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 103
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 8:39:56 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		I haven't seen a single post by someone saying the South shouldn't be able to win. What forum are you reading?

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 104
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 8:42:04 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

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

ORIGINAL: LitFuel
Let's face it historically anal dudes...you will never...ever... be happy no matter what the "game" makers do..you really won't. You know it , we know it...you have forgotten how to have fun and are stuck playing out history over and over in your heads. You want a movie where you already know the ending..or with little variation as possible. Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea...they never can win....just like the south if you have your way...lol.


There are a couple of serious points in this farrago of nonsense.

1. Will we ever be completely satisfied with the historical accuracy of a game? Answer: no, but we may be reasonably satisfied. Nothing is ever perfect, but some things can be good enough.

2. "Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea..." Well, I'm afraid if you set out to make a game out of a piece of history, you can expect criticism of it as a game, and criticism of it as history. It's true that a lot of criticism tends to surface on a forum like this; some of it is petty and shouldn't be taken too seriously. However, any game developer who doesn't accept historical criticism should stick to making abstract games that don't claim to be based on history.

(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 105
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 9:16:23 PM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Ok, so would you buy a game about tactical warfare in WW2.... lets say Steel Panthers style where the Sherman was upgunned and armoured to be able to take on the Tiger and Panther? Or perhaps where the Germans were not allowed to have 88s because it wasn't fair......

Or how about a naval game of the period where the Kriegsmarine had an equivalent number of warships to the Royal Navy so that it balanced it up?

The fun comes from using the instruments available to the commanders in the right way to overcome the other side - at its most basic its scissors, paper,stone..... a game of stone/stone would be pretty boring.....

If you want a pure game where things are 'balanced' then perhaps you should be buying 'Starfleet Empires of the Galaxy Rangers' or 'Starship Marines of Alpha Centauri.'

Don't rip into people who want a historical simulation.......... and don't fling mud at what has been to date an erudite debate (in the main)

Roger



_____________________________


(in reply to LitFuel)
Post #: 106
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 9:22:27 PM   
Roger Neilson II


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline 		Almost off topic......

Great moments from films.....

1. In The Battle of the Bulge where two sets of Patton tanks charge each other across a wasteland - hey fun!
2. In Cross of Iron, where the German Infantry squad all get transported inside a Hetzer tank destroyer.....
3. In 'Under the Stars and Bars' where John Wayne, dressed in a very similar manner to Nelson breaks the Yankee line with a tugboat towing 100 barges full of several divisions of crack SAS trained CSA troops to land in New York....














Yes, I must admit I made the last one up!

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 107
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 9:54:36 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Great moments from films.....

1. In The Battle of the Bulge where two sets of Patton tanks charge each other across a wasteland - hey fun!
2. In Cross of Iron, where the German Infantry squad all get transported inside a Hetzer tank destroyer.....
3. In 'Under the Stars and Bars' where John Wayne, dressed in a very similar manner to Nelson breaks the Yankee line with a tugboat towing 100 barges full of several divisions of crack SAS trained CSA troops to land in New York....


I saw number 3 several times and 1 and 2, but 3 more recently in 'Return of The King movie #3' at Osgiliath those barges and crack(ed) troops were seen. Yup.

I just drink coffee now, and an occasional tea, as you can for the reasons see.  This is due to a fewm time local magistrate and me behind the wheel type of deal. At least I told him in more words or less that he and certain laws were an idiot and idiotic respectively. I had to pay but I sure told him anyway, don't know if he quite understood me but he seemed upset and confused so that wa OK. I once belonged to the opposite of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, that is DAMM, Drunks Against Mad Mothers with Alfred E. Newman or Newman of Mad Magazine as the Pres. Overall, looking back over the last decade or so coherently now, I can say it was worth the enjoyment of seeing the lunatic's expression, and he was removed twice by the State from the Judgeship, and the second time permanently and ordered to see a shrink, so my attorney and I were right afterall, he was nuts and rude to too many people and it caught up with His Lordship the Pseudo Judge Bean West of the Pecos, except he hung himself and Judge Bean didn't hang himself just other people. Big difference so I guess Judge Bean and myself and attorney were smarter and right afterall.

The Judge somehow reminded me of this one Colonel long ago, but the Colonel was more humane and understanding having some decent humor or humour in the Frenchisized English.

Yeah, you have to have some historical accuracies and balance, if not you get bedlam and something that won't sell and may not be challenging. If I want something not challenging I just solo play as usual, because at least I always win and can have things my own selfish way, but I am still bounded by the historical constraints of the game. If too unrealistic and non-historical then it's just a mess, bedlam, a non-seller.

