European Participaton/Activation (Full Version)

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



Message

kylenapoleon -> European Participaton/Activation (8/21/2006 3:08:05 AM)

Will the European powers be represented by units in the game? That is, will there be diplomats involved? Also, if the right conditions are met, then will there be actual European ground, and naval units that will come into play?

It would be interesting if you could actually deploy British units to support the CSA. You could go through Canada and open up another Front. We could relive the Finian Raid.[;)]



sol_invictus -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/21/2006 7:29:24 AM)

I'm betting that it is possible, but unlikely. Britain and France would only commit after it was almost certain that the CSA was going to win. After the Emancipation Proclamation, not much of a chance.



PDiFolco -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/30/2006 1:27:02 PM)

Will there be something like "random events" in the game ?
This would allow for intervention also, think of the "Trent Affair" who nearly dragged England into the war.



Andy Mac -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/30/2006 1:37:21 PM)

Will there be a requirement to garrison Atlantic ports and Canadian Border if tension rises ?

I assume French intervention is more likely than British as long as Slavery is in place in the South on the other hand if slaves emancipated in south British Intervention becomes fairly likely I would think.

also will random events include things like draft riots etc etc

This is exciting I played a strategic civil war game a loooong time ago on the Spectrum but this looks much better

Now all we need is Colonel Sir Harry Flashman VC working for both sides and we are all set !!!

Andy



jchastain -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/30/2006 10:54:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Will there be something like "random events" in the game ?
This would allow for intervention also, think of the "Trent Affair" who nearly dragged England into the war.



Ug! I would really dislike playing any game where something as important as foreign intervention was triggered by an entirely random event. While there will always be some random elements to strategy games, strategy and not die rolls should be the primary determinant of who wins and who loses. Historically accurate or not, it's just a lot more fun for player to be able to drive events instead of merely feeling helpless as they watch them unfold.



Gil R. -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/31/2006 12:13:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Will there be something like "random events" in the game ?
This would allow for intervention also, think of the "Trent Affair" who nearly dragged England into the war.




The initial release will have few, if any, random events, since our priority is get the basic game done and in perfect working order. We have, however, discussed implementing random events in future patches. None of these would wildly change the dynamics of the game in one fell swoop, as a "Trent Affair" scenario bringning Britain into the war would. Instead, changes would be merely substantial: e.g., if we did a the "Trent Affair" scenario, we might have the side in question lose some levels of diplomacy with Britain. And having random events would probably be an option, so that purists out there wouldn't get too upset.

Legal disclaimer: The preceding paragraph is not a promise to add random events, but rather an expression of hope that we shall do so.



Gil R. -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/31/2006 12:15:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Will there be a requirement to garrison Atlantic ports and Canadian Border if tension rises ?


It's not a requirement, but it's prudent...



PDiFolco -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/31/2006 12:55:30 PM)

Thanks GilR for the reply.
When you say "random" events do you mean totally random (X% chance..) only ? Any chance to have conditional events, such as "If Trent event occurs and USA doesn't make action X (spend diplo action, whatever), then England enters war" ?
Sure I'm getting rather demanding .. [&o] [;)]



jimwinsor -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/31/2006 5:34:53 PM)

The "Trent Affair" is kind of a dumb event to attach conditional options to for the Union, however.  Reason being, that by its very nature it was a no brainer.

Here's how the event went down:  Two CSA diplomats try to sail to Europe on a British packet.  The purpose of their mission?  To seek European recognition and even intervention on their side in the Civil War.  Most particularly, British recognition and intervention.

A US naval officer, acting far outside the scope of his instructions, violates international law, boards the British packet, takes the diplomats prisoner.

Britain, quite naturally, protests.  Threatens war if the pair are are not released, and incident disavowed.

US has two "choices":
A) Keep diplomats: Chance of war with Britain: 100%
B) Release diplomats: The CSA diplomats are free, and can go about their mission, to cause a war with Britain. Chance of that happening: MUCH LESS than 100%

Gee, what option should the USA choose...hmmm...[&:] [8|]

Shelby Foote made an accurate comment about the whole incident, saying that the CSA prisoners, from their jail cell, "were accomplishing more towards the fulfillment of their diplomatic mission than they would be doing if they had continued on their way to Europe."

Like I said, the historic Trent Affair boils down to such a no-brainer for the USA, that in the final analysis...there is really no point in even bothering to try to model "the choice" the USA faced in a game IMO.



Gil R. -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/31/2006 6:57:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Thanks GilR for the reply.
When you say "random" events do you mean totally random (X% chance..) only ? Any chance to have conditional events, such as "If Trent event occurs and USA doesn't make action X (spend diplo action, whatever), then England enters war" ?
Sure I'm getting rather demanding .. [&o] [;)]


I'm sure that if/when we add more random events there could be some of an IF-->THEN nature. One feature that we already have, that could be considered a random event, is that every once in a while you're told that Governor So-and-So wants you to appoint some political allies of dubious military ability to important positions in one of your divisions, so you're given the choice between lowering the officer quality of a division or angering a governor (which can have negative impact on your economy, technology research, diplomacy, etc.).



