Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fleets and the Mississippi

 
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 >> Fleets and the Mississippi Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/17/2007 7:33:21 PM   
ABridgeTooFar

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline 		Does anyone bother to blockade the southern ports with the Union's Navy? It just seems very expensive to build your navy up so that you have three ships blockading every river and city port.

Also, last night my union army finished their "March to Mardi Gras" by capturing New Orleans. They travelled all the way down from Kentucky capturing foods and the river provinces along the way. They did not receive the bonus (kind remember if it was NW or VP) that the Union receives for owning the entire Mississippi River. Is this a bug or am I missing something?
Post #: 1
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/17/2007 8:22:12 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Have you actually captured all the RIVER provinces of the Mississippi, or did you just take the land ones?

(in reply to ABridgeTooFar)
Post #: 2
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 3:02:06 AM   
decaturkev


Posts: 38
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: offline 		I wish the CSA could get a bonus for occupying the Ohio River provinces.

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 3
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 3:44:08 AM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

I wish the CSA could get a bonus for occupying the Ohio River provinces.


Please explain. Is this based on something historical that I'm not remembering?

As for costs of ships and fleet containers, I believe that we're lowering that in the patch. In the meantime, it's possible to lower costs yourself by modifying one of the datafiles.

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 4
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 3:57:52 AM   
decaturkev


Posts: 38
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: offline 		Of course it is not historical, the Confederacy had liitle influence on the Ohio River, unlike the Mississippi. However, neither is my game when I bring Illionois and Missouri into the Confederacy. I just thought it would be nice get some bonus on the CSA side.

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 5
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 4:34:17 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Hush, your pointing out the "flaws" in the standard scenarios and the choices made to "balance" the game.

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 6
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 4:38:56 AM   
decaturkev


Posts: 38
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: offline 		But that is one of the endearing "enhancements " of the game, not a "flaw".

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 7
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 4:43:23 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Absolutely, if one doesnt want to actually fight the real civil war.

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 8
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 4:50:39 AM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		I think the photon torpedos on the confederate ironclads is a nice touch.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 9
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 5:06:02 AM   
decaturkev


Posts: 38
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: offline 		IMO, to replicate history is boring as wargame. Been there and done that with Avalon Hill and SPI. I want "what if" with realistic alternatives for command decisions other than what actually occurred. That is really intriguing to me. Besides, I enjoy "Old Jack" as a full General with an army in the west taking on all comers with Lee doing defense in the East. "Old Pete" would have loved this game! Besides, history is in the past.

< Message edited by decaturkev -- 1/20/2007 3:53:38 PM >

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 10
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/18/2007 4:57:36 PM   
ABridgeTooFar

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Have you actually captured all the RIVER provinces of the Mississippi, or did you just take the land ones?


I have taken the river provinces only and none of the adjacent land provinces. But I think I read last night that for the bonus I have to have the Mississippi and the port blockade to get the bonus

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 11
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/19/2007 6:23:34 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why paly waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history.

Chris

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 12
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/19/2007 7:53:29 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: christof139

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games. "Within reason.., and within the constraints of the realities of the situation". It's only fun and interesting to take on the role of Robert E Lee if you also take on the same challanges as Lee, with the same problems, strengths, and weaknesses.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why play Waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history. Because "should" doesn't mean "absolutely will". That's the challange..., can you make better or different use of the same resources to change the historical results? But if all you want to do is give Napoleon Tanks or some other rediculous advantage he never enjoyed, then you are not playing Waterloo..., you're playing "Dungeons and Dragons" or some other fantasy. Would Robert E. Lee be thought of as one of the Greatest Commanders America ever produced if the South had had equal resources to the North? Of course not. It was Lee's ability to pull victories from impossibie-looking situations of inferiority that made his reputation.

Chris



(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 13
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/19/2007 8:50:38 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Yup, the point being, dont call it a game of the "american Civil War" when one must modify files and set the options to off the scale positions to even remotely approximate the actual conditions of the 2 sides.

