Map philosophy (Full Version)

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



Message

andysomers -> Map philosophy (10/23/2006 1:18:31 AM)

I've yet to play an ACW game in these "risk-type" divisions. I'm much more used to a hex map. Can someone explain some of the philosophies and ideas that went into using this type of map as opposed to one like the one shown below? It seems to me a great deal more military flexibility is offered with the hex map (taking advantage of terrain, etc.), and I haven't seen how that will be well depicted form a map of this sort. MY post here is more out of my ignorance, and desire to understand this map better. Apparently, this has been a very well-received system judging from the feedback on Crown of Glory, so I am confident that I will very much like it. Thanks for any feedback!

[image]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d159/andysomers/2cab7185.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 1:52:05 AM)

I'll leave this one for Eric to respond to, since he devised the system. It might take him a day or two to respond, as we're at a critical time programming- and manual-wise.



jchastain -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 2:26:56 AM)

As Gil said, Eric is the final word on why they designed as they did but as a player I'll give you my impressions...

I think this system really does have the best of both worlds. It has the province map (risk style as you called it) for the strategic game, with the hex map for the tactical game. In the real war, armies controlled areas and operated in areas - provinces really do better simulate that reality. With hexes, you'd instead have individal divisions or corps trying to form a line at a strategic scale. That's reasonable for WWII, but not the Civil War.

Let's take the map that you posted. It shows Maryland with lots of individual divisions and corps forming lines. Individual divisions can clash as they enter the same hex, but you get artificial limits as inidividual small units exist in a vacuum. With provinces, the ANV might enter Cumberland and Grant may or may not choose to meet him there. Armies clash. And once the smoke clears, someone controls an area and can generate production from that area.

When the armies clash, this game has the detailed combat maps. To understand why this is a great system, you have to see those battles. But it models the entire army down to a brigade level where you can really model a battle. Cavalry isn't just a +10% versus this or -10% versus that - it moves around the map in a highly mobile manner. Flanking isn't just a "you rolled a 1 on a six sided die", it is you position yourself properly and take advantage of firing on the enemy's rear. On your hex map, Gettysburg is 4 die rolls between corps. In this game, it is two armies clashing with brigades forming lines, charging hills, and falling back to regroup with generals leading their troops and reinforcements trickling in over the 3 days period as other troops break and run.

To really get a better feel for what I am attempting to describe, read Hard Sarge's AAR. Even though you only get a hint of the flavor of the game, I think it really does begin to portray just how well those two elements come together.



andysomers -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 2:37:54 AM)

Thanks for the very well thought explanation.  This sounds like something that I will have to see to see to feel!  The above is an excerpt from a role play game that I was developing online.  The basis of that was that armies would meet in the individual hexes as shown above, and then we would play a custom SMG (sid meiers g-burg) based on the terrain, deployment, and number of troops in that particular hex. 

My original thought was the provincal map would be good for all other aspects of the game (i.e. political, production, recruitment, etc.), with the strategic military moves on a map similar to the one that I have shown, and going into more detail (i.e. to the brigade level) on an even more detailed hex map for the tactical battles.  So some of this is my un-doing from the game that I was developing, and not having a chance to really get into this one yet.

I am as excited as ever for this release.  Thanks again for the good feedback!

AS



Sonny -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 3:05:08 AM)

How do you "ride around the Union Army" using areas?



jchastain -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 3:24:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

How do you "ride around the Union Army" using areas?


Actually, the game includes setting each unit to whether you are seeking or attempting to avoid combat. So it is possible to tell a unit to try to avoid combat and move through an enemy controlled area. Naturally, it is harder to sneak through an entire army than a single brigade and you still have to worry about how to provide supply to the unit on the other side, but I think the province model does a much better job of modelling this as well. With hexes, you line up your units and no one sneaks through or you leave a gap and someone does. In either case, it is obvious in advance whether or not you can make it. That's not even remotely close to accurate. In the province model, the enemy controls a province and you can always try to sneak through and ride around their army but you are taking a chance that you might accidentally run right into them.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 9:30:48 AM)

Sounds good to me.

There's also the point that, in a game like this, you're effectively playing the president of the country. Making small adjustments to the positions of divisions isn't your responsibility. If you give responsibility for a certain area to a general, managing the details is his business.

From the same point of view, I'm a bit disconcerted that this game apparently expects the president to micromanage brigades, deciding (for instance) which new weapons should go to which brigade. I rather doubt that the president had anything to do with such details in reality.

I'm not suggesting that the player should be strictly limited to tasks the president actually performed, but there comes a level of detail at which I begin to think I'm wearing too many hats.



Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:08:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

From the same point of view, I'm a bit disconcerted that this game apparently expects the president to micromanage brigades, deciding (for instance) which new weapons should go to which brigade. I rather doubt that the president had anything to do with such details in reality.



