RE: The historical test

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

Thresh -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 6:21:08 PM)
But somehow, playing a Union that is severely hamstrung in several issues of gameplay on even the neutral setting is a "game"? I'm just not seeing that. On the harder levels, I would think it challenging to try and recreate the copurse of the war as a Union player. YMMV of course. Thresh quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes? On ANY level of play? So the Union player should achieve near historical results on ANY settings? I guess I just don't see the "game" in that.

Thresh -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 6:25:03 PM)
Well Sarge, two out of three isn't bad, but it's not accurate either, is it? I've yet to see or read an AAR of all three of those happening in the same game where the computer fights the battles. Lord knows I've tried to do it almost every game I've played as the Union, and I've only been able to take Memphis and Nashville, but Never New Orleans. Must be some "trick" I am missing. Thresh quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh Queeg, Any settings you want. Heres three main goals that the Union achieved In April 1862, they took New Orleans. didn't bother, I went after the ANV instead In June 1862, they took Memphis. Done it In February, 1862, they took Nashville. Done it I wasn't the Union tester, I was bored while waiting on the next patch, so give the Union a try Now, IMO I should, on any level of play, come close to achieving those results in game, maybe not exactly on those dates, but within a month or two would be reasonable, yes? Now, mind you historically they took New Orleans and New Orleans pretty much without firing a shot. That can't happen in game unless your opponenet or the computer is quite dumb. Thresh quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh Ultimately, this can be solved with one simple test: Play a game as the Union and come as close as possible to recreating the progress of the war as it happened. There are certain events that happened historically that are almost impossible to do in game currently, at least IMO. At what settings? Impossible under all difficulty and power settings? I doubt anyone can say that with any certainty.

Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 7:06:57 PM)
Well, as I said, I didn't bother to try, the goal was the ANV, I cut the CSA in half and crippled all the troops in the West, so the rest of the "land" area was not importent to me, the only thing that was importent was the last CSA Army, so that is where I went

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 7:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh But somehow, playing a Union that is severely hamstrung in several issues of gameplay on even the neutral setting is a "game"? Of course it is. The current game set up provides a roughly balanced challenge to either side. I have no problem with a designer opting for a balanced game as the base - a game that is challenging for the most people. Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 9:13:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it. I think you're missing the point here. Those of us who would like a game about the American Civil War are not merely interested in getting 'the historical imbalance' right. That's a relatively minor issue. We're interested in getting everything right. You could get 'the historical imbalance' right by playing a game of chess with one side handicapped by a pawn or two; but it would have nothing to do with the American Civil War. Getting the historical imbalance right merely by manipulating the game balance controls solves nothing.

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 10:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it. I think you're missing the point here. Those of us who would like a game about the American Civil War are not merely interested in getting 'the historical imbalance' right. That's a relatively minor issue. We're interested in getting everything right. You could get 'the historical imbalance' right by playing a game of chess with one side handicapped by a pawn or two; but it would have nothing to do with the American Civil War. Getting the historical imbalance right merely by manipulating the game balance controls solves nothing. Saying you want "everything" to be "right" isn't particularly instructive. (You sound like my wife. [:D]) If by that you mean tweaking the generals that are available, or removing the Southern navy, or tweaking the initial Army/Corps set up, or tweaking the precise numbers used to calculate battle losses or attrition or disease, or revising the start up buildings in certain provinces - I probably would agree with you there. But if you're suggesting that there is some sort of universal law of game design that dictates that an ACW game is flawed unless the North wins 9 times out of 10 in the base game, then I'll just disagree. As I said several posts ago, there are two equally reasonable ways to go here: You can adopt a base model that achieves the historical result 9 out of 10 times and add options to tweak toward a more balanced game. Or you can adopt a balanced model that presents roughly equal challenges to both sides and add options to tweak toward a more historical set up. The former has the merit of historical fidelity - assuming, of course, any consensus can be reached about exactly what that means in game terms. The latter has the merit of offering a balanced, competitive game from both sides. I have no problem with a game designer opting for the latter choice - actually makes good sense to me in terms of providing the most enjoyment to the most people. And I still suggest that most of the folks who are complaining here have never even tried the setting adjustments already in the game and thus have no idea how the game would play with some tweaking. How does the Union fare with a full power shift to its advantage, or with a full power disadvantage against the South, or both? I haven't seen anyone post those results. Though I have seen plenty of folks who have had no difficulty winning as the Union, even in the base game.