Capt Cliff -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (8/31/2006 9:22:30 PM)

The South should not have a choice to emancipate their slaves, just so you can win as the south! The War for the south was over states rights, the old Article of Confederation" and not about slavery. Lincoln freed the slaves, only in the south by the way, to prevent the Europeans from imposing their will on America. Slavery in the south was too imbedded and tied to the plantation system to even be considered. At the very end Lee proposed and got Black troops but that was only because General Robert E. Lee requested it. I wouldn't waste programing resouces on this scenario! Let's get this guy published!



spence -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 6:44:48 AM)

Really. The emancipation of the slaves by the South was never a real possibility while the issue was in doubt. Yes, the Confederate Congress passed a bill to allow "the Massa" to put his slaves into uniform but even IF the practical consequence of that was the "the Massa" would feel compelled to free those slaves after the war was over, there are still compelling reasons that would hardly constitute Emancipation in the Europeans eyes:

1) The bill (in that other thread re emancipation) specifically states that no change in the relationship of Master to Slave is required.

2) Even if a slave were to be gratuitously set free because of service in the CSA his family is not eligible (except I suppose by the grace of the Master).

3) The date on the bill is March 1865. The issue is no longer in any doubt. In fact the Confederacy has less than a month to live - clearly just a last desperate effort to ameliorate the one issue that has been a millstone around the Confederacy's neck since the first day of the war. And that is the heart of the war in the first place. Everbody tried to say the war was not about slavery. They tried and they failed because they could not prove that black slaves were not men and the one document that all held sacred, SOUTH and NORTH, was the Declaration of Independence which started off declaring that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. A morally level playing field was never in the cards for the South.



Kung Karl -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 10:32:44 AM)

But WHAT IF they had freed the slaves and then fired at Fort Sumter?

The option should be in.



spence -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 1:28:18 PM)

quote:

But WHAT IF they had freed the slaves and then fired at Fort Sumter?


Virginia stays in the Union (since it had not voted to secede when Fort Sumter was attacked). R. E. Lee commands the Union Army with all those other Virginians commanding his Divisions and Brigades. Preserving the Union takes all of about 90 days.

There you go.[:D]




Kung Karl -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 4:15:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

But WHAT IF they had freed the slaves and then fired at Fort Sumter?


Virginia stays in the Union (since it had not voted to secede when Fort Sumter was attacked). R. E. Lee commands the Union Army with all those other Virginians commanding his Divisions and Brigades. Preserving the Union takes all of about 90 days.

There you go.[:D]




Ok, they free them after the victory at Manassass.

The option should be in.



spence -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 7:14:13 PM)

quote:

Ok, they free them after the victory at Manassass.

The option should be in.


And after that we can make a World War II game where Hitler donates Germany to be the Jewish Homeland and France and Russia launch jihads to reclaim it for the displaced Nazis.



jchastain -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 8:08:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
And after that we can make a World War II game where Hitler donates Germany to be the Jewish Homeland and France and Russia launch jihads to reclaim it for the displaced Nazis.


Great Idea! Can we call it "Friendly Fuhrer"?



Joram -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 8:51:20 PM)

LOL, now now, be nice. I think the point Karl, is that in many cases since these events didn't really happen, it would be near impossible to tell the real impact. So in a way you are asking the designers to put in an unlimited number of what-if fantasy scenarios. In some cases they may make reasonable guesses on to what the impact would be but in others while it may seem like a reasonable guess to them, there would be so many differing opinions that it just doesn't add value to the product.

I'm actually more concerned about this future patch issue. Why would you release an unfinished product? Certainly not encouraging me to buy if it's not finished out the door. And no, the standard "all games have bugs" excuse isn't acceptable, it's a cop-out.



jchastain -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/1/2006 10:15:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram
I'm actually more concerned about this future patch issue. Why would you release an unfinished product? Certainly not encouraging me to buy if it's not finished out the door. And no, the standard "all games have bugs" excuse isn't acceptable, it's a cop-out.


You've definitely hit one of my hot-button issues there. Game developers have become incredibly lazy in introducing unfinished products and making paying customers do the testing. The widespread availability of patches make it easy to do and customers actually put up with cr@p products. You can't convince me they can't make a quality product - with console games, where patching isn't readily available, they actually are required to produce quality products and somehow manage to do so. Buying a game at retail release today borders on stupid as the price is almost certain to drop before the game has the patches necessary to make it function properly anyway.

I will cut Matrix a little slack here as even though they have jumped aboard the "low quality" train, at least they provide good support thereafter. And since they tend to manage electronic distribution in what is essentially a niche market, you don't see the big price drops that normally come from waiting in the big box retails environment so there isn't the same incentive to wait for quality to rise and price to drop.

