RE: Map philosophy

RE: Map philosophy (Full Version)

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

Message

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:55:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Graycompany Ok, Let me know. Which side you want? I'm not committing myself to play against anyone at this stage, before the game has even been released. But in general I prefer to play as the CSA, for two reasons: (1) if you play as the underdog, it feels better when you win; (2) I believe in self-determination, which is what I think most Southerners were fighting for. However, the USA has more resources, and it's more comfortable to play with more resources, so playing as the USA also has something to be said for it. The slavery issue doesn't excite me. I'm against it, of course, but so is everyone else these days. It's become a non-issue. Whereas self-determination is still an issue in various parts of the world (including Spain, where I happen to live).

Oldguard -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 10:57:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey 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. In Graycompany's defense, yes I think you can have it both ways in a simulation game. I'm a long-time strategy gamer going back to the early days of SSI and to me, the game that can immerse me in the "realities" and personalities at the tactical level adds immeasurably to the drama and excitement of a game as opposed to one that simply requires me to move counters around on a hex grid and roll die to determine an outcome. Put simpler, once I use my unequalled brilliance (cough) to bring the best guns & men to the battle, it's very gratifying to hear the fusilade of musketry and the rumble of cannon as they decide the outcome. I want to be both the man who changes the way history was played out AND the man who orders his men to hold the line against the enemy's onrush. That would be the best of all possible wargaming worlds. quote: ORIGINAL: Graycompany 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. I'll disagree to an extent - Lee was a masterful operational commander, but he left his subordinate commanders to make many of the detailed tactical decisions. It proved to be both his strength and his greatest weakness (especially after Jackson's death). For example, it wasn't Lee who sited the artillery at Fredricksburg. It was Longstreet.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/23/2006 11:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard In Graycompany's defense, yes I think you can have it both ways in a simulation game. I'm a long-time strategy gamer going back to the early days of SSI and to me, the game that can immerse me in the "realities" and personalities at the tactical level adds immeasurably to the drama and excitement of a game as opposed to one that simply requires me to move counters around on a hex grid and roll die to determine an outcome. Put simpler, once I use my unequalled brilliance (cough) to bring the best guns & men to the battle, it's very gratifying to hear the fusilade of musketry and the rumble of cannon as they decide the outcome. I want to be both the man who changes the way history was played out AND the man who orders his men to hold the line against the enemy's onrush. That would be the best of all possible wargaming worlds. Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating. Lincoln and Davis would have loved to direct the tactics as well as the strategy, but they couldn't and they didn't. If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world. I prefer to feel that I'm confronting the sort of challenges that real people confronted in the 19th century. Their battles were out of their direct control; so my battles should be out of my direct control too. No-one really controlled a 19th-century battle very much; it took its own course, influenced by the decisions of all the people who took part in it. From a game player's point of view, a die roll is a good way to represent it. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you could have influenced it very much, had you been there. It's true that the outcomes of some battles were influenced significantly by the good or bad decisions of the top generals. But the decisions that had that effect were maybe one or two per battle. Who wants to play a game in which you get to make only one or two interesting decisions? Hell with it; roll the die, resolve the battle, and let's move on.

jchastain -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 1:09:08 AM)
As has been stated, the player does have the ability to control much more than any one person would have in real life. That is common among games in that a strategy game should be won or lost based on the players strategy while real world results are often influenced by a significant degree of randomness and things outside of one's control. But how much fun would that be? That said, as I attempted to explain in the Game Options thread, this title does give players a high degree of control over the gaming experience. As discussed in this thread, you have the ability to direct both the strategic and tactical situations. Many players will enjoy that additional level of control. But for those who want to play a purely strategic game - you can do that and it is fun even without the tactical elements. In PBEM, the game does not employ the tactical screens. It would take far too long to get anything accomplished if you tried to fight each battle brigade by brigade in email - so the game just uses instant combat resolution for all battles in PBEM. And some of my most enjoyable games have been in PBEM. The strategic game really does stand on its own as a complete game that is thoroughly enjoyable. Let me touch of a few additional points. Jonathan, when you say as President you want to buy rifles but not distribute them, I think you'll find the balance you are asking for with the supply rules. With Advanced Supply, you have to manage the supply levels of your forces but you can do so at the Army level. If you use that without enabling weapon upgrades essentially you are allocating resources for your offensives and deciding how aggressive to be and having to bear the cost of multiple campaigns without having to micromanage details such as which units carry which rifles. As for the point about generals not having the degree of control you find in games, that is also true. As discussed above, there is good reason for that additional level of control in that it isn't much fun to not have control in a strategy game and I don't think that concern is limited to this one title. And I must add that the designers of this game did attempt to model that very concern to some degree at least. Troops in the game do misinterprit orders. Sometimes, they don't go exactly where you wanted them to. Additionally, they can go "out of control" where you loose the ability to give orders to units entirely because they broke under fire or simply wandered too far away from the command structure. In those cases, a general must attempt to reexert control over them and bring them back into line. So, while the degree of control the player exerts far exceeds that of any historical commander, you do still have some of the historical flavor of things not always going exactly to plan.

Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 3:55:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating. Lincoln and Davis would have loved to direct the tactics as well as the strategy, but they couldn't and they didn't. If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world. I prefer to feel that I'm confronting the sort of challenges that real people confronted in the 19th century. Their battles were out of their direct control; so my battles should be out of my direct control too. No-one really controlled a 19th-century battle very much; it took its own course, influenced by the decisions of all the people who took part in it. From a game player's point of view, a die roll is a good way to represent it. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you could have influenced it very much, had you been there. It's true that the outcomes of some battles were influenced significantly by the good or bad decisions of the top generals. But the decisions that had that effect were maybe one or two per battle. Who wants to play a game in which you get to make only one or two interesting decisions? Hell with it; roll the die, resolve the battle, and let's move on. Well, I would not call playing a game that has options cheating. I understand your playing style and that is fine. But to say others are "cheating" because they want to have more detail is just wrong. Who says that you are just one person? that you have to be the President, why cant you be a Commander of an army or the quartermaster?, or a brigade commander? You also say Lincoln would want to have tactical control, I disagree. Linclon often did not take enough control, having on a number of occasions to order his Generals to move the Army. I doubt very much that he picked which weapons would be produced or how the supply would be distributed. Perhaps they will have an option where you can email someone that has the game and then that person will decided what you want and if they will follow your orders. Die rolls, like a 1d6 roll means only 1 out of 6 things can happen, I like to think that there are more options that could take place. Being able to be different people in the game at different levels is quite appealing, rather than have to buy 5 different types of games, why not buy one, and customize it to what you like? Newsflash, this is fantasy. [8\|][:D]

Hard Sarge -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 4:26:50 AM)
quote: I doubt very much that he picked which weapons would be produced or how the supply would be distributed. Perhaps they will have an option where you can email someone that has the game and then that person will decided what you want and if they will follow your orders. yea but, didn't Linclon do just that ?, I think it was the Spencer, the quatermaster turned it down and then the designer took it to Linclon and let him shoot it and show it off, and he ended up liking it and putting a order in for it

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 9:10:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Graycompany Well, I would not call playing a game that has options cheating. My apologies: I got a bit carried away yesterday and expressed myself too strongly. It feels wrong to me to play as the president and also as several levels of the military hierarchy all at the same time; but if you want to do it, of course you're entitled, and I didn't mean to suggest that there's anything immoral about it... I just feel that, if you regard the game as a simulation, it weakens the quality of the simulation.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 9:31:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain The strategic game really does stand on its own as a complete game that is thoroughly enjoyable. Yes, that's what I'd expect, and that's why I'm keen to buy the game. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain Jonathan, when you say as President you want to buy rifles but not distribute them, I think you'll find the balance you are asking for with the supply rules. With Advanced Supply, you have to manage the supply levels of your forces but you can do so at the Army level. If you use that without enabling weapon upgrades essentially you are allocating resources for your offensives and deciding how aggressive to be and having to bear the cost of multiple campaigns without having to micromanage details such as which units carry which rifles. Thanks, that sounds good. quote: ORIGINAL: jchastain As discussed above, there is good reason for that additional level of control in that it isn't much fun to not have control in a strategy game and I don't think that concern is limited to this one title. That concern is certainly not limited to this one title: almost every battle game gives the player far too much control over what's going on. Players may enjoy having that level of control -- just as the generals at the time would have loved to have it -- but it means that the game can't claim to be a simulation. Fortunately, grand strategy can be simulated in a way that's both enjoyable and fairly accurate; which is why I prefer to play strategical-level games rather than tactical-level (battle) games.

