Erik Rutins
Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
|
BJ,
quote:
ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Don't get hung up on the size of the force to invade Galveston, just make it large enough that the South could not resist it in the game. Say 100,000. Make it 50,000.
Ok, got it - that's much more reasonable.
quote:
My point is that, historically, the Union tried to invade the area around Galveston several times. Once, a single battery held of a vastly superior force steaming up Sabine Bay. Another time, a small group of militia captured an invading force on Galveston Island, sending the remnants retreating back to New Orleans. BTW, this should be made into a full-length feature film, a comedy, as both sides diplayed tremendous stupidity during the affair
True, though keep in mind that this was sort of the "Alaska" of Union military commands at the time. The question is, if Lincoln had decided it was a high priority and had appointed Grant to lead an amphibious invasion of Texas, could the logistical obstacles have been overcome based on what they had available historically in terms of ships, training and economy? Would Grant have been as easily deterred once he arrived? I tend to think the results here were the sum of what was put into the area by both sides in terms of troops and leadership, but there's no question the Confederates put in some impressive performances against seemingly tough odds here as elsewhere.
quote:
Well, they just didn't have all that many available. They would have had to wait for months for additional troops from the east. More importantly, the terrain simply would not allow it. Militarily useful approaches are very limited, and a much larger force would just have been more effective.
They could have sent it though, had the Commander-in-Chief decided it was a priority. Historically though, Lincoln had less influence over such things by far than the gamer actually has. Recall his many strong suggestions to go for the Knoxville area and how long it took for those to be realized.
quote:
But, in the game, 50,000, or 75,000 men could be transported to the area and landed, capturing galveston. I contend that that in real life it would have been near impossible. We can argue that point, but you cetainly must concede that a game simply cannot model everything. Whatever is not modeled, or not effectively modeled, COULD be the critical factor in something being possible or not. That's really my point.
I absolutely concede that point, but I also think that the Union if it really put its mind to it, could have done it. For other reasons than simply the logistics of transporting and landing them there, it would likely have been a pointless exercise and possible disaster. In the game, it's not much different honestly. Once you land them there, if you try to march inland you're getting no supply. Only by capturing Galveston and then staying there right next to the coast (with an adjacent fleet for the +1 supply) are you really able to keep a force like that intact. Once you try to spread out, you can't "conquer" since you have no land link-up and your forces will pretty quickly start losing supplies and attriting. I think you can in the process take Texas largely out of the Confederacy, but that's not exactly a huge blow given the force investment.
quote:
I have to ask myself this: Could the South have defeated sufficient armies to be albe to have occupied the entire mid-west? No chance. Yet, it is possible in the game. It may not be likely, but it is possible. A good Union player could prevent it I'm sure, but it IS possible. I'm only saying that it MORE possible in the game than in reality, because if it was actually impossible, but remotely possible in the game, it's not refecting reality. That's not really a criticism of the game. It's merely a recognition that the game does not model everything, allowing unforseen possibilites to sneak in here and there.
I don't think the South has any real chance of this against a good Union player. I think it's more accurate to say that this can be a weak spot for the Union AI vs. a good Confederate player. I don't think something being remotely possible is a hit on the game either, by the way. I think where we philosophically differ is that because the game allows the player to do such incredibly unwise things (that his historical counterpart and most players would never do), if the player does them the game should allow him to find out the price of folly. If the Union historically had stripped the West of most forces in order to fight in the East, could a sizeable Confederate army have made significant inroads? Sure, but the whole game is a big "what if" and each point where it branches from history makes more alternatives possible. What if the South manages to convince England or France to join the war or at least gets them to the point that the South is receiving much more aid than it did historically? What if the South breaks the blockade by getting enough Ironclads finished earlier? What if Grant's army is defeated before Buell arrives and surrenders en masse at Shiloh with their backs to the river? etc., etc. - the fun of these historical games is that you can really end up exploring some remote possibilities if you take enough of the "roads not taken" historically. I think that's a feature. :-)
quote:
I once owned a boardgame about Barbarossa. After playing it a few times, I had difficulty recreating the historical German advance, So, I removed all the Russian forces and tried again. The obvious became clear. The German's just didn't have the movement points to make it happen. I mean, according to the game, the Germans could not get to Moscow if they were on holiday. I understand the reason for this: play balance, trying to make sure that the Germans didn't win too frequently. So, game mechanics were apparently adjusted to slightly retard the German advance.