Chris


(in reply to Roger Neilson II)
Post #: 108
RE: The historical test - 1/2/2007 11:15:18 PM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Hmm..

I knew a thread like this would appear about the game...

There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it.


Sure, I know what it is. Can I as a Union player implement it in this game? No. Why not? If FoF claims to be a Civil War game then I should be able to emulate one of the key componenets of the war that helped me, as a Northern player win it. Heck, if as a souhtern player I have the option to do the one thing Jefferson Davis never truly considered in Emancipation, then why is a blockade so hard?

quote:

So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore.


Travelling a set path is indeed boring. Thats why games that force a conclusion no matter what you do die out quickly. I don;t think FoF is one of those games. I don't mind "What If's" myself, I think its always a bit of fun to see if I can do better.
However, currently IMO, you cannot do so as a Union player.

quote:


When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people.


My opinion is that in order for it to be a viable game, you have to have a reasonable chance to produce a reasonably historically accurate outcome. If that's possible, then thats a good starting point for a game.

To me, That means as a Southern Player, I could do better than they did historically, hold of the Union longer, survive longer, and maybe due to my briallinace on the battlefield Lincoln will lose the election in 64 and I'll win.

That means as a Northern Player I can do better managing my forces, and force the south to capitulate sooner.

At this point, IMO, the first is to easily done, elections not withstanding.

Thresh

< Message edited by Thresh -- 1/2/2007 11:27:51 PM >

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 109
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 12:18:03 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Well Sarge, two out of three isn't bad, but it's not accurate either, is it?

I've yet to see or read an AAR of all three of those happening in the same game where the computer fights the battles. Lord knows I've tried to do it almost every game I've played as the Union, and I've only been able to take Memphis and Nashville, but Never New Orleans. Must be some "trick" I am missing.

Thresh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Queeg,

Any settings you want.

Heres three main goals that the Union achieved

In April 1862, they took New Orleans. didn't bother, I went after the ANV instead
In June 1862, they took Memphis. Done it
In February, 1862, they took Nashville. Done it

I wasn't the Union tester, I was bored while waiting on the next patch, so give the Union a try

Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes?

Now, mind you historically they took New Orleans and New Orleans pretty much without firing a shot. That can't happen in game unless your opponenet or the computer is quite dumb.

Thresh



quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test:

Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened.
There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO.



At what settings? Impossible under all difficulty and power settings? I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty.






well, again, for the top, I said I never tried for NO, so I not sure if it is accurate or not

lets see, how is late March of 62 for you






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 110
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 12:30:46 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Does this include cutting the Mississippi? I see a LOT of RED on that map.

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 111
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 12:32:29 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
well, again, for the top, I said I never tried for NO, so I not sure if it is accurate or not

lets see, how is late March of 62 for you







SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 112
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 12:35:12 AM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline 		well this thread needs a reality check.

How on earth can you check if both parties are taking a historical path ... and what is considered to be historical or unhistorical? And what is considered to be good long term vision and what is considered to be poor long term vision? If the boundary conditions are changing - why chose historical decisions in a game with altered boundary conditions.

Let me give an example ...

If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place) - is that historical or unhistorical ? Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets in the late half of the game and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition for building blockade runners is totally different ... Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters that drove the CSA in that particular game to build ironclads ... should I have said no to building ironclads ? For sure not - if the CSA in those days would have had this kind of option, they perhaps also would have choosen to build some ironclads to break the blockade ...

I agree with the premise of this thread - but it's a rethorical question I must say due to the fact that the boundary conditions are not predictable and the variables in the bigger picture will always decide otherwise.

For sure I wouldn't conclude that this experiment should be used to decide on how to tweak or balance the game. I'm in favour of having one scenario with 100% genuine historical starting setup (the whole picture), but I can't agree on the last line about tweaking and balancing.

It's like Einsteins theorema of the unlimited amount of parallell worlds that exist due to the unlimited amount of variancy of all stuff. In one of those parallell worlds, this game never was made and I'm just happy that the guys of WCS made it all right .

< Message edited by spruce -- 1/3/2007 12:57:00 AM >

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 113
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 12:47:06 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: spruce

well this thread needs a reality check. Let me give an example ...

If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place) - is that historical or unhistorical ? Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition is totally different. Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters. But you also got five "Ships" and two "Fleet Counters" that are totally a-historic. Given that. building a fleet makes perfect sense.


