Weapons

Weapons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

marecone -> Weapons (8/5/2006 4:17:05 PM)
Ok. New question. What about weapons? Springfields, Enfields, Muskets? Their range modifyed? Rain and paper cartriges? Siege artillery?

ericbabe -> RE: Weapons (8/5/2006 4:38:38 PM)
There are just over 50 weapon types in the game. There are weapons for infantry, cavalry, artillery, siege artillery, forts, and ships. The statistics they have are range-profile, charge-protection, indirect fire capability, sharpshooter modifier, siege bonus, modifier to movement rate (mostly for artillery types), extra supply costs, purchase cost. Some weapons can only be purchased if a nation has enough diplomatic levels with one of the European powers. When one side retreats after a battle there's a small chance that any retreating brigade drops its weapon and that this weapon can be picked up by one of the victoriouis brigades.

marecone -> RE: Weapons (8/5/2006 4:42:09 PM)
You really did think of everything! Excellent! Superb! Don't have any more questions concerning weapons. Way to go Eric!

Jasmo -> RE: Weapons (8/15/2006 7:02:35 PM)
This is great but it raises another question. A reality of the south was its lack of heavy manufacturing capacity with very limited ability to mass produce firearms, cast canon, and even make rolling stock for railroads. Is this in any way reflected Just having resources doesn't mean you can make something. this is why the blockade running was so important. The simplies way may be to tie production capacity capacity to open ports.

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (8/15/2006 10:04:04 PM)
Jasmo, the CSA is at a notable disadvantage in terms of Iron production, manufacturing-type infrastructure, and railroad infrastructure. Part of the challenge of playing the South is to effectively handle its resources in the optimal way in order to improve its manufacturing base, railroad system, weapons production, etc.

archer1863 -> RE: Weapons (9/13/2006 5:54:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. Jasmo, the CSA is at a notable disadvantage in terms of Iron production, manufacturing-type infrastructure, and railroad infrastructure. Part of the challenge of playing the South is to effectively handle its resources in the optimal way in order to improve its manufacturing base, railroad system, weapons production, etc. Agreed. Most notably was even given the South's disadvantages, in '64 they actaully were in much better shape industy wise than in '61. Most notable was the production of gunpowder. From Having to rely on capture stores early in the war, the gunpowder mills in the deep south kept the CSA troops supplied til the end. Brigadier General Josiah Gorgas, chief of the Ordnance Department, and his subordinate, Lieutenant Colonel John W. Mallet, commander of the Confederate laboratory at Macon, Georgia, enhanced the Confederacy's ability to wage a long and destructive war.

andysomers -> RE: Weapons (9/13/2006 6:21:56 AM)
I would not severely limit the South (or North) in this respect. The south never lost a battle because of lack of weapons, gunpowder, or otherwise. They had a lot of decent imported weapons, and managed fairly well. I would personally like to see lots of converted smoothbores on both sides, but a vast majority of standard .58 cal rifles. Some sharps and spencers here and there late in the war, but I don't think the North is due a major advantage in this area. They won the war on manpower and attrition, and not due to great weaponry advantages over them. In other words, I think it's fun and perfectly fine to have different weapon types, but I would hate to see this overwhelmingly swing the course of things.

jchastain -> RE: Weapons (9/13/2006 6:44:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: andysomers I would not severely limit the South (or North) in this respect. The south never lost a battle because of lack of weapons, gunpowder, or otherwise. They had a lot of decent imported weapons, and managed fairly well. I would personally like to see lots of converted smoothbores on both sides, but a vast majority of standard .58 cal rifles. Some sharps and spencers here and there late in the war, but I don't think the North is due a major advantage in this area. They won the war on manpower and attrition, and not due to great weaponry advantages over them. In other words, I think it's fun and perfectly fine to have different weapon types, but I would hate to see this overwhelmingly swing the course of things. The good news: The comments above show that weapons can be produced or imported so you have a lot of flexibility in sources from which to equip your army. The better news: Eric indicates that some weapons require extra supplies and supply limits would discourage a player from upgrading all weapons in an ahistorical manner so you should always see plenty of "standard" weapons in the game. The best news: If you dislike the weapon upgrade rules, I suspect you can always just turn them off. All sources indicate this game does a great job of allowing you to turn on and off different features to suit your own tastes.

