some gameplay questions (Full Version)

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



Message

smeilof -> some gameplay questions (11/24/2006 10:44:51 AM)

Hi,

After reading through the excellent AAR i do have some questions about the game.

1) Is diplomacy only influenced by the amount of money both sides invest ? or are military victories also taken into account? It seems to me that the military victories the south had were the main reason that they ever came close to being recognised by europe.

2) Is emancipation possible for both sides right from the start ? or are there some limitations before you can do this. Historically Lincoln had to wait for a major victory before issuing the proclamation.

3) Any chance that with future patches/upgrades the political system will be enhanced to include cabinet with ministers etc ( sort of like No greater glory ) besides governors? that would be cool




Gil R. -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/24/2006 6:43:56 PM)

1) Diplomacy is affected by money, though declaring emancipation earns diplomatic points. In addition, and this is related to your second sentence somewhat, starting in 1865 the South gains a Victory Point each turn, as a way of reflecting the fact that if the South could survive long enough it would have earned de facto European recognition. So while specific victories don't bring diplomatic benefits to the South, if it holds on long enough it will win through implicit European recognition.

2) There are currently no limitations on when a side can emancipate.

3) We rule out nothing now, and you're not the first person to ask for this, but I do know that this sort of change would be more difficult than others because it would involve new graphics as well as new code. Once the game is out and we're soliciting suggestions we'll certainly consider it.



Twotribes -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/24/2006 8:40:27 PM)

The South can emancipate the slaves? And at anytime, for any reason?



Hard Sarge -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/24/2006 9:34:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The South can emancipate the slaves? And at anytime, for any reason?


that is a option that can be set at the beginning of the game, to let the CSA Emancipate or not

default is no, unless set





spruce -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/24/2006 10:10:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

1) Diplomacy is affected by money, though declaring emancipation earns diplomatic points. In addition, and this is related to your second sentence somewhat, starting in 1865 the South gains a Victory Point each turn, as a way of reflecting the fact that if the South could survive long enough it would have earned de facto European recognition. So while specific victories don't bring diplomatic benefits to the South, if it holds on long enough it will win through implicit European recognition.


yeah, but I think his point is still valid - by means of battle victories - no European recognition. Altough we know that battles effect the nation will - it won't impact in any way the European intervention. Suppose the battle victories can keep the CSA long enough in the running - as such they start to get victory points in 1865 - this is not a guarantuee that Europe will intervene directly in the conflict. Even then the game may be lost cause the Union gets the upper hand.

In a nutshell - the only way to get Europe on your hand is by means of money - we all know that this is very difficult for the CSA to get so high. On the other hand, there might be conditions were the Union gets in money-troubles so the CSA can invest more money in diplomacy in comparison with the Union.

By the way - a simple suggestion or enhancement - would be to "nullify" any Union effect on diplomacy in case of a CSA "grand battle victory" ...



Twotribes -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/24/2006 11:59:16 PM)

ANd what of an enhancement that "nullifies" any Confederate diplomacy if there is a "Great" Union battle win? We know that even a marginal victory was used to emancipate the slaves and drive a terrible blow into any effort by the Confederacy to gain European aid. There is no historical evidence that great victories by the South would have provoked England or France to send troops or provide recognition.



Gil R. -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/25/2006 1:55:12 AM)

How likely do you think European intervention in the form of combatants was? Much of the evidence pertains to the Europeans considering trying to impose a settlement.



spruce -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/25/2006 1:56:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ANd what of an enhancement that "nullifies" any Confederate diplomacy if there is a "Great" Union battle win? We know that even a marginal victory was used to emancipate the slaves and drive a terrible blow into any effort by the Confederacy to gain European aid. There is no historical evidence that great victories by the South would have provoked England or France to send troops or provide recognition.


not sure, I think defeats won't help their case - and victories would help.[:)] Lee even had a letter to discuss terms of peace negotiation - in case he would have won at Gettysburg ...

I think that intervention is not only linked to money spend on smooth diplomats. Just my 2 cents.

Off course - should the CSA perform badly in big battles - their diplomatical efforts should also be nullified.



Twotribes -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/25/2006 4:45:06 AM)

The only hope the South had after starting the war was to get European intervention ( after the emancipation that wasnt going to happen) getting a new President ( in 64 Mac ran on the premise he would make a deal) or defeating the Union Armies. Defeating the Union Armies simply wasnt going to happen, at least not offensively.

The South should have never started a shooting war. Lincoln likely would have done nothing aggressive and tried to negotiate a settlement. Eventually he may have realized that was not going to happen, but that could have gained several years for the south to import what they needed and shore up European diplomatic ties.



fortdick -> RE: some gameplay questions (11/29/2006 12:01:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


The South should have never started a shooting war. Lincoln likely would have done nothing aggressive and tried to negotiate a settlement. Eventually he may have realized that was not going to happen, but that could have gained several years for the south to import what they needed and shore up European diplomatic ties.


Lincoln gave no choice. His decision to resupply Sumpter was an intentional provovation intended to force a confrontation. South Carolina could not very well claim its independence while the USA had a viable military position blocking their most valuable asset - Charleston Harbor.

Lincoln knw what he was doing would provoke a shooting war, which is exactly what he wanted - to force the South to fire the first shot. That it happened to be South Carolina with its militant posture only made it inevitable.

His call for militias from southern states yet to secceed finally set the battle lines. He forced Virginia to choose and had his war. This country has never been the same since.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875