Thresh -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 10:54:45 PM)
Queeg, If you beleive the game as it is right now is balanced....what do you think would make it unbalanced? From my POV, the "neutral setting" should be the one that best allows the player to recreate what happened with a certain degree of historical accuracy. Is that what the present setting accomplishes? Thresh quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh But somehow, playing a Union that is severely hamstrung in several issues of gameplay on even the neutral setting is a "game"? Of course it is. The current game set up provides a roughly balanced challenge to either side. I have no problem with a designer opting for a balanced game as the base - a game that is challenging for the most people. Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it.

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/1/2007 11:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh Queeg, If you beleive the game as it is right now is balanced....what do you think would make it unbalanced? From my POV, the "neutral setting" should be the one that best allows the player to recreate what happened with a certain degree of historical accuracy. Is that what the present setting accomplishes? Thresh The current base game is balanced in the sense that it provides a roughly equal challenge to each side. Either side can win with skill and perseverance. This setting probably provides the most game for the most people. Is it historical? Depends on your definition. It certainly does not reflect the overwhelming advantages that the North had on paper. But, of course, those paper advantages didn't translate especially well to the battlefield once the shooting started. So the truly historical setting, from the Northern perspective, is one of enormous potential largely unrealized. That, historically, is what actually happened. So how do you model that? One way, probably the easiest, would be just to give the North all of its overwhelming advantages and disregard the fact that, in reality, they were never completely or efficiently utilized. Then you could hide behind the claim that you made the game as "realistic" as possible. A few - very few - people would like that. Another, more difficult, way is to try and model the factors that prevented the North from ever bringing its full weight to bear. That's a tall task, however. But, I think, the best one as a matter of both historical fidelity and game play. The designers here have tried to do the latter. The current set up probably favors the South too heavily as a matter of history but works well in terms of balanced game play. The power settings probably can redress much of that imbalance - assuming someone ever bothers to try them. The American Civil War fought very differently in real life than it should have on paper - a fact for which later generations of historians, authors and gamers have been eternally grateful.

Feltan -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 12:26:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg Again, I'll ask for about the tenth time now, are we certain that one cannot recreate much of the historical imbalance you want simply by manipulating the power and difficulty settings? Seems to me that the game you want is there. You just need to go play it. I searched and fiddled with setting trying to find this, and I don't believe it is there. My last attempt had the Union at +3 power and the South at -1. You could win as the North, but not enough $$$ to build a Navy. You could win as the South too, rather easily. I concur with what was said above; the base settings should be the designers best attempt at historical reality -- with the options to make it easier/harder spreading out from that point. The game aspects are fine as far as I am concerned. The software is solid. The problem is that it has little to do with how the Civil War was actually fought at a strategic or tactical level. That might not be an issue for you, but it is a deal breaker for me. I am looking forward to the upcoming patch with much anticipation. Regards, Feltan

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 12:27:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg Saying you want "everything" to be "right" isn't particularly instructive. I meant simply that, as this is supposed to be a game about the American Civil War, the elements included in it should match the equivalent elements in reality. For instance, if the game includes statistics on the population or industrial production of a state, then those figures should correspond to the historical figures. Similarly, because it's an ACW game, it should feature infantry, cavalry, and artillery; it shouldn't feature tanks, dive bombers, or nuclear missiles. A game doesn't have to represent all elements that were present in the actual war -- it's enough to represent elements that were strategically important. But whatever elements are included in the game should be correct: you should be able to look at something in the game and say, "Yes, that's present because it was present in reality, and it has that value because it had that value in reality." Of course the decisions of the player may alter certain values, so the designer has to make a judgment about how far the values could plausibly be altered by such decisions.