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/13/2006 7:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: andysomers I would not severely limit the South (or North) in this respect. The south never lost a battle because of lack of weapons, gunpowder, or otherwise. They had a lot of decent imported weapons, and managed fairly well. I would personally like to see lots of converted smoothbores on both sides, but a vast majority of standard .58 cal rifles. Some sharps and spencers here and there late in the war, but I don't think the North is due a major advantage in this area. They won the war on manpower and attrition, and not due to great weaponry advantages over them. In other words, I think it's fun and perfectly fine to have different weapon types, but I would hate to see this overwhelmingly swing the course of things. Sharps and Spencers can be obtained as weapons upgrades, assuming that one plows resources into weapons research. Weapons will not be THE deciding factor in the outcome of a typical game, but the disparity in industry and resources will certainly be felt. (We do offset the disparity somewhat, both by letting the victorious side in a battle pick up some weapons that were dropped by the fleeing enemy, and by letting raiders and blockade-runners steal or smuggle weapons.)

andysomers -> RE: Weapons (9/13/2006 3:35:17 PM)
OK - My fears are squashed! I can get some sleep now!! Thanks again for your response.

archer1863 -> RE: Weapons (9/14/2006 12:45:02 AM)
Agreed. The eventual wearing down of the South through attrition is what eventually ended the Civil War. Grant had the right idea to use his superior numbers to ground down Lee, and not retreat to lick his wounds as so many other Eastern generals had done after tangling with the Army of Northern Virginia. There is an account that after the Wilderness or Cold Harbor I believe, the average grunt in the Army of the Potomac was prepared to do the trek back to their staging areas, as was done after so many battles when Lee and the ANV had given them a good whap on the nose. When the word was given that they were moving forward, not back...the morale shot up amoungst the AOP, even though severely bloodied, they were going to continue to bring the fight to the Confederates. Grant was willing to accept huge casualities because he could replace his losses, whereas the South could not.

PDiFolco -> RE: Weapons (9/15/2006 4:31:11 PM)
RE weapons & supply, I have in mind (perhaps wrongly) that CSA rather heavily relied on captured weapons and ammo in the early stages of the war to keep their troops armed. Time passing they put off some effective manufacturing to replace scavenging. If I'm right, is that modelled in the game, ie after a victorious battle the winner get some bonus resources (accroding to the number/size of the opposing casualties and routed units) ?

*Lava* -> RE: Weapons (9/15/2006 7:32:38 PM)
Hi! Are all the confederate states connected from east to west by railroads at the start of the game? Ray (alias Lava)

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/15/2006 11:38:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PDiFolco RE weapons & supply, I have in mind (perhaps wrongly) that CSA rather heavily relied on captured weapons and ammo in the early stages of the war to keep their troops armed. Time passing they put off some effective manufacturing to replace scavenging. If I'm right, is that modelled in the game, ie after a victorious battle the winner get some bonus resources (accroding to the number/size of the opposing casualties and routed units) ? You're correct, and that's in the game. When a side wins a battle it has a chance to pick up abandoned weapons, including some pretty good ones that one side had more of than the other.

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/15/2006 11:40:24 PM)
We have accurate railroads, as they existed in 1861. (Mr. Z went through great pains to get this right.) But not all CSA states are connected in such a way that one can get from any state to any other by rail. Texas, for example, is not connected, so one's units have to hike over to Louisiana before they can be sent northward.

*Lava* -> RE: Weapons (9/18/2006 8:17:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. We have accurate railroads, as they existed in 1861. (Mr. Z went through great pains to get this right.) But not all CSA states are connected in such a way that one can get from any state to any other by rail. [:)] Well done. The game sounds really interesting... I'm surprised it's not getting more buzz. I hope you guys do some more releases of images, possibly an AAR.. etc., before release.. cause you need more buzz. Ray (alias Lava)

marecone -> RE: Weapons (9/18/2006 11:17:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. We have accurate railroads, as they existed in 1861. (Mr. Z went through great pains to get this right.) But not all CSA states are connected in such a way that one can get from any state to any other by rail. [:)] Well done. The game sounds really interesting... I'm surprised it's not getting more buzz. I hope you guys do some more releases of images, possibly an AAR.. etc., before release.. cause you need more buzz. Ray (alias Lava) I agree. More buzzzzzzzz![:D]

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/19/2006 3:53:37 AM)
We'll be buzzing much, much more on this forum within the next two weeks. I wouldn't be surprised it we buzzed about at least a thing or two by the end of the week. And our buzzing will become much more "graphic" ([;)]) soon thereafter. As for buzzing in the outside world, that depends on Matrix's upcoming pre-release publicity efforts as well as the legions of flying monkeys eager to serve our will by spreading the word to other forums.

*Lava* -> RE: Weapons (9/19/2006 1:36:28 PM)
Kewl! Just a personal opinion here. As a "casual" gamer I am really looking forward to how you handle the "options" which will build the game in complexity. In fact, that is a key draw for me. I own "Crown of Glory", and don't get me wrong, its a fine game, but it just seemed overly complicated. For me, it's one of those kinds of games that, given you put the time in, you can have a really enjoyable experience. Unfortunately, many don't have lots of time to put into games to get at the depth. So when I read that "Forge of Freedom" was going to use more of a building block approach to complexity via options, that really got my interest up. I hope this side of the game gets lots of attention. I think CoG got a reputation for complexity that probably hurt the design. So you have some folks out there with preconceived ideas about FoF, which need to get changed. Just my 2 cents.. Ray (alias Lava)

marecone -> RE: Weapons (9/19/2006 2:40:21 PM)
Well I am just the oposite of you Lava. I think I will like this game for it's complexity. Don't get me wrong here. Idea about turning on and off some optios is great. This way you will get all sorts of players. Way to go!

