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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 10:07:19 AM   
Hard Sarge


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

yeap, figured that would be your reply, they only left Va because they thought it was the best way to defend it, now, with the same thought in mind, what if the best way to defend Va was to move to Kentucky

your arguement falls apart

also, since before he was in command of the ANV, Lee was posted eslewheres, you saying he wouldn't serve anyplace but Va also is not any good

you can't totally handcuff the players, or the AI in any game

that is part of the great what if factor, what if Jackson hadn't of gotten shot, what if Lee hadn't of gone into Pa

you can always play with Random stats for the Generals, then a good chance Jackson won't be promoted by the AI, of course then you have Heth and Smith as your Jackson and Lee




_____________________________


(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 61
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 7:11:34 PM   
Kielec

 

Posts: 144
Joined: 1/12/2009
Status: offline 		It really does surprise me how much some players insist on turning a computer game (by definition a "what if" thing) into a replay of history past. Following that path (not letting certain generals make un/non-historical moves/decissions) we will shortly arrive at a point where Sarge White (CSA Company B, 6th Brigade) should not be allowed to shoot at Private Wood (USA Company A, 153 Brigade) during first minutes of the First Bull Run, killing him instantly, because historically on that day his (Sgt White's) lovely wife Veronica (de domo Stalford) was in fact giving birth to his firstborn son (Nicholas), and, since he knew that moment was coming, he went AWL the night before, thus the cassuality calculation for the first salvo of the 6th CSA Bde against 153rd US should have a -1 (please keep the combat details ON at all times!).
 
[Disclaimer: I don't have a clue whether there was a Sarge White, and if yes, what Company/Bde he served in, and whether he fought for CSA or the Union, let alone his marital status and whether he was at First Bull Run or not, and whether he was actually shooting and, if yes, at whom, and with what result. If anybody got offended by the above jest, please try to accept my apologies if you can.]

To my mind, it is either re-playing history (ehmm... where exactly is the fun of that? OK, OK, there's much fun in reading historical records, but then... why not invest in a book instead of a game?), or PLAYING A GAME, as in: making your own choices and trying to simulate other people (mostly long dead generals) make some decissions or other... Mostly "other", by the way.

And yes - playing with randomized stats adds so much flavour... Why not use it, and forget about ANY semblance of historical accuracy in details?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 62
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 8:03:09 PM   
WallysWorld


Posts: 172
Joined: 12/21/2006
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline 		I'll give Buzzsaw credit as his comments did open up a lively debate.

It is interesting to see how some players want some games to be more limited in their scope in order to replicate actual history better while gamers like myself want accuracy, but also some freedom to change history.

(in reply to Kielec)
Post #: 63
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 8:46:55 PM   
*Buzzsaw*

 

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

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

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.


Your example do not support your argument, in fact the opposite.

All these officers were not promoted, they were COMMISSIONED as the first General officers of the new Confederate Army.

RE Lee, Beauregard, Johnson and Cooper were promoted at a time when the Confederate officer corps DID NOT EXIST. There were no full Generals, no officers at all. The Confederate government looked around for likely candidates for full Generals, and chose 5 men. Those were in order of seniority:

Cooper
AS Johnson
Lee
JE Johnson
Beauregard

Cooper was a high ranking regular army officer, who had been adjutant general in the US army, and had even acted as Secretary of War at one point. For obvious reasons he was offered the adjutant general position in the Confederacy.

Lee was another senior regular army officer who had gone over to the Confederate side, had a very good reputation, in fact had been offered command of the US Army by Winifield Scott shortly before, (which he obviously declined) and therefore he was offered the full General rank in the Confederate Army. His date of appointment was after Cooper and AS Johnson so he would rank lower.

Neither of these Officers was jumped up over any other officers since there was NO Confederate officer corps in existence.

As far as Beauregard and Johnson are concerned.

Johnson was the highest ranking US army officer to resign his commission and join the Confederates. He was a Brigadier General in the US Army. He was selected to be one of the five officers commissioned as a full General, but like Beauregard his date of appointment was deliberately chosen to come into effect after Lee and the other higher ranked officers by Davis so that he would be lower in seniority.