Graycompany -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 5:42:46 PM)
Not a problem, was a good spirited discussion. Offer still stands for a PBEM when you are comfortable with the game [:D]

Oldguard -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 6:46:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating. "Cheating" is doing something contrary to the game rules or against good sportsmanship. I hardly think switching options on or off to suit our personal styles is in the same category as cheating. quote: Lincoln and Davis would have loved to direct the tactics as well as the strategy, but they couldn't and they didn't. Actually, Lincoln did try to take personal command of at least one attack on a Confederate fort early in the war. But he quickly learned that it was best left to professionals. quote: If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world. And the problem with this is... ? It's a computer game. I've had my tour of duty in the real Army, and frankly I don't want to engage in another real firefight. To me, computer wargames are a safe, relaxing pastime that exercise my mind and satisfy my curiousity -- if it were "real", I wouldn't want anything to do with it. quote: It's true that the outcomes of some battles were influenced significantly by the good or bad decisions of the top generals. But the decisions that had that effect were maybe one or two per battle. Who wants to play a game in which you get to make only one or two interesting decisions? Hell with it; roll the die, resolve the battle, and let's move on. To each his own. The beauty of FoF seems to be that each of us can play exactly how we choose to play, and that's why I'm so excited.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 7:50:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey Yes, this is something that game players seem to want, but it's cheating. "Cheating" is doing something contrary to the game rules or against good sportsmanship. I hardly think switching options on or off to suit our personal styles is in the same category as cheating. Yes, you're right, and I've already apologized for that post. "Cheating" was a badly-chosen word. What I meant was that it was deviating from true simulation; I should have found another way to express it. quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard To each his own. The beauty of FoF seems to be that each of us can play exactly how we choose to play, and that's why I'm so excited. Indeed. I'll drink to that. The word "exactly" is overdoing it slightly, but FoF seems likely to do a good job of satisfying a wide range of preferences, compared with other games. Of course, when we decide to play by e-mail, we have to negotiate some compromise set of game options... Fortunately for my own preferences, quick combat is obligatory when playing by e-mail!

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 8:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oldguard quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey If you insist on wearing multiple hats, you ought to face the fact that you're not really simulating anything real, you're just playing around in some kind of fantasy world. And the problem with this is... ? It's a computer game. I've had my tour of duty in the real Army, and frankly I don't want to engage in another real firefight. To me, computer wargames are a safe, relaxing pastime that exercise my mind and satisfy my curiousity -- if it were "real", I wouldn't want anything to do with it. The problem with it is that these games are supposed to be simulation games. Otherwise we may as well be playing chess, bridge, or poker. If something visibly damages the quality of the simulation, OK, I can still play the game, but it bothers me, like reading a historical novel set in Ancient Rome in which people are smoking cigarettes and wearing wristwatches. I don't want to engage in any firefights either. That's another reason to prefer playing as the president...

Oldguard -> RE: Map philosophy (10/24/2006 10:06:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey I don't want to engage in any firefights either. That's another reason to prefer playing as the president... Well that's a different kind of sniping :)

dh76513 -> RE: Map philosophy (10/30/2006 7:52:34 PM)
Gil, How are artillery units assigned? Are these units attached to infantry and/or cavalry (brigades or divisions) or are the artillery units displayed as independent units (batteries)? Also, how are new cannons and upgrades such as Gatlin guns integrated into these units? Oh, and is it possible for the presidents (on either side) to be assassinated during game play? Thanks, David

Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/31/2006 12:12:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dh76513 Gil, How are artillery units assigned? Are these units attached to infantry and/or cavalry (brigades or divisions) or are the artillery units displayed as independent units (batteries)? Also, how are new cannons and upgrades such as Gatlin guns integrated into these units? Oh, and is it possible for the presidents (on either side) to be assassinated during game play? Thanks, David First, we toyed with letting presidents be assassinated, and decided against it. So, you're stuck with Lincoln and Davis the whole time. (Not that that's a bad thing.) As for artillery, we have both independent artillery units that can have their guns upgraded if one spends the resources (I've posted the guns list elsewhere) or can have certain attributes purchased for them, but we also have both "horse artillery" and "brigade artillery," which are cavalry and infantry units, respectively, that have 25% of their attack made by 6-pounders.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Map philosophy (10/31/2006 7:19:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. As for artillery, we have both independent artillery units that can have their guns upgraded if one spends the resources (I've posted the guns list elsewhere) or can have certain attributes purchased for them, but we also have both "horse artillery" and "brigade cavalry," which are cavalry and infantry units, respectively, that have 25% of their attack made by 6-pounders. Thanks for the info. But, "brigade cavalry"? I think you meant to write "brigade artillery".

Gil R. -> RE: Map philosophy (10/31/2006 7:24:28 AM)
Ack, yes, that's brigade artillery. Thanks. We do also have brigade cavalry.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.082031