Sure, but that's a pretty brute force way of balancing things. I think FOF takes a softer approach - do you prefer these hard limits or the FOF style where it's remotely possible for the germans to take Moscow, but various other factors make it very hard or unlikely, as it was historically? I much prefer that approach, as historically there was nothing preventing the Germans moving to Moscow in the time they had. Heck, it's not that long a drive from Berlin to Moscow that you need six months to do it... but there were a lot of other factors at work (not the least of which were the Soviet Army, weather and supplies) that slowed them to a crawl.
quote:
I know I've strayed from FOF, but I hope it helps to make my point clear: The game helps one to understand reality, but this understanding is limited by what is modeled in the game.
I agree with that statement entirely in principle, it's when you get into the specifics that I have some quibbles.
quote:
Remember what I said originally. Maybe the effects of the national will figures need to be modified. Once the South destroys a half dozen armies, capturing 30 brigades or more, would the North keep sending in more and more troops for the same fate? The game says yes. Given the attitudes about the war at the time, I wonder.
Ok, but "I wonder" is not the same as "we know for sure". In the game, if the North loses enough decisive battles to have lost half a dozen armies and 30 brigades or more, the system will have the Northern NW at -12 due to all those decisive battle losses and likely loss of territory too (you can't lose that many battles and armies and be doing well). FOF doesn't directly penalize for each brigade lost, but it does penalize for losing the battle and the likely results that multiple lost battles will cause. At that point, your replacements are low morale, unmotivated and in much lower numbers than earlier. As the North, you'd probably be in a desperate fight at that point to stop Confederate advances into the Union and you'd definitely lose the game when the 1864 election came around.
quote:
Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Have an option that would force the North and/or South into pursuing historical objectives to a certain degree. Maybe using points of some type, maybe bonusus of some kind, I don't know. As the Southern player, I would love to play knowing that the North wanted to cut me in half by taking the Mississippi as they historically did.
See, here's where we start disagreeing. Those options and objectives are already in there! The North gets 2VP for conquering the Mississippi, in addition the CSA loses ALL income from all provinces west of the Mississippi as soon as the North takes the last stretch of the river. On top of that, if you've got the river, you've got all the cities on it, which includes some very nice prizes, also worth VPs, NW bonuses for the North and penalties for the South. Plus there's another state capitol (Jackson) right next to the river which you'll likely get too. In FOF as it is now, taking the Mississippi is a very worthwhile goal.
The blockade as well is worth 4VPs for the Union if fully implemented and I believe in v1.10.10 it gives the Union +1 NW each year if it's fully in effect.
quote:
While fending him off in Virginia, I'd like to see if I could shift sufficient forces to make him pay dearly. Currently, the Union gives up way too early after a few significant Southern victories and just seems to abandon the river altogether, leaving the mid-west open to invasion. I really don't think that would have happened.
There's the game and then there's the AI. I know you realize that, but it's a key point - I think the FOF AI is excellent when compared to other AIs, but it is not as good as a good human player and you need to separate what you see it do vs. what a human player would do (and what the game would reward him for doing). The game does already have these objectives, if the AI isn't able to exploit them against you even on higher difficulty levels then you really are ready for a PBEM game. FOF via PBEM against a good opponent is one of the best wargaming experiences I've had and I highly recommend it.
Regards,
- Erik
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Just wondering - 
. 
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