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: Big disappointment

 
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: Big disappointment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 4:48:59 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Build instead of mustering.......mustering you will get a level 2 unit..............building you can get a level 4 or above. Much better unit and just costs time and some goodies.

Muster is next turn, but the unit level is the same as a garrison unit at game start........couple good shots and they will flee.

(in reply to lawbreaker)
Post #: 31
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 6:05:38 AM   
Pistachio

 

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/15/2008
Status: offline 		I'm not disappointed with the game - nor am I a Civil War expert - but for what it's worth would like to add that I've never lost when playing as the CS (even on hardest difficulty setting against AI) and never won when playing as the US, even on the easiest setting. Expand the Southern infrastructure and defend defend defend.

I'll keep practicing at playing the Northern side, but I think there's a definite advantage in playing the South and using that defender bonus, especially against the computer. As often as possible, especially if there are no objectives to defend in the detailed combat map, I pick out some nice high ground, give mah boys overlapping fire (like a Whitworth unit shooting over a musket unit), and let the Yanks come and get it.

Someone else raised a good point - detailed combat and quick combat are decidedly different. In my very humble opinion, there is a flaw in the game in that the cheater's way to win is to always go to detailed combat when defending and always use quick combat when attacking - since throwing superiority of numbers at the enemy is apparently the only way to dislodge him. Otherwise those red zones - even the yeller ones - will ruin your day pretty quick.

Anyway - just my opinion. Git thar fustest with the mostest....

(in reply to lawbreaker)
Post #: 32
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 11:32:14 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I don't think your really trying HARD, if you can't win the game on Easy as the Union (I even took over one players game as Union that he said was unwinnable and won the game)

when your winning as the CSA, are you holding in place or are you attacking ? the Union also gets the same bonus you complain about for the CSA


_____________________________


(in reply to Pistachio)
Post #: 33
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 12:30:58 PM   
Mutation2241

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/25/2008
Status: offline 		Although I always play the CSA normally simply because I can identify with them struggling for independence I might be playing the Union next just to see if I can smash the rebels. I'm sure it can be done in FoF

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 34
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 1:23:22 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I am sure it can, I have some AARs done on it during testing

_____________________________


(in reply to Mutation2241)
Post #: 35
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 2:02:16 PM   
jkBluesman


Posts: 797
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline 		Make sure to check the War Room on this forum to get the right hints for playing the Union. On the lower levels it should not be a problem to win.

_____________________________

"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 36
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 2:34:15 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Shouldn't be too HARD on the Higher Levels either, but that takes some time to get the hang of

but then again, most people disagree with how I set up my troops and upgrades


_____________________________


(in reply to jkBluesman)
Post #: 37
RE: Big disappointment - 2/1/2009 3:26:23 PM   
Mutation2241

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I even took over one players game as Union that he said was unwinnable


Interesting! Why was this considered to be unwinnable? Capital lost? New England conquered ? All European powers at war with you? Which disaster had struck you m8

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 38
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 4:33:20 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.



Mad Russian,
No one has ever said that current owners of COG will pay the full amount for COG:EE, so I have no idea why you claim this as fact. Nor has anyone ever suggested this for a hypothetical FOF2. The fact is that in recent weeks I have very clearly stated regarding COG:EE that I did not know what Matrix would do in terms of pricing, since I had not yet been informed of any decision, and therefore could say nothing about the matter. As it turns out, it is now official that anyone who owns COG will get a discount on COG:EE. And should we one day produce a FOF2 I am sure that a similar discount will apply.




I agree, you never said you were going to charge full price. Other developers in the past have. You seem to be following that path and since you didn't say you weren't going to charge full price for the upgraded versions of the original games that was an educated assumption on my part.

The industry standard for Beta testers is that they get a copy of the game for free. Following that line of logic, that could also mean that you are going to give free copies to anyone who has made a suggestion that makes it into the 2nd version of your games.

Making another educated assumption I rather doubt that will happen.

Good Hunting.

MR


< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 2/2/2009 4:34:53 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 39
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 4:57:36 AM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: lawbreaker

 to the best of our recollection, i had taken a province in tennessee, and she attacked with about 80,000 men and six brigades of artillery. she had purchased mostly ordnance rifles, napoleons and howitzers. her army had definitely set there a while before she attacked, maybe one was a recent addition. when we got to battle almost all of them were improvised. we think that one of the brigades was elite and came with 12 pound howitzers when she made it, that one still had it's guns. once i had an ordinance rifle brigade show up in combat improvised also. it happened to her one other time too, but not as bad as that main battle.