Beauregard had commanded the Confederate forces at Fort Sumter. He was the first General officer commissioned in the Confederate forces, as a Brigadier General. After his victory at Ft Sumter he was appointed to command the largest force in Virginia.

With the fact he was one of the victorious commanders of the Confederate forces which won at 1st Manassas, he was commissioned as a full general. Part of this was due to the victory, but he would likely have been promoted anyway. He was not jumped up over the head of anyone else.

After these early war commissionings, there were NO examples of officers being promoted over the top of others, promotions were gradual and measured.

This was even more the case in the US Army where there already existed a large number of high ranked officers who had to be either retired or shuffled off to some harmless position before new officers could be promoted.


< Message edited by *Buzzsaw* -- 2/3/2009 9:19:26 PM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 64
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 9:06:20 PM   
*Buzzsaw*

 

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

The way cavalry works on the detailed battle maps is totally unrealistic.

How is it that they take less casualties in standup slugfests?

I had a Cavalry brigade hemmed in against the bend of a river, by 4 infantry brigades, and everytime one of these brigades fired at the Cavalry unit, they took more casualties than the Cavalry??????

Completely bogus.

I don't know if this modelling is a holdover from the Napoleonic game where this system comes from, but it is totally wrong for the Civil War.

Cavalry which tried to fight Infantry closeup was slaughtered.

Cavalry had to keep their distance never fight on horseback, and run away when the infantry got close.

The detailed game should model mounted/dismounted for Cavalry, and give them the opportunity to retreat before combat. Strength for a dismounted Cavalry Brigade should be 3/4 of what it is mounted. (because of the horseholders) Cavalry which moves mounted close to Infantry should be subject to an opportunity fire.

< Message edited by *Buzzsaw* -- 2/3/2009 9:08:27 PM >

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 65
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 9:27:11 PM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		Sorry *Buzzsaw*, your contention was that no green 1-Star General would ever be promoted 4-Star General, that such a thing would "never happen"; a statement that is entirely incorrect however you wish spin a response or to split hairs.

By definition and as related to the opening phases of the Civil War all were "green" regardless of previous service or experiance.  None had ever held more than district command and most had never even commanded a brigade as a maneuver unit since such formations did not really exist in the 'Old Army'.

Five of the 8 Confederate full generals were promoted from the rank of Brig General or lower straight to full general, a rather common occurance in the actual event.

As for NO examples of generals being promoted over others, Lt. General John Bell Hood (Lt Gen from 20 September 1863) was promoted temporary full General with seniority from 18 July 1864 over the heads of Longstreet, Hardee, Holmes, Ewell, A.P. Hill and D.H. Hill.  All were promoted Lt General before Hood and therefore all were his senior.

One should beware of using absolutes when discussing history, there are usually exceptions to anything and some of those can be significant.

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 66
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 9:50:31 PM   
*Buzzsaw*

 

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

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Sorry *Buzzsaw*, your contention was that no green 1-Star General would ever be promoted 4-Star General, that such a thing would "never happen"; a statement that is entirely incorrect however you wish spin a response or to split hairs.

By definition and as related to the opening phases of the Civil War all were "green" regardless of previous service or experiance.  None had ever held more than district command and most had never even commanded a brigade as a maneuver unit since such formations did not really exist in the 'Old Army'.

Five of the 8 Confederate full generals were promoted from the rank of Brig General or lower straight to full general, a rather common occurance in the actual event.

As for NO examples of generals being promoted over others, Lt. General John Bell Hood (Lt Gen from 20 September 1863) was promoted temporary full General with seniority from 18 July 1864 over the heads of Longstreet, Hardee, Holmes, Ewell, A.P. Hill and D.H. Hill.  All were promoted Lt General before Hood and therefore all were his senior.

One should beware of using absolutes when discussing history, there are usually exceptions to anything and some of those can be significant.