Hard Sarge -> RE: Weapons (9/19/2006 6:34:24 PM)
Buzzing, Hmmm maybe if the gag order was lifted a bit, there could be some buzzing made oops, got to duck, I feel a hammer coming

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/19/2006 6:35:48 PM)
Lava, you were by no means the only one with such a reaction, which is why we've made most of the complex features optional. That way, people can play a very simple game in which they don't have to worry about supply rules, meddling governors, influence of population on production, etc., or they can play a game that is far more complex by turning on all of the advanced options (which is what Marecone and countless others prefer). Once we've locked the code I plan to post a screenshot of the options screen so that everyone can see the full range of options. I think you'll see that pretty much everyone will find a way of playing the game that's right for them.

*Lava* -> RE: Weapons (9/19/2006 9:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. I think you'll see that pretty much everyone will find a way of playing the game that's right for them. And that will be very Kewl! Thanks for your patience in answering my questions. You know, it could turn out that if folks end up liking FoF, they just might then try CoG. Anyway.. thanks again. Ray (alias Lava)

ezzler -> RE: Weapons (9/20/2006 2:48:02 AM)
As someone else who never really enjoyed COG for various reasons I would really like to know the main differences between COg and FOF FOf . If FOF is just a Civil war CoG then I think I'll pass , however if as it seems there are significant differences then I'm sure that it will be worth a look. I always felt that I was playing more as a group of Joined provinces than as a nation in CoG { a bit like all the Universalis series .. } and hope that this won't be the case again

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/20/2006 2:53:46 AM)
ezz, FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game. Since many of these changes have been discussed in other threads, you should first look through those and then see if you have questions -- it would take a very, very long time for me to type up a detailed description of how the games are different. Overall, I'll state that the economic system is much simplified, diplomacy is minimized (since it wasn't as essential in the Civil War as the Napoleonic wars), trade is likewise minimized, and, most importantly (and obviously), there are only two sides to the fight. I think it would be impossible to play FOF and not be reminded of COG, but I also think it would be impossible to play FOF and see no differences from COG.

Oldguard -> RE: Weapons (9/20/2006 9:43:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. ezz, FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game. My opinion - like some others, COG didn't succeed in obsessing me for the stated reasons. Great game, lots of potential, but there was a feeling of unneeded complexity for me. That said, the thing that I absolutely loved about COG was the detailed battle interface. If that's in FoF, even if unchanged, it will make this my Dream Game of the Decade. I love the sound of the other changes mentioned, but it's the Detailed Battle interface that has me really salivating.

pixelpusher -> RE: Weapons (9/20/2006 9:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. state that the economic system is much simplified, diplomacy is minimized (since it wasn't as essential in the Civil War as the Napoleonic wars), trade is likewise minimized, and, most importantly (and obviously), there are only two sides to the fight. I'd say dealing with the state governors is sort of like diplomacy. But you can deal with that at your chosen level of complexity / micromanagment.

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/21/2006 1:10:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. ezz, FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game. My opinion - like some others, COG didn't succeed in obsessing me for the stated reasons. Great game, lots of potential, but there was a feeling of unneeded complexity for me. That said, the thing that I absolutely loved about COG was the detailed battle interface. If that's in FoF, even if unchanged, it will make this my Dream Game of the Decade. I love the sound of the other changes mentioned, but it's the Detailed Battle interface that has me really salivating. Oldguard, Any changes to the detailed battle interface are improvements. Many are based on suggestions for COG from the forum that would be too difficult to implement (in the very near future, at least), and others are changes that stem from the nature of combat in the two wars being somewhat different (e.g., we now have an "Entrench" button that lets infantry units dig hasty entrenchments, something that became routing in the Civil War beginning in 1862). Drink a lot of fluids so that all that salivating doesn't make you become dehydrated.

Joram -> RE: Weapons (9/21/2006 1:27:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. ezz, FOF employs the same engine as COG, but there are numerous changes, especially at the strategic level. Detailed battles are essentially the same, though there have been many improvements there as well, not to mention differences in how units function. But the major differences are in the strategic game. Since many of these changes have been discussed in other threads, you should first look through those and then see if you have questions -- it would take a very, very long time for me to type up a detailed description of how the games are different. Overall, I'll state that the economic system is much simplified, diplomacy is minimized (since it wasn't as essential in the Civil War as the Napoleonic wars), trade is likewise minimized, and, most importantly (and obviously), there are only two sides to the fight. I think it would be impossible to play FOF and not be reminded of COG, but I also think it would be impossible to play FOF and see no differences from COG. I do hope one of the differences in detailed battles is the AI. Even with the improvements you've made, it's pretty easy to manhandle the AI. I'd be disappointed if I could defeat it so readily again if I played this game.

Gil R. -> RE: Weapons (9/21/2006 1:30:11 AM)
If you don't find the AI challenging enough one solution might be to drink several beers before you start playing... But seriously, there have been changes to the AI, but I'm not competent to discuss them, since I don't do any of the programming.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.765625