The base should be " what was" or as close as one can get with a game like this. From THERE one uses the settings and modifies files for the "fantasy land" what ifs.

The war was NOT balanced. One can not call a game "the American Civil War" and have balanced sides. One can provide a scenario that does that within a game, but to make the base that defeats the entire premise of the title and the expectation from most buyers.

One shouldnt have to be a Civil War History buff so that they know what to change to get a "historical" feel for what was the conditions in the war. The designers did the research and should have provided that as a scenario at the offset.

Fortunately they appear to be doing JUST that.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 14
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/20/2007 4:01:11 PM   
decaturkev


Posts: 38
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Hampton Roads, VA
Status: offline 		IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 15
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/20/2007 5:20:06 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF.


Well except for the oh so minor point that "similiar resources and Political/economic factors" are NOT present unless one IS a history buff and or researches the data available. The game as released CAN provide what you have said, BUT only if the player learns the reality that was present back then, the two basic scenarios are NOT even remotely representative of "similiar resources and Political/economic factors" present during the war in question.

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 16
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/20/2007 5:22:23 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.



Then the "truth in advertising" concept should require it to be called "FORGE OF FREEDOM: A bunch of malarky about a theoretically "equal" struggle between the Northern and Southern United States in the 1860's". Calling it "the American Civil War 1861-65" sort of spoils your arguement

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 17
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/20/2007 8:00:37 PM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		To me, it gets old seeing the same "it's not historical" game bashing going on, regardless of the topic of the post. The point has been made, and made again, and made again, sometimes with insulting language. The developers have indicated that they are trying to address whatever points they find valid and addressable. We are all by now quite familiar with your point of view. Repeating it over and over doesn't add anything, except boredom. And it lessens the spirit of civility and community and constructive criticism one likes in a forum. I am not trying to silence anyone, but sometimes self-restraint is a virtue.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 18
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/20/2007 8:02:20 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Yup, but the restraint would it appear be expected from only one side of the arguement.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 19
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/20/2007 9:42:16 PM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

To me, it gets old seeing the same "it's not historical" game bashing going on, regardless of the topic of the post. The point has been made, and made again, and made again, sometimes with insulting language. The developers have indicated that they are trying to address whatever points they find valid and addressable. We are all by now quite familiar with your point of view. Repeating it over and over doesn't add anything, except boredom. And it lessens the spirit of civility and community and constructive criticism one likes in a forum. I am not trying to silence anyone, but sometimes self-restraint is a virtue.


Where was insulting language used? I've only seen it from the anti-historical side.

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 20
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/21/2007 6:03:42 AM   
General Quarters

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 12/3/2006
Status: offline 		Then let's all try not to repeat the same point over and over.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 21
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/21/2007 7:29:50 AM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Then let's all try not to repeat the same point over and over.


Why not? You do. And who made you the boss of the forum?

(in reply to General Quarters)
Post #: 22
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/21/2007 7:45:46 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		As someone who is a boss of the forum, if not the boss, I'm not going to take anyone's side here, but I WILL state that if someone makes a good point well it only needs to be made once to receive serious consideration from those of us on the development team. The upcoming patch will be full of changes made not because people browbeat certain points into us, but because they were made effectively a single time.

That patch will also have a more historical scenario based on just that sort of browbeating -- a point that I and others have been trying to browbeat into visitors to this forum. So discussing that issue is superfluous for the time being, unless someone wants to respond to my earlier appeals for specific suggestions on what that scenario should have and not have.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 23
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/21/2007 8:30:51 AM   
chris0827

 

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

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

As someone who is a boss of the forum, if not the boss, I'm not going to take anyone's side here, but I WILL state that if someone makes a good point well it only needs to be made once to receive serious consideration from those of us on the development team. The upcoming patch will be full of changes made not because people browbeat certain points into us, but because they were made effectively a single time.