I have already proven your assertions re. the first 5 Confederate full Generals to be incorrect.

Your assertion that effectively their experience didn't matter is complete nonsense. The US Army in 1861 was a very small group, everyone knew everyone else's abilities, that applied to all those who went over to the Confederacy. Lee was recognized for his record at West Point, (first in his class, first in Artillery and tactics, etc.) as well as exploits in the Mexican American war as an very brave, intelligent and efficient officer. Same applied to the others who were appointed.

Re. Hood, your facts are wrong again. For one, there were only 7 full Generals ever in the Confederate Army.

Hood was appointed by Davis as TEMPORARY full General, that rank was NEVER approved by the Confederate senate.

He was promoted from a position as a Lieutenant General, and Corps commander, ie. the equivalent of a 3 star general. He was not promoted over the head of an available full '4 star' General.

Re. your suggestions for those who he was promoted over, your facts are all wrong again:

Longstreet had been seriously wounded in May of 1864 at the Wilderness and was in no condition to take command of an army. Ewell had been suffering from the effects of several previous wounds and was considered by Lee to be mentally incapable of commanding even a Corps. He was relieved by Lee. With Longstreet and Ewell unavailable, AP Hill was one of the few remaining experienced Corps commanders left in the Army of N Virginia and couldn't be spared. Hardee didn't want the post. Holmes was considered incompetent. DH Hill was only a Major General, of lower rank than Hood. (he had been demoted by Davis)

So who does that leave us? Hood. Plus Hood had been sucking up to Davis, writing him letters, etc. promising how much better he could do than Johnson.

Hood's promotion is a situation which I have no problem with, ie. a 3 star general being promoted to 4 star. Big difference between that and what happens in the game, where you can have a 1 star general appear as a reinforcment, and the same turn, you can promote him to 4 star.

That is exactly what I do with Grant. I demote enough Union Generals to leave an opening for a 4 star, so that Grant immediately goes 4 star.

< Message edited by *Buzzsaw* -- 2/3/2009 10:02:31 PM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 67
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 10:18:36 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		No matter how much this is debated, it comes down to this;

-this is a game, NOT a ACW reenactment simulation
-it is, and will always be impossible to meet every players demand. (So many thing I would like to see in the game that will never occur anyway )
-in any game, if there are "shortcuts" capable to be taken by a player, then such shortcuts will be taken.
-since this is designed to be a game, "what ifs" are a must to keep things entertaining for more than the first run. Not many players would bother with a game that does the exact same every time you play it.

About CAV never fighting INF...Hmmm how was the opening moves of Gettysburg again...

Do I find it gamebreaking that Jackson can be moved out to the West? Nope
Do I move Jackson out West? Nope
Will I at times make a new army for Jackson and/or Stuart? Yes
Do I promote 1 stars to 3 or 4 stars in one move? Yes
Do I demote generals like Polk? Yes
Is this what happened in ACW? Nope
Does it break the gaming experience for me? On the contrary

Anyway just me two cents on the subject.

Terje

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 68
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 10:52:53 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Buzz
you got some strange ways of thinking, Hood wasn't promoted over top of those guys, but he was promoted over top of them ? , this guy was sick, this guy was mental, this guy didn't want it, well, he was still promoted over top of them, there are reasons why, but it still happened

and your statement about they were commisioned, not promoted is kind of silly, since they held rank before the commision, they were promoted, if they didn't hold any rank, then it would be a pure commison

the game has a system, if you want to follow the line of promotions, you can do so, if you want to go the "battlefield" promotion route, you can, the issue will be Custer, went from 1st Lt to Brig General, since it did happen, it should be allowed, and if you allow it for one side, it should be allowed for the other




_____________________________


(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 69
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 11:36:54 PM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: *Buzzsaw*

Salute

The way cavalry works on the detailed battle maps is totally unrealistic.

How is it that they take less casualties in standup slugfests?

I had a Cavalry brigade hemmed in against the bend of a river, by 4 infantry brigades, and everytime one of these brigades fired at the Cavalry unit, they took more casualties than the Cavalry??????