Clearly it is more expensive to perform thorough testing and ensure strict quality controls. Clearly the PC environment is more complex than a console. But still, I think gaming companies across the board could do a much better job with quality with their PC product lines.



Gil R. -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/2/2006 1:52:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

I'm actually more concerned about this future patch issue. Why would you release an unfinished product? Certainly not encouraging me to buy if it's not finished out the door. And no, the standard "all games have bugs" excuse isn't acceptable, it's a cop-out.


Joram,
Since you raise valid concerns about future patches, I would like to address the issue. I assure you that we have no intention of releasing an “unfinished product.” As gamers ourselves, we are sympathetic to your position, and would not release a game that we considered unfinished. Right now, “Forge of Freedom” has more than enough in it to please just about anyone who is interested in an American Civil War-themed game: we could stop adding features to the game and slap in the remaining graphics once they’re done, and no one would be able to tell that we still had unimplemented ideas. However, since we want to make this the best game possible, we are continuing to add features – we want it to “go to eleven.” (Note to non-American, and un-American, readers: "goes to eleven" is a line from a movie that every right-thinking American has seen.) That said, at some point we have to stop and release the game. (Why should the development team and play-testers have all the fun?) Once the game is released, however, we may well find ways to augment the game further after getting feedback from our customers, either by implementing ideas that had been low priorities before or fresh suggestions from customers. These would not be major additions, but rather relatively minor ones that make the game that much more enjoyable. This strikes me as a desirable approach to game development, and I believe that the forum for our other game, “Crown of Glory,” will attest that those who bought it were very pleased that we listened to their suggestions and added features not in the original release.



Joram -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/2/2006 3:38:12 AM)

Thank you for the response Gil. If I may restate what you are telling me is that you plan to have a finished product but may add future functionality in response to customer feedback?




Gil R. -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/2/2006 3:56:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram

Thank you for the response Gil. If I may restate what you are telling me is that you plan to have a finished product but may add future functionality in response to customer feedback?




Yes. Plus, we might add a few things that we ourselves would like to see, but that weren't top priorities because they fell into the "nice but non-essential" category. But the game is essentially complete: we could stop adding stuff today and have a game that would not strike anyone as unfinished.

In response to your comment about games often being released with too many bugs, I'm pleased to report that "Forge of Freedom" is running very well. (We have been testing the Man vs. AI game for weeks, and for the past two weeks have been putting PBEM through its paces, and are just beginning testing on networked play.) Right now we know of no problem that is causing crashes for any of our 20+ testers, and there are no major bugs that have been reported without being quickly fixed. Obviously, unreported glitches can turn up when you have thousands of people playing a game rather than dozens, but we're confident that this will not be one of those games that is released with unresolved critical problems that make them unplayable until a patch is released.



PDiFolco -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/4/2006 1:55:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

The "Trent Affair" is kind of a dumb event to attach conditional options to for the Union, however.  Reason being, that by its very nature it was a no brainer.

Here's how the event went down:  Two CSA diplomats try to sail to Europe on a British packet.  The purpose of their mission?  To seek European recognition and even intervention on their side in the Civil War.  Most particularly, British recognition and intervention.

A US naval officer, acting far outside the scope of his instructions, violates international law, boards the British packet, takes the diplomats prisoner.

Britain, quite naturally, protests.  Threatens war if the pair are are not released, and incident disavowed.

US has two "choices":
A) Keep diplomats: Chance of war with Britain: 100%
B) Release diplomats: The CSA diplomats are free, and can go about their mission, to cause a war with Britain. Chance of that happening: MUCH LESS than 100%

Gee, what option should the USA choose...hmmm...[&:] [8|]

Shelby Foote made an accurate comment about the whole incident, saying that the CSA prisoners, from their jail cell, "were accomplishing more towards the fulfillment of their diplomatic mission than they would be doing if they had continued on their way to Europe."

Like I said, the historic Trent Affair boils down to such a no-brainer for the USA, that in the final analysis...there is really no point in even bothering to try to model "the choice" the USA faced in a game IMO.


Thanks for this details. But modelling the Trent affair as such wasn't my point : I was just wanting to know if this kind of "random events" (here, something occuring that increase chance of British intervention) was possible in the game.
And it was just an example ...[;)]



Hard Sarge -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/4/2006 2:55:26 PM)

That said, at some point we have to stop and release the game. (Why should the development team and play-testers have all the fun?)

you call this fun ?

being chased around all day by people with little hammers telling you to get back to work ????

boy, if I wouldn't get hit by a hammer or another fish, I would tell you......


[:-]



Andy Mac -> RE: European Participaton/Activation (9/5/2006 7:21:06 PM)

<gets out the hammer to chase Hard Sarge back to work on ED to BTR>



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.060547