You can keep the "Upgrade Weapons" option off, and then don't need to worry about arming your brigades.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:10:00 AM)

I got to disagree with you here

who says you are the Pres

it is not a Sim of being the Pres during the CW



Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:18:59 AM)

Hard Sarge,
In Jonathan Palfrey's defense, the Options Screen does let the player choose between being Davis/CSA and Lincoln/USA, so I can see why someone would get that impression. But you're right that the game isn't meant to be a simulation of being Lincoln or Davis, since only part of the game involves central-government-type decisions.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:24:14 AM)

Roger

but like the Civ games, you are really more of a overhanging omnispirit overseeing everything

(hopefully my statement didn't come across as cude)



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 1:14:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
You can keep the "Upgrade Weapons" option off, and then don't need to worry about arming your brigades.


Thanks, Gil.

Ideally, I'd prefer to make the economic decisions about whether or not to buy new weapons (I think the president might have had some say in that), while leaving it to my military subordinates to decide which brigades should get them.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 1:51:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Hard Sarge,
In Jonathan Palfrey's defense, the Options Screen does let the player choose between being Davis/CSA and Lincoln/USA, so I can see why someone would get that impression. But you're right that the game isn't meant to be a simulation of being Lincoln or Davis, since only part of the game involves central-government-type decisions.


What I said was that you're "effectively playing the president of the country" -- you're making some of the same decisions that the president would have made. The game also gives you the opportunity to make some of the decisions that other people would have made.

It's fine to give players the opportunity to wear all these different hats if they want to. Personally, I don't want to. I'd rather set up the game options (if possible) so that I could make roughly the sort of decisions that a rather hands-on president might have been willing and able to make himself. Thus, for instance, I expect that I'll ask for quick combat in all cases: the president had nothing to do with battles except to wait for the outcome.

When I play a game, I want to be the guy in charge doing the interesting stuff. In reality, the guy in charge delegates the chores to his subordinates; that's what I'd like to do in the game too. It puzzles me how many players want to handle the chores themselves. Surely they don't do this in real life...



Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 2:08:35 PM)

as they say, to each there own, and the game does give a lot of choices and chances for the player to play as they wish

I would rather be the General then the President

(which is why my area is combat, and not settings and Ecc)





Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 2:20:44 PM)

There's a problem with battle games, especially before the 20th century.

If you read accounts of Civil War battles, it comes over how confused they were and how little control the generals really had over them. If you made an accurate battle simulation and gave the player the same degree of control that a real general had, it would make a rather boring game, because the player would be able to make only a few significant decisions; some of his orders would be lost or ignored; he wouldn't even have much idea of what was going on over most of the battlefield.

But if you give the player the same degree of control that most battle games give, you're not simulating reality, you're simulating a fantasy situation (Gettysburg with mobile phones?). I don't really see the point; so I prefer strategy games. Grand strategy can be simulated fairly accurately while remaining interesting.

Sorry, we've wandered off the subject of this thread...



Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 4:34:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
When I play a game, I want to be the guy in charge doing the interesting stuff. In reality, the guy in charge delegates the chores to his subordinates; that's what I'd like to do in the game too. It puzzles me how many players want to handle the chores themselves. Surely they don't do this in real life...








Whats more interesting then standing on a hill behind a picket fence with 500 enemy troops charging you?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 5:06:40 PM)

Well

Standing in front of it



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 5:26:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany
Whats more interesting then standing on a hill behind a picket fence with 500 enemy troops charging you?


The literal answer is "Almost anything." Waiting to receive a charge may be exciting, but it isn't really interesting. You have only a few decisions. Stand or run? Fire now or fire a bit later? Fire at whom? No, the latter's not really interesting: you fire at the guy coming straight at you, of course.

Actually the question isn't even relevant, because this isn't a role-playing game in which you take the part of an ordinary soldier. Not quite sure what you're getting at...



Oldguard -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 5:39:40 PM)

I'm with Jonathan on not having to micro-manage some things. While it would be fun (for about 5 minutes) to funnel my newest weapons to one single crack regiment, that's not what I'm after. I'd much rather make decisions on resource allocations, production levels and research so my troops have gatlings, rifled cannon & repeaters available to them as early as possible, then let my quartermasters issue the final products.

But as I'm reading Gil & the testers, we can do that by using the settings correctly. I'm very pleased to read that they're working hard on the manual, because it sounds to me like the manual is going to be an absolute necessity for me before I ever even double click the game executable... and again, about every hour during play.

On a related note, I was wondering if there is only one flavor of cavalry? Stuart's attached artillery was pretty light - would it be possible to assign heavier guns to specific cavalry units to create a kind of "medium" or "heavy" cav?



Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 7:01:11 PM)

on the settings and what not, again, I think it is a case of to each his own, pretty much how you want to play, with in reason, you can, if you want to play advance rules, you can, if not, you do not have to

for the Cav

pretty much Horse Arty is Horse Arty, so I think the over all answer is no, you can get a attachment of 6 pound guns to a Cav unit, but that is it





Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 7:49:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany
Whats more interesting then standing on a hill behind a picket fence with 500 enemy troops charging you?


The literal answer is "Almost anything." Waiting to receive a charge may be exciting, but it isn't really interesting. You have only a few decisions. Stand or run? Fire now or fire a bit later? Fire at whom? No, the latter's not really interesting: you fire at the guy coming straight at you, of course.

Actually the question isn't even relevant, because this isn't a role-playing game in which you take the part of an ordinary soldier. Not quite sure what you're getting at...


Well, that is the point. Being in charge and telling others what you want and where and when is great, I like that to, but the guy that is standing on the line, when to fire, when to stand, when to run ( shudders at running ) , not to put to fine a point on it, but that is how battles and wars are won and lost. That guy, who nobody knows up to that point, he does not care what your Iron production is, if the blockade runner got through, if there is enough money to start a new unit, that moment, that small moment, Fire, Stand, Run, the Ground he picked, the very moment, that is what is interesting. why? Why, that choice, and not some other, Why that hill, why that fence, why Fire and not charge.

It does not have to be a role playing game, how anyone could play a game where you work so hard to get to a point in a game, and just push a button to tell if you win or lose when you can play the acual battle and perhaps turn the tide with a small move by a unit on a hill behind a fence, to me that is why I play.



Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 7:59:14 PM)

DISCLAIMER: I am a Marine and the views expressed by Marines do not reflect the general public, and as such should be taken with a head shake and a smile. Just ask Hard Sarge.[8|][:D]



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 8:26:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany
It does not have to be a role playing game, how anyone could play a game where you work so hard to get to a point in a game, and just push a button to tell if you win or lose when you can play the acual battle and perhaps turn the tide with a small move by a unit on a hill behind a fence, to me that is why I play.


Thanks for the eloquent explanation. But I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you're the president or you're the grunt in the front line. No-one for many centuries has found himself playing both roles in reality.

True, a game could let you play both roles. But where's the sense in it? Lincoln or Davis may have wished that they could have affected the outcomes of battles more directly, but they couldn't, and if you want to simulate the war as it was then you should choose to play some defined role in that war: president, general, sergeant, private, or whatever. When you've chosen your role, the others should be barred to you, because no-one in reality combined different roles at the same time in the same war.

I choose to play president. I accept that battle results are out of my control. If you want to play battles, you shouldn't be making presidential decisions. Because no-one in reality did so.



Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 8:59:43 PM)

Yea, but, this is a game and he can have it both ways, it is not reality

I mean in Maddon 07, my Browns are 7-0 this year (well, next year, they won all there games last year) I got a rookie WR with over 2000 yards and a RB with over 1200 yards rushings (not bad for 7 games)

so that is not reality either (man that team is a Fanasey, but it is fun)





Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 9:08:35 PM)

I think that Gen Lee ( the man not the Car) did do alot of what will be available to do in this game. Making a far range of choices as to Supply, Units, strategy and even telling his Artillery Commanders where to set up. In fact an Army commander in this time frame covered by the game would do quite a bit of what this game entails. I can understand your point though, that you just want to make strategic and not tactical moves, and it looks like we will both have our options. Want to sign up now for a PBEM? [:D]



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 9:18:47 PM)

I played, and won, two games of Frank Hunter's ACW game by e-mail -- one with each side, against different opponents. I expect I'll want to play this one by e-mail too. But it would be sensible to practise a bit first.



Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 9:22:01 PM)

Ok, Let me know. Which side you want?



Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 9:24:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard

On a related note, I was wondering if there is only one flavor of cavalry? Stuart's attached artillery was pretty light - would it be possible to assign heavier guns to specific cavalry units to create a kind of "medium" or "heavy" cav?



No, we don't have that. The description of horse artillery is: "25% of unit's attack is made with the range profile of a 6pdr gun. Unit has -4 movement penalty." One cannot upgrade the gun, since it is still a cavalry unit and therefore the only weapons that can be upgraded are Burnside Carbines, Musketoons, etc.

EDIT: I should add that if you purchase the horse artillery attribute AND the "quality horses" attribute (which gives a +6 movement bonus) then you might not have upgraded the gun, but you've got an artillery-laden cavalry unit that has a +2 movement bonus.



genie144 -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:34:10 PM)

Gil - That bonus or lack of is for a standard cavalry unit correct?  So it would be -2 movement for cavalry, not compared to infantry?  Sorry if it seems a dumb question...  Just wanted to double check.

Sam



Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:40:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: genie144

Gil - That bonus or lack of is for a standard cavalry unit correct? So it would be -2 movement for cavalry, not compared to infantry? Sorry if it seems a dumb question... Just wanted to double check.

Sam


Yes, cavalry and infantry have different base movements. I don't remember exactly what they are, but in open terrain I think cavalry can go around 20 hexes (maybe a few more), so +6 movement is represents about 30%.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.563477