Completely bogus.

I don't know if this modelling is a holdover from the Napoleonic game where this system comes from, but it is totally wrong for the Civil War.




Well, what were their respective weapons? What were their respective unit qualities? Was terrain a factor? Etc. etc. Did you look at the "Attack Report" to see why this happened? Without information like that, none of us knows what happened.

(in reply to *Buzzsaw*)
Post #: 70
RE: Big disappointment - 2/3/2009 11:43:10 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Regarding generals, the point to stress is that in FOF the number of stars a general has primarily indicates whether he can command an army/corps/division/brigade, rather than that he is a full general, lt. gen., maj. gen., or brig. gen.

As for Confederate generals not being promoted over others, it did happen that more senior generals who screwed up kept their ranks but were sent where they couldn't do much harm. This happened to Huger after the Peninsula Campaign, along with Magruder -- whom history has partly vindicated -- and possibly someone else I can't remember. So Huger lost his division but kept his rank, and someone else was given his division -- which in a sense would mean someone junior was promoted over him while he himself was demoted.

I should add that we at WCS have some ideas for ways to make the promotion/demotion system for generals more complex, but implementing it would have to wait until we do an expansion. (It would involve a lot of coding, plus new interface.) Based on what I'm reading here, I think that all of you would approve of what we'd like to do. FOF started out as a game that was meant not to be highly complex and require lots of micromanagement, but it's clear from player feedback over the past 2+ years that the part of the game that involves generals should be revisited.

< Message edited by Gil R. -- 2/3/2009 11:49:01 PM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 71
RE: Big disappointment - 2/4/2009 12:00:28 AM   
Randomizer


Posts: 1473
Joined: 6/28/2008
Status: offline 		My only significant issue with FoF is the seemingly random manner in which it solves instant combats.  That, and the lack of a north-south railway through Fredericksburg province, you know, the one that terminated (or started, your choice) at Alexandria, VA.

I would be happy with a more comprehensive naval model on the high seas and on the rivers but it is what it is and all things considered, the Civil War was decided on land.  FoF does model the blockade reasonably well in my opinion and the Confederacy is not denied the option of trying to break it, at least in theory.

I would like to see an option for tighter command control in detailed combat, perhaps some sort of divisional and or corps integrity bonus for keeping units together or a penalty for seperating units of a division.  Not everybodies cup of tea, hence making it an option.

All in all, given the game's scale and extrapolating the designers possible vision of the ACW I think that there is far more right with FoF than there is wrong, which makes a pleasant change from my last two game purchases (no names, no pack drill as we used to say in the Army).

BTW, N.B. Forrest was promoted Lt. General over the heads of some forty senior Confederate Major Generals.  D.H. Hill was promoted the ninth Confederate Lt. General with seniority from 11 July 1863 before he went to Tennessee as a corps commander.  At least according to the Confederate general officers list...

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 72
RE: Big disappointment - 2/5/2009 1:01:26 PM   
Mad Russian


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

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Hi Buzz

yeap, figured that would be your reply, they only left Va because they thought it was the best way to defend it, now, with the same thought in mind, what if the best way to defend Va was to move to Kentucky.





your arguement falls apart



Really? What was the base of all those operations that Lee was in charge of? Would it happen to be Virginia? Thought so.

quote:


also, since before he was in command of the ANV, Lee was posted eslewheres, you saying he wouldn't serve anyplace but Va also is not any good


You want to name some of Lee's commands outside Virginia in the American Civil War? The premise in this thread, so far, was that Lee (and Jackson) turned down commands outside Virginia during the ACW.

quote:


you can't totally handcuff the players, or the AI in any game

that is part of the great what if factor, what if Jackson hadn't of gotten shot, what if Lee hadn't of gone into Pa


I agree with you. The best that can be done is to, as accurately as possible, put the situation in place for day one. After that anything goes.