Do you happen to have save files from the game that Eric (= designer/programmer) can look at? If so, please zip them and e-mail them to him at ericbabe@west-civ.com. If not, please be on the lookout for the problem in the future, and save the files then. No one has reported such a problem before, so there might be a cause other than a bug -- which Eric could probably figure out from the files.

(in reply to lawbreaker)
Post #: 40
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 8:00:06 AM   
lawbreaker

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		no we just checked our saves and none of them were from those games. we'll save the next time it happens. we got the digital download plus physical shipment, and we've been playing the digital download this whole time. we're kind of wondering if maybe we uninstall the digital download and reinstall with the disk if that my fix it? but we'll play with the download for awhile longer to see if we can get it to happen again.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 41
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 12:44:45 PM   
Hard Sarge


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

ORIGINAL: Mutation2241


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I even took over one players game as Union that he said was unwinnable


Interesting! Why was this considered to be unwinnable? Capital lost? New England conquered ? All European powers at war with you? Which disaster had struck you m8

I didn't say I thought it was unwinnable, the other player who was complaining did, basicly, hadn't been able to make much inroads into the South, the South had a lot of built up Troops with lots of exp, I had to go in, take some land, force battles and wear down the troops, while building up my main Army for the final battle

of course, after winning the game, he still did not think it was winnable by the North



_____________________________


(in reply to Mutation2241)
Post #: 42
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 12:53:55 PM   
Hard Sarge


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

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.



Mad Russian,
No one has ever said that current owners of COG will pay the full amount for COG:EE, so I have no idea why you claim this as fact. Nor has anyone ever suggested this for a hypothetical FOF2. The fact is that in recent weeks I have very clearly stated regarding COG:EE that I did not know what Matrix would do in terms of pricing, since I had not yet been informed of any decision, and therefore could say nothing about the matter. As it turns out, it is now official that anyone who owns COG will get a discount on COG:EE. And should we one day produce a FOF2 I am sure that a similar discount will apply.




I agree, you never said you were going to charge full price. Other developers in the past have. You seem to be following that path and since you didn't say you weren't going to charge full price for the upgraded versions of the original games that was an educated assumption on my part.

The industry standard for Beta testers is that they get a copy of the game for free. Following that line of logic, that could also mean that you are going to give free copies to anyone who has made a suggestion that makes it into the 2nd version of your games.

Making another educated assumption I rather doubt that will happen.

Good Hunting.

MR


interesting alt you got, (I would say more, but don't think it would come across correctly)

_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 43
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 1:05:05 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		"That's a wonderful strategy.

However, for FoF to be representative of the ACW it should be able to reproduce the historical result. Hold in the West and attack in the East and win the war.

Letting Sherman march through the south doesn't hurt anything. At the moment with the NW bug that's really hard to do. The patch should make that a much better strategy.

There are two distinctly different games in FoF. The one where you play with detailed combat and the one where you use Quick Combat or Instant Combat to resolve the battles. They are not comparable.

The QC/IC seems far less forgiving to the Union. There don't seem to be flanking maneuvers. Only frontal assaults. Those are expensive in the extreme. So, if you are playing PBEM as the Union get ready to take bloody losses for most of the game.

Good Hunting.

MR"

and what CW are you talking about ? , when did the North hold in the west ? , it was the battles in the West and then the drive to split he South that broke them, the East was a grinding action that held the ANV in place, if you remember, Grant gained his fame in the West and then later was appointed commander in the East

yes, HW and QC are different, but if you are planning on playing QC, learn how to play it, and build your troops for it (Erik had posted some good tactics for how to set up and win in QC) Upgrades and Reseach can make your Armies better in QC

I think if maybe you play the game more, instead of complaining about it, you would learn how it should be played, and to be honest, I think you would enjoy it much more


< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 2/2/2009 6:24:59 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to lawbreaker)
Post #: 44
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 1:25:47 PM   
Hard Sarge


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

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great


quote:

ORIGINAL: *Buzzsaw*


Recruits from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. were just as much a product of the backwoods as any southerner, and it showed when they met the southerners on the battlefield, as we all know from Shiloh, and all the battles in the West where the Western Union soldiers beat the southerner's handily.



And lets not forget the "Iron Brigade" in particular



my current run, thought you might like this shot, ran into the Iron guys, then the AI did something funny, turned them into a Arty unit, must say, them Northern Boys have turned into one of my best units




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogi the Great)
Post #: 45
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 4:55:38 PM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: lawbreaker

no we just checked our saves and none of them were from those games. we'll save the next time it happens. we got the digital download plus physical shipment, and we've been playing the digital download this whole time. we're kind of wondering if maybe we uninstall the digital download and reinstall with the disk if that my fix it? but we'll play with the download for awhile longer to see if we can get it to happen again.


No, I doubt that would make a difference. If this does happen again, it would be good to save the game as soon as you see it (in mid-combat, I guess) and then combine those files with the most recent saves you've made manually as well as autosave files.

Just to make sure, you're playing the most recent version (1.10.10)? When you load the game it will tell you which version you've got, in case you're not sure.

(in reply to lawbreaker)
Post #: 46
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 5:00:25 PM   
Gil R.


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



my current run, thought you might like this shot, ran into the Iron guys, then the AI did something funny, turned them into a Arty unit, must say, them Northern Boys have turned into one of my best units



Just to be clear for newer players, what Hard Sarge seems to have experienced is that the AI turned the Iron Brigade into an artillery unit by giving them lots of artillery pieces, and then he captured that unit and is using their guns. The Iron Brigade's soldiers presumably did not defect...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 47
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 5:22:57 PM   
lawbreaker

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		yeah were using 1.10.10. we've got a busy week so we won't get a chance to play until the weekend, but friday we'll start a new game and see if we can get it to happen again. if i understand you right, you're saying we should save right before a big battle and then in the battle if it happens? ok no problem. i hope it isn't just our's thats doing it.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 48
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 6:28:13 PM   
Hard Sarge


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

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:



my current run, thought you might like this shot, ran into the Iron guys, then the AI did something funny, turned them into a Arty unit, must say, them Northern Boys have turned into one of my best units



Just to be clear for newer players, what Hard Sarge seems to have experienced is that the AI turned the Iron Brigade into an artillery unit by giving them lots of artillery pieces, and then he captured that unit and is using their guns. The Iron Brigade's soldiers presumably did not defect...


Naw, I offered them some Southern Fried Chicken, and they came right on over

O'ld Col Sanders can't lead a Div worth a crud, but he makes some mighty fine Chicken



_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 49
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 8:13:54 PM   
*Buzzsaw*

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline 		Salute

Another issue with the game is the way it allows leaders to fight anywhere.

For many of the Confederate leaders, the reason they joined that side was to 'defend their home state." That was the case with Robert E Lee. He refused to be transferred to any other region, he was focused on defending Virginia.

That was also the case with Thomas Jackson, he was motivated by a desire to defend Virginia.

The game incorrectly allows Jackson to be assigned to an Army in the West, in fact almost everytime he ends up fighting in the West. This is completely ahistorical, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Longstreet was happy to be assigned to the West, he had no objection, neither did JE Johnson, or AS Johnson, or Hood or any number of other Confederate officers. But many of the Virginians refused transfers.

A little historical research on this issue, and corrections of the game mechanics for Officers would be in order for the game designers.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 50
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 10:29:03 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		hey Buzz, use your head, most times things like this are game decisons, most players don't care who and where this or that General is at, and wants to put them where they want them to be (and not every player is going to be a CW buff who knows each and every General or unit in the war, and where they should be, or shouldn't be, alot of players won't even know the states that the battles were fought in)

by your view, the CSA shouldn't be allowed to attack into Ohio or any other place they never attacked, since they never did

and your idea that Robert E only had the intention of defending Va, kinds of needs some reseach, since he moved out of Va Twice on the attack




_____________________________


(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 51
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 10:40:02 PM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: lawbreaker

yeah were using 1.10.10. we've got a busy week so we won't get a chance to play until the weekend, but friday we'll start a new game and see if we can get it to happen again. if i understand you right, you're saying we should save right before a big battle and then in the battle if it happens? ok no problem. i hope it isn't just our's thats doing it.



I don't remember seeing it reported before.

(in reply to lawbreaker)
Post #: 52
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 10:44:45 PM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: *Buzzsaw*

Salute

Another issue with the game is the way it allows leaders to fight anywhere.

For many of the Confederate leaders, the reason they joined that side was to 'defend their home state." That was the case with Robert E Lee. He refused to be transferred to any other region, he was focused on defending Virginia.

That was also the case with Thomas Jackson, he was motivated by a desire to defend Virginia.

The game incorrectly allows Jackson to be assigned to an Army in the West, in fact almost everytime he ends up fighting in the West. This is completely ahistorical, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Longstreet was happy to be assigned to the West, he had no objection, neither did JE Johnson, or AS Johnson, or Hood or any number of other Confederate officers. But many of the Virginians refused transfers.

A little historical research on this issue, and corrections of the game mechanics for Officers would be in order for the game designers.



The AI sends Jackson out west because after Lee he is the most highly rated general. You are right that this is ahistorical. But at the same time, the game doesn't think in terms of theaters when it comes to generals, so to keep him from going out there would take an enormous amount of coding and testing. And for just one general, that just isn't worth it, especially since it only happens when someone plays against the AI as the Union. If it bothers you enough, just mod the file to reduce his stats a bit and it probably won't happen again. Or, mod the stats of a western general to make them better.

As for research, as the editor of the bios project I hardly think I need to spend more time researching Civil War generals to learn what made them tick...

EDIT: I've seen the AI send Jackson and his army back to Virginia if there's no longer a threat out west.

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 2/2/2009 10:48:48 PM >

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 53
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 10:46:29 PM   
WallysWorld


Posts: 172
Joined: 12/21/2006
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: *Buzzsaw*

Salute

Another issue with the game is the way it allows leaders to fight anywhere.

For many of the Confederate leaders, the reason they joined that side was to 'defend their home state." That was the case with Robert E Lee. He refused to be transferred to any other region, he was focused on defending Virginia.

That was also the case with Thomas Jackson, he was motivated by a desire to defend Virginia.

The game incorrectly allows Jackson to be assigned to an Army in the West, in fact almost everytime he ends up fighting in the West. This is completely ahistorical, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Longstreet was happy to be assigned to the West, he had no objection, neither did JE Johnson, or AS Johnson, or Hood or any number of other Confederate officers. But many of the Virginians refused transfers.

A little historical research on this issue, and corrections of the game mechanics for Officers would be in order for the game designers.


Then what is the point of playing this game if the game won't allow me to put the leaders where I choose to? That's like making a rule where the Confederate player must send Longstreet to Tennessee in 1863 because it happened so in real life.

If the game were to follow your idea of a Civil War game, the players would be so restricted in their decision making, the game would end up just being a carbon copy of the actual war. Is that fun?

I want a game to be based on the war itself, but allow me to change things to see if I can really outdo what the actual leaders did during the war and see if I can win it for my side. If the game disallows me to transfer Lee to the West because Jefferson Davis refused to press Lee on this in real life, then allow me the opportunity to do so.

Your ideas make it a dull game.

< Message edited by WallysWorld -- 2/3/2009 3:49:46 AM >

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 54
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 11:28:22 PM   
Kielec

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 1/12/2009
Status: offline 		Yep!
There seems to be a difference between playing a computer game based on a historical setup, and replaying history. The latter would seem to loose to reading any of the more serious books on the period...
My full support here!

(in reply to WallysWorld)
Post #: 55
RE: Big disappointment - 2/2/2009 11:43:48 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I think the issue on something like this is, if you are modeling a battle, then yes, any and everything that happened, should be the way it was at the start of the battle

you can't model the battle of Bull Run, with Grant in charge of the Union forces

but, once you get into trying the model the war, all you can really do, is try to get the starting forces as close as you can, and all bets are off


_____________________________


(in reply to Kielec)
Post #: 56
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 3:05:12 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

hey Buzz, use your head, most times things like this are game decisons, most players don't care who and where this or that General is at, and wants to put them where they want them to be (and not every player is going to be a CW buff who knows each and every General or unit in the war, and where they should be, or shouldn't be, alot of players won't even know the states that the battles were fought in)

by your view, the CSA shouldn't be allowed to attack into Ohio or any other place they never attacked, since they never did

and your idea that Robert E only had the intention of defending Va, kinds of needs some reseach, since he moved out of Va Twice on the attack





On more than one occasion Lee refused commands outside Virginia.

Lee went on the attack to protect Virginia and project the war onto Union soil to win the war. His answer was if CSA troops were in the north then northern troops weren't in Virginia. More to the point his first invasion north was to try to influence Maryland to join the Confederacy. The second was to influence the Europeans. Both cases were attempts to end the war from Virginia soil.

Lee was very much only about Virginia.

As to the game vs simulation discussion. SPI was all about simulations and they were mostly very interesting studies in history and very boring games.

Most gamers want the capabilities of the armies/nations/leaders of the period and the freedom to do things their own way after the initial setup.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 2/3/2009 3:06:55 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 57
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 4:31:15 AM   
*Buzzsaw*

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline 		Salute

Those who insist that Lee or Jackson should be able to fight anywhere betray a complete lack of understanding of why these men went to war.

Both of them subscribed to the philosophy of "My State first", the Central Government very much a distant second.  That applied to both the Federal Government AND the Confederate Government.

Robert E Lee would not have gone to war for the Confederacy if Virginia had not joined.  Neither would Jackson.  They fought to defend their state from what they felt was unconstitutional interference by the Central government.

While Virginia was in peril from Northern invasion, neither would have left the theater of operations. 

This is as much a fact of the war as the so-called 'higher morale' of the Confederate units, and should have been included.

Of course they participated in campaigns outside the borders of their state, but those campaigns were a means to prevent the Northern armies from remaining on Virginia soil.  The state had suffered heavily from the effect of two large armies foraging.  Plus of course, there was an attempt to bring Maryland into the war on the Confederate side in the case of the Antietam campaign, and an attempt to win one more big battle, and bring Britain and France onto the Confederate side in the case of the Gettysburg campaign.

The suggestion that it is only the AI which transfers Jackson out West is faulty too, since any Human player who has any sense will also put Jackson out in the West if there is nothing to prevent him.

This is faulty in more than one way, since Jackson was low ranking officer, who had no chance of commanding an army early in the war.  He was a Brigade commander at the time of 1st Manassas, and commanded a 1862 confederate divisional size force in the Valley. In the game he commands an Army in the West by the fall of 1861.

A.S. Johnson was the #1 ranked Confederate officer by seniority, (higher than Lee) and would have been the person placed in charge of the Confederate forces out there.  After him, there was Johnson, Beauregard and several others who were higher ranked than Jackson.

As I mentioned before, the methodology used by the re. officer promotions is faulty.  As it stands now, you can take a totally green one star general and promote him to 4 star in one step.  This would never happen in reality.   Promotion was a more gradual process.  And officers had to prove themselves in battle before they could be promoted again.


< Message edited by *Buzzsaw* -- 2/3/2009 4:34:10 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 58
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 5:26:43 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Well, I prefer to make my own path......You can play historically if you want.

But I also use random stat and hidden stats.......so there is no telling who is any good. Until a few battles anyway. But I am also a dictator so I will sack a commander if he pisses me off.

I have studied military history (1800-present) since I was a kid.......I also do not want to re-fight history. That is what makes the game so fun, make your own history. I have my own gripes and pet peeves, but so does everyone. Overall, this is a game that will stay on the HD for a very long time......maybe not as long as WITP has, but a long time.

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 59
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 6:03:40 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

As I mentioned before, the methodology used by the re. officer promotions is faulty. As it stands now, you can take a totally green one star general and promote him to 4 star in one step. This would never happen in reality. Promotion was a more gradual process. And officers had to prove themselves in battle before they could be promoted again.

Never happen in reality...

R.E. Lee, Brig. General C.S.A (Maj General Virginia State Troops) 14 May 1861 promoted full General C.S.A. 14 June 1961.

Samuel Cooper, Brig General U.S.A. promoted full General C.S.A 16 May 1861.

P.G.T Beauregard, Brig. General C.S.A. 1 March 1861, full General C.S.A 21 July 1861.

J.E. Johnston, Maj General Virginia State Troops 26 April 1861, Brig. General C.S.A. 14 May 1861, full General C.S.A 13 August 1861 with seniority from 4 July 1861

Source - General Officers of the Confederate Army from The Confederate Soldier in the Civil War, Fairfax Press reprint of the 1898 edition.

The star ranking of generals in FoF is a measure of responsibility rather than a system of substantive military ranks. It was hardly unusual for a general to be plucked from relative obscurity and placed into major commands.

< Message edited by Randomizer -- 2/3/2009 6:05:35 AM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: Big disappointment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.953