That patch will also have a more historical scenario based on just that sort of browbeating -- a point that I and others have been trying to browbeat into visitors to this forum. So discussing that issue is superfluous for the time being, unless someone wants to respond to my earlier appeals for specific suggestions on what that scenario should have and not have.



How about telling us what changes are being made in the historical scenario so we don't annoy you by bringing it up again.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 24
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/21/2007 11:08:49 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		There's a meeting this Tuesday night to start firming up our plans for the unbalanced scenario (as well as the CSA navy). We'll try to give you guys an update then. But we're certainly moving ahead with this clearly-needed change.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 25
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/27/2007 10:19:06 AM   
christof139


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

ORIGINAL: christof139

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games.

MS:"Within reason.., and within the constraints of the realities of the situation". It's only fun and interesting to take on the role of Robert E Lee if you also take on the same challanges as Lee, with the same problems, strengths, and weaknesses.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why play Waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history.

MS: Because "should" doesn't mean "absolutely will". That's the challange..., can you make better or different use of the same resources to change the historical results? But if all you want to do is give Napoleon Tanks or some other rediculous advantage he never enjoyed, then you are not playing Waterloo..., you're playing "Dungeons and Dragons" or some other fantasy. Would Robert E. Lee be thought of as one of the Greatest Commanders America ever produced if the South had had equal resources to the North? Of course not. It was Lee's ability to pull victories from impossibie-looking situations of inferiority that made his reputation.

Chris :quote:end

Yes MS, I do believe that is what I stated and the points that I made. I agree. You seem not to comprehend what I wrote.

Chris


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/27/2007 10:29:33 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues
-----------------------------------------

Too many Uber Weapons such as too many repeating rifles and Gatling Gun type weapons and the silly Med. Attachment/upgrade are a bit too much. Baloons were rarely used and from what I have read only in 1862 in the East, so that is a bit of Victorian Sci-Fi, although von Zepplin was impressed and motivated by what little he saw of them being used. Super Subs are also a bit too much.

There are other aspects of the game that are good and fun. I had a near historical game going by using the settings to constrain economics and supply etc.

In Nov., 1861 the South could have a river flotilla in either New Orleans or Memphis, and that would be historic.

There has to be some historical constarint with the ACW or Victorian Sci-Fi takes over.

Chris

(in reply to decaturkev)
Post #: 27
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/27/2007 11:24:27 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		christof139,
Please use the forum's quotation system properly, or else put quoted text into italics, so that we can easily figure out which parts of your posts are by you, and which are quoted.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 28
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/27/2007 3:32:51 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline 		Alot of negitive stuff in the forums here lately-gamers, moderates, matrix team. I really don't understand why. If everyone will remember the same stuff went on with some people liking witp others not happy with it. As for chris I really don't see why that bothers anyone so much. With price tag on this game we have every right to love it or hate it. I see no problem with people voicing their opinion on the forums with in reason, especially after they spend $60.00.

The only reason I bring that up(the price) is that it seems once they have bought the game they have made a commitment to it, wether it be good or bad. The game was not a gift it was paid for. Let the man write. Besides I get bored once in awhile and it makes for good reading.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

christof139,
Please use the forum's quotation system properly, or else put quoted text into italics, so that we can easily figure out which parts of your posts are by you, and which are quoted.




< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 1/27/2007 3:50:00 PM >

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 29
RE: Fleets and the Mississippi - 1/27/2007 10:05:10 PM   
ABridgeTooFar

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/4/2007
Status: offline 		Titanwarrior:  I agree with free speech and every consumer should be able to voice their comments.  I just think that some posters should show courtesy and respect in their delivery.  There is an old Irish saying that goes, "You can tell someone to go to hell but make them think they will enjoy their trip to get there."

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Fleets and the Mississippi Page: [1] 2   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

0.828