There could maybe be a "historical general" option included but that would take a tremendous amount of effort to implement.

quote:


you can always play with Random stats for the Generals, then a good chance Jackson won't be promoted by the AI, of course then you have Heth and Smith as your Jackson and Lee



I've yet to play this game vs the AI so I wouldn't know. That's not why I bought it. We used Random Stats for the Generals when we played PBEM though. Just because that forces you to fight with the strengths and weaknesses inherent in your force. Jefferson Davis didn't know that Lee would become one of America's most able commanders. He found out by Lee's performance in the field.

To replicate that in our game play we used the Random Stats for Generals. That allows whichever general that shows promise to be moved where he can do the most good. If you use historical values, then IMO, you as a gamer start this with knowledge not available to those in the real conflict.

Depends on what your goal for playing FoF is. Do you want as close to a simulation as possible? Or do you want a reasonably accurate simulation that is play balanced towards being a game?

FoF is possibly the most versatile ACW game ever made. For some that will be a plus. For others a negative. For the rest they won't care one way or the other.

Nothing is for everybody. So, if FoF isn't for you then fine, Matrix sells other ACW titles. If it is then you can buy it here and find gamers all over the internet that play it.

Good Hunting.

MR



< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 2/5/2009 1:09:09 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 73
RE: Big disappointment - 2/5/2009 1:56:04 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		commanding Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (November 8, 1861-March 3, 1862)

to be honest, I think too much is being used of the "turned" down other commands, all that means is, Hey Rebort, we got some trouble out West, we got about 30,000 men and the Union got about 150,000, you want to take a crack at it ? ahhh, no, wife wanted me to take her shopping and the stores are pretty bleak out West, so I better stay here

no where is he Ordered to take over another command, and then refused it




_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 74
RE: Big disappointment - 2/5/2009 6:27:58 PM   
Joram

 

Posts: 3198
Joined: 7/15/2005
Status: offline 		I think it's been an interesting discussion too but I can't help but think that most of Buzzsaw's criticism's are due simply to having different expectations than what he got.  I think you bring up great points from a historical perspective though I'm in no position to argue either way.  But obviously a student of history with a very strong notion of what should or shouldn't be but that's where I think you need to put up your thinking hat for a second and put on your enjoyment hat.

The game is meant to be fun for a wide variety of audiences thus liberties need to be made.  And if you can't get around your notions, then fine, this game isn't for you.  But I think the arguments are starting to get pointless in a thread about the game as what you are getting at is not what the game is meant to do in that detail.  Maybe you should start a new topic if you are interested in debating history.

Since the Union being so hard has been brought up, I've won this game before using instant battle only as the Union.  On normal level though, I'm not as good as HS. :) It takes a bit of a maneuvering but it's certainly do-able. 

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 75
RE: Big disappointment - 2/6/2009 2:41:57 AM   
Mad Russian


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

ORIGINAL: Joram

Since the Union being so hard has been brought up, I've won this game before using instant battle only as the Union.  On normal level though, I'm not as good as HS. :) It takes a bit of a maneuvering but it's certainly do-able. 


Did you do this against the AI or a real person? That makes a big difference.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Joram)
Post #: 76
RE: Big disappointment - 2/6/2009 4:16:37 AM   
Gil R.


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

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

My only significant issue with FoF is the seemingly random manner in which it solves instant combats.  That, and the lack of a north-south railway through Fredericksburg province, you know, the one that terminated (or started, your choice) at Alexandria, VA.

I agree with you. If we do a FOF2 I'd like to add that, as well as making the city of Fredericksburg itself appear on the map. I've been reading Sears's books on the Peninsular Campaign and 2nd Manassas Campaign, which has led me to this conclusion.

I would be happy with a more comprehensive naval model on the high seas and on the rivers but it is what it is and all things considered, the Civil War was decided on land.  FoF does model the blockade reasonably well in my opinion and the Confederacy is not denied the option of trying to break it, at least in theory.

I would like to see an option for tighter command control in detailed combat, perhaps some sort of divisional and or corps integrity bonus for keeping units together or a penalty for seperating units of a division.  Not everybodies cup of tea, hence making it an option.

We have some ideas for this for FOF2, should that materialize one day.

All in all, given the game's scale and extrapolating the designers possible vision of the ACW I think that there is far more right with FoF than there is wrong, which makes a pleasant change from my last two game purchases (no names, no pack drill as we used to say in the Army).

BTW, N.B. Forrest was promoted Lt. General over the heads of some forty senior Confederate Major Generals.  D.H. Hill was promoted the ninth Confederate Lt. General with seniority from 11 July 1863 before he went to Tennessee as a corps commander.  At least according to the Confederate general officers list...


(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 77
RE: Big disappointment - 2/6/2009 4:23:26 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Regarding points being made by Buzzsaw and Mad Russian (and possibly others), one idea I'd like to implement for a FOF2 -- though it would be A LOT of work -- would be to add another data column to the generals' data file in which I could assign which theater the general first appears in, so that they don't all start off in Richmond or Washington. This is more complicated than it might seem, though: for example, what if a Confederate general attained that rank fighting in the Trans-Mississippi theater, but the Union has already taken all of those states, leaving him nowhere to appear? So, there would have to be contingencies coded into the game. In addition, we could have a separate (and moddable!) data file in which the generals who may not be assigned by the AI outside of their original theater could be listed.

Whether we would implement this depends on how many other changes we'd like to make that strike us as a higher priority, but it's something we'd consider. And thanks to the bios project we already have a lot of the info on where generals served.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 78
My thoughts and comments... - 2/6/2009 7:08:48 PM   
hangarflying

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 1/12/2009
Status: offline 		Hello all,

I've read through this thread with much interest. Personally, I love the game. Yes, there are frustrating events that occur that I can't logically see why it happens (my US 24 lb Howitzer in a strong defensive position with supporting infantry on both flanks suddenly deciding to surrender after causing 1100 casualties to the enemy while only receiving something like 80 casualties). I was looking for a strategy game that represents the frustrations and trials that commanders and presidents during the actual war faced. I think this game succeeds in that department.

Regarding commanders, I think it's fine the way it is. Yes, every commander appears in Washington/Richmond but they can be moved easily using the railroads. If you don't like a commander commanding out west, move him back east.

Regarding the disparagy (sp) between the morale of US and CS troops. I do not agree with this. The believe that the CS soldier was more motivated and a more quality soldier than the US soldier is a falacy based on misunderstanding of battle casualty statistics. The reason why the US generally had more casualties that the CS was because they were on the offensive, attacking against CS units that were on the defensive. Those battles in which the CS was the attacker resulted in casualty ratios that were inversly proportionate. Yes, there were highly exceptional units in the South, but there were just as highly exceptional units in the North. There is no reason to make the CS units "better" than the US units.

I do have a wish list:

Mounted/Dismounted Cavalry - I think the fact that cavalry generally fought while dismounted is already taken into account when determining the outcome, but I think it would be cool to see the different modes.

Unit Cohesion - I think someone mentioned this previously, but It would be cool to know that you are receiving some kind of benefit for keeping brigades within a relatively resonable distance of each other. Additionally, there should be a benifit to keeping divisions within the same corps together. I don't think there should be a penalty for separating units, but rather a bonus for keeping them together.

Gunboats - I think gunboats should be able to move THROUGH river provinces containing enemy troops (but no fortification).

Tactical Battle - I know this will never happen, but I think it would be awesome. I loved playing Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam. I personally feel that these games were the best games available to represent a Civil War Battle. The perfect game would be one where Forge of Freedom was the strategic element, and the Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam engine was used to determine the detailed battles.

Keep up the good work guys! You've made a great game!

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 79
RE: My thoughts and comments... - 2/6/2009 8:07:17 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks for your feedback, hangarflying. I should point out -- to you, and several others -- that it would be good to put suggestions for future patches or FOF2 in the "Wish List" thread, since when they're written in a thread like this one there is a danger they'll fall through the cracks. The "Wish List" thread, on the other hand, is the permanent repository of all ideas for future changes and additions.

Please note that that thread is not the ideal place to debate these things, since that will make it much longer, so it's a good idea to discuss ideas in threads like this one but then post short summaries of ideas there. Thanks!

(in reply to hangarflying)
Post #: 80
RE: Big disappointment - 2/7/2009 2:35:17 AM   
Mad Russian


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

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Regarding points being made by Buzzsaw and Mad Russian (and possibly others), one idea I'd like to implement for a FOF2 -- though it would be A LOT of work -- would be to add another data column to the generals' data file in which I could assign which theater the general first appears in, so that they don't all start off in Richmond or Washington. This is more complicated than it might seem, though: for example, what if a Confederate general attained that rank fighting in the Trans-Mississippi theater, but the Union has already taken all of those states, leaving him nowhere to appear? So, there would have to be contingencies coded into the game. In addition, we could have a separate (and moddable!) data file in which the generals who may not be assigned by the AI outside of their original theater could be listed.

Whether we would implement this depends on how many other changes we'd like to make that strike us as a higher priority, but it's something we'd consider. And thanks to the bios project we already have a lot of the info on where generals served.


I'm opposed to doing FoF2 for stated reasons.

That said, I agree that you can get too historical in a wargame.

If you want a simulation that's a different story.

I like my wargames as close to a sim as I can get it for DAY ONE. After that I'm in command.

The goal for me is to see if I can better the original results. Where is the challenge if you MUST send all the original participants to the same locations, or make the same decisions regarding the R&D choices you have, to where you want to fight in what time period. That just becomes a replay of the original conflict.

My DAR

An Unciviil War

shows not only the choices I took but I try to explain why.

My approach is much different from what others have offered as their way to win. If a game is good it will offer lots of variations, no single path to victory. Start restricting the choices by the use of history, as the only guideline, and the general gaming public won't appreciate near as much as keeping as many options as possible open.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 2/7/2009 2:42:05 AM >

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 81
RE: Big disappointment - 2/7/2009 9:30:26 PM   
*Buzzsaw*

 

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

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
BTW, N.B. Forrest was promoted Lt. General over the heads of some forty senior Confederate Major Generals.  D.H. Hill was promoted the ninth Confederate Lt. General with seniority from 11 July 1863 before he went to Tennessee as a corps commander.  At least according to the Confederate general officers list...


DH Hill was promoted, then demoted because Davis did not like the way he critisized Bragg and was a large part of the officer's revolt that resulted in Bragg being removed from command of the Army of Tennessee.

Re. Forrest: I have no problem with a two star general with less seniority but a good combat record being promoted to 3 star over other two star generals with more seniority. Big difference between that and a green 1 star being promoted to 4 star in one shot.

Regarding Lee serving in Georgia and the Carolinas: He was asked to do this by Davis because Lee had a terrific record as an engineer, designing fortifications etc. and the coast of the Confederacy desperately needed fortifying, and to have the positions laid out by an expert who knew where to site guns, etc. This was understood to be a temporary assignment.

This subject by the way raises another issue, that being the fact the game only gives the Federals and Confederates 'improvised' heavy guns in their forts, except at Union Ft Pulaski.

This is completely incorrect, Federal forts had great numbers of 32 and 42 lber weapons, most of the Federal forts in the game should start with 32lbers. In addition, the Virginia State militia, when they captured Norfolk Naval Yard, seized over 1000 heavy cannon, (32lber and heavier) which were the basis of the Confederate heavy armoury and what were used to build forts etc. These cannon were shipped out all over the Confederacy, and used in forts like Donelson, etc. as well as in the CSS Merrimack and other ironclads.

Which raises another issue: Federal ships at the start of the war were not equipped with 'improvised' weapons either, they had 32lb cannon in most cases.

The game should differentiate between heavy weapons and small arms.

< Message edited by *Buzzsaw* -- 2/7/2009 9:47:24 PM >

(in reply to Randomizer)
Post #: 82
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344