RE: The historical test (Full Version)

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



Message

jack616 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 1:53:37 AM)

Just to chime in...this was posted in Jackerson's just wondering thread from I think Eric in response to why Jakerson as the North was sustained something like 40:1 (not kidding) battle losses:

quote:

My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive, particularly in the East, as the Union and force him to pay for each engagement


I know that this has been hashed and rehashed above, but in suml...isn't that sort of the problem that ppl are having?  I mean... all other play balancing issues aside, logically, in a civil war of any type, all the secessionist/rebels have to do is stay in the field.  But yet, the game favors a strategy whereby the group in power, must play defensively.  Its illogical.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 1:57:50 AM)

Jack,

That's way too much of a generalization of my advice, which was specific to Jakerson's situation. Playing as the Union in FoF, I am absolutely on the offense.

Regards,

- Erik



jack616 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 6:35:57 AM)

Erik-

I definitely appreciate how responsive, you, and everyone else thats had a hand in this game is.  Thank you.

But, to be honest, at this point, FoF is becoming more frustrating then fun.  I want to enjoy this game...I really do, but I can't get over some of the game mechanics and design decisions.  Hopefully when the new patch is out, things change....



ETF -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 12:18:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Probley the new civilwar game coming out by Pocus and friends will be much more historical. However I do like this one but it is Not history.




Which civil war game are you referring to?



Ironclad -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 3:45:44 PM)

Its from AGEod based on their successful BOA engine.



Bearcat2 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 10:06:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.
But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.



How true is it that there were more Southern state militia than Northern states?
Almost all the early regiments on both sides were formed from state militia. I have never been able to find the numbers that indicate that the south had a larger militia tradition.



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 10:11:02 PM)

The south mobilized earlier than the north so the numbers were somewhat close in early and mid 1861. After Bull Run Lincoln called for 400,000 more volunteers and it was never close again.



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/15/2007 10:37:29 PM)

The North had more pre-war Militia than the South did simply because the North had a larger population.

The Detroit Light Guard for instance, and that's who the Detroit Tigers Baseball Club asked for and got permission to use the name 'Tigers'. Just one example of many, many more in the Northern states. The DLG was formed in 1855 from the previosuly existing Brady Guards, named after Bde. Gen. Hugh Brady, which had itself evolved from the Detroit City Guard(s) that had fought in the Black Hawk War and disbanded in 1832 at the end of that war. The Detroit Light Guard exisits today in the form of Company A, 1st Bn. 125th Inf. Regt.

The DLG also pursued Pancho Vila, served in the Spanish American war in Cuba I do believe, and in Iraq, etc.

Chris in Day-twah, the straits.



Johnus -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 12:12:57 AM)

Erik's settings and advice, see pages 6 & 7 of this thread, are great and, I believe, render the game historically "acceptable."

You don't want to overdue historical "accuracy" with this particular game system or you won't have enought decisions to make. There are only a finite number of ways to invade the South. You want, as designer, to retain as many options for the North as possible, Anaconda, prefer Mississippi, prefer center, prefer east, concentrate on camps, muster, navy, etc.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the next patch before I get back into the game because the retreat bug is a show stopper for me.



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 3:02:28 AM)

Exactly, and what you said is a big part of the picture.

Chris



Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 4:49:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Erik's settings and advice, see pages 6 & 7 of this thread, are great and, I believe, render the game historically "acceptable."

You don't want to overdue historical "accuracy" with this particular game system or you won't have enought decisions to make. There are only a finite number of ways to invade the South. You want, as designer, to retain as many options for the North as possible, Anaconda, prefer Mississippi, prefer center, prefer east, concentrate on camps, muster, navy, etc.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the next patch before I get back into the game because the retreat bug is a show stopper for me.


Yes on all points, though the biggest show-stopper for me is the wildly disproportionate losses in Quick Combat.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 5:37:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.
But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.



How true is it that there were more Southern state militia than Northern states?
Almost all the early regiments on both sides were formed from state militia. I have never been able to find the numbers that indicate that the south had a larger militia tradition.


The South had a much more active "Militia Tradition" simply from the fear of slave revolts. In the North the "militia" was primarily a social affair of balls and parades and such---but in the South genuine need and fear kept the "militia" in a higher state of training and readiness. That's the real basis for the difference.





christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 6:32:20 PM)

Many Northern and Southern Militia units were somewhat of 'social affairs' in nature.

Many Northern and Souhern Militia units were also used to enforce local law and order at times, and in the old Northwest Territory, to fight Indians every now and then. There were many river and lake pirates and land based desparados around in those days, particularily along the western, southwestern and northwestern borders, the northern border with Canada and the southern border with Mexico etc.

Some Southern and Northern units were very well drilled and had a bit of 'snazziness' to them, in both dress and drill.

Seems only a minority were anything near 'regular' or 'professional', but the best of them had the basics and a bit more down, and there were veterans of previous wars in the ranks of both Northern and Southern militia units.

Therefore, I think the concept of the South having 'better' militia units is bunk, as was shown on the battlefields of Bull Run One and Wilson's Creek etc. In both those battles the Northern troops were forging ahead with zeal and determination, until the Southerners rallied due to  timely reinforcement and the fatigue of the Northern troops that were on the offense.

However, due to a good number od Slave revolts occurring in the South over the years, I can comprehend that perhaps a higher percentage of Southern Militia may have had a slight bit more of experience than some Northern militia but not others, and by no means did Southern Militia outnumber theri northern counterparts simply because the North had a larger population.

Many Kansan, Iowan, Minnestotan, Wisconsonian and even Michiganian troops from the western UP had some experience in dealing with the Lakota, Osage, Chippewa, Kansas, etc. etc. Indians in those Frontier States, either as homesteaders, in local posses and/or Militia.

I think the oldest Militia unit in the USA was/is from Massachusetts, an Arty. Company I think it is that formed in the late 1600's, but it could be Virginia, I read this some time ago and just ran across it the other day.

Chris



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 8:47:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
I think the oldest Militia unit in the USA was/is from Massachusetts, an Arty. Company I think it is that formed in the late 1600's, but it could be Virginia, I read this some time ago and just ran across it the other day.


I read somewhere that Europeans think a hundred miles is a long distance, while Americans think a hundred years is a long time. The school I went to in England was founded in 1604, before the voyage of the Mayflower.



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/16/2007 9:00:30 PM)

It is funny you mention the above Jonathan.  My friend in Sweden often tells me that he has pissed in bathrooms older than my country.  I have always found that amusing.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/17/2007 1:06:55 AM)

I spent four and a half years in Sweden once, but I don't think I encountered any of those bathrooms.



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/19/2007 6:50:18 AM)

There are indeed lavoratories in the USA that are also older than the USA, and I am not referring to the outside green Latrine, but inside the building latrines.

Urinating on walls in Europe can be habitual.

Chris



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.75