(in reply to spruce)
Post #: 114
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 12:52:21 AM   
spruce

 

Posts: 404
Joined: 9/23/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: spruce

well this thread needs a reality check. Let me give an example ...

If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place) - is that historical or unhistorical ? Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition is totally different. Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters. But you also got five "Ships" and two "Fleet Counters" that are totally a-historic. Given that. building a fleet makes perfect sense.




I see your point - and I support to tweak those numbers - but I was so happy the UK helped me out on naval techs and I was lucky to get ironclad program. I was dying to use those ironclads against the Union. Those ships from the game start had little impact on my naval victory - it was the fact I was able to build new ironclads all together.

I also must say that general Jackson was responsable for these ironclads. Jacksons corps had mauled 3 smaller Union armies so badly, that the Union retreated and left me alone for a long period of time ... My brigades all had good weapons upgrade, so I went for the ironclads that I could afford to pay for ...

Like I said - variables and variancy is important here ... If Jacksons victory (some stroke of luck) wouldn't have been there - the Union would have invaded the Carolina's and those ironclads would have been a dream in the minds of the Confederacy.

other imbalancings things for the moment, and the CSA gets a good deal out of the current setup =

- camps,
- gun pick up,
- blockade runners are too successfull I must say,
- Southern Economy is a bit too easy to "boost" upwards, should be more difficult,
- emancipation act for both sides

< Message edited by spruce -- 1/3/2007 1:06:45 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 115
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 4:24:20 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
quote:

SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.


Mike

that was normal seige combat

I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's

to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game

I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected



_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 116
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 4:44:11 AM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline 		I'd wager Hard Sarge could have taken NO even quicker had it been practically undefended, as it was historically.  But as you can all see, he took it ahead of schedule, against what seems to have been ahistorically stiffer opposition!

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 117
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:02:05 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.


Mike

that was normal seige combat

I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's

to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game

I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected



I understood that New Orleans was taken with normal siege combat...., what I meant was were you using the "Detailed Combat System" in that GAME? Your "expertise" with "detailed combat" means you can confidently expect to pull out victories that a player using "quick combat" (practicing for PBEM) can't hope to win normally. It gives you a "freedom of action" that those less skilled or not using Detailed Combat can't emulate. That was what I was asking.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 118
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:12:24 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline 		These are all interesting comments, and I really don't have much of a disagreement on the various historical points that have been made. And this type of discussion is one that always follows close on the heels of any new game - and, frankly, the better the game, usually the more lively the discussion.

My concern, here and with other games, is this: Computer logic tends to be linear - the biggest number tends to win. Couple that with 20/20 hindsight and the bloodless detachment that comes from playing a game, and you end up with a near-impenetrable force field of certainty that distorts historical reality.

History never follows in lock-step with the numbers and offers no reset button. Indeed - and this is the source of my acknowledged Southern bias - what makes the ACW so universally appealing is that it so wonderfully didn't play out by the numbers. If it had, I sincerely doubt that anyone would be making a game about it today. Not many Shay's Rebellion blockbusters out there, after all.

I agree that the current set up probably favors the South too heavily and probably would endorse most of the points spruce made. But I do resist the notion that the answer lies wholly, or even mostly, in the numbers. Indeed, simply modeling the ledgers is the easy way out. Far better, I think, to build a game that captures the fog of uncertainty that bedeviled our ancestors, within the bounds of historical plausibility.

I'm sure that Lincoln would have dearly loved to have the sense of certainty that simple reliance on the numbers would have afforded. Then again, had it played out strictly by the numbers in real life, we wouldn't still be writing books about him.




< Message edited by Queeg -- 1/3/2007 5:27:02 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 119
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 5:52:17 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		"My concern, here and with other games, is this: Computer logic tends to be linear - the biggest number tends to win. Couple that with 20/20 hindsight and the bloodless detachment that comes from playing a game, and you end up with a near-impenetrable force field of certainty that distorts historical reality."


This is why the designers included such factors as "troop quality" and "Leadership" and "suprise" and such in the equasion. But even now such "miracles" as Chancellorsville should not be pre-ordained---just look at all the oddities that had to take place in the right order for Lee's 60-odd thousand to "beat" Hooker's 130+ thousand. Even then, most Northern officers and men felt that it was Hooker who'd been beat.., not them. The system needs to guarantee the "possibility" of a Chancellorsville..., but not it's certainty.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

2.641