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 2:03:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey I meant simply that, as this is supposed to be a game about the American Civil War, the elements included in it should match the equivalent elements in reality. For instance, if the game includes statistics on the population or industrial production of a state, then those figures should correspond to the historical figures. Here is where I think we part company. To model the full disparity in Union and Confederate resources down to the last horseshoe is to give the Union an advantage that it never fully brought to bear in the war. To take but one example, the Union had a population four times that of the Confederacy (non-slave population), yet the Union army never enlisted four times the number of soldiers. To model numbers alone, without regard to whether those numbers ever actually materialized in the war as it was fought in real life, is neither "realistic" nor "historical." quote: Similarly, because it's an ACW game, it should feature infantry, cavalry, and artillery; it shouldn't feature tanks, dive bombers, or nuclear missiles. OK I'll concede this one. You can remove the Confederate Air Force from my wish list. [:D]

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 2:11:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan I concur with what was said above; the base settings should be the designers best attempt at historical reality -- with the options to make it easier/harder spreading out from that point. And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen. There is, of course, a compromise to be made here, and reasonable minds can differ in the details. But modeling "historical reality" requires more than simply modeling the numbers.

Ironclad -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 2:24:52 AM)
Thats true the Union recruited only double the number of men that the Confederacy did (not sure the game reflects that). However the residue remained available as a sizeable labour force no doubt helping to boost the Northern economy in a way that the South couldn't match with most of its white male manpower of military age under arms. In a real sense the North could have "guns and butter" and therefore had available a range of options and scale of resources which does need to be reflected in the play balance.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 2:42:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ironclad Thats true the Union recruited only double the number of men that the Confederacy did (not sure the game reflects that). However the residue remained available as a sizeable labour force no doubt helping to boost the Northern economy in a way that the South couldn't match with most of its white male manpower of military age under arms. In a real sense the North could have "guns and butter" and therefore had available a range of options and scale of resources which does need to be reflected in the play balance. About 2,750,000 men served in the union army compared to about 1,000,000 in the confederate army. At the time of Lee's surrender the North had about 1,000,000 men under arms compared to about 100,000 for the south.

Ironclad -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 2:54:16 AM)
Thanks. I recalled the figures as 900,000 for the Confederacy and 2 million (or 2.2?) for the Union but haven't checked them. Towards the end the South did suffer massive desertion which combined with non-replacement of heavy battle losses did increase the discepancy.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 2:56:57 AM)
You can get the exact union figures here. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/troops_furnished_losses.html Many confederate records were lost so the best you can do is take an educated guess.

elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 About 2,750,000 men served in the union army ... 2,200,000 according to the Civil War Wiki.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 4:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 About 2,750,000 men served in the union army ... 2,200,000 according to the Civil War Wiki. And we all know if Wikipedia says it then it must be true.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 4:58:46 AM)
"And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen." And "what actually did happen" is that the South Lost. Do you want that "fact of historical reality" hardcoded into the game as well? You can't have it both ways...

Joram -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 5:52:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II I think in an unbalanced historical situation like this we have to redefine what we mean by win or lose. I've said that many times but you need a wargamer to write the computer game. Not a computer programmer to write a wargame. [;)]

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 6:23:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl "And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen." And "what actually did happen" is that the South Lost. Do you want that "fact of historical reality" hardcoded into the game as well? You can't have it both ways... I do like how he seems to argue that the South should have the possibility to do what it didnt do historically BUT the North should not. )

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 6:51:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl "And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen." And "what actually did happen" is that the South Lost. Do you want that "fact of historical reality" hardcoded into the game as well? You can't have it both ways... Are you interested in a serious discussion or not? If not, I'll gladly move on. Of course, I'm not for hard-coding the outcome - either way. We've been discussing what is the most reasonable set up for the base game in terms of balance. And I'm simply saying that it ignores too much of history to merely model the numbers - to say, for example, that since the North had four times the population, it should be able to build four times the number of troops. That is an overly simplistic view of both the ACW and what should be simulated in the game. I think the designers here have tried to model some of the factors that served to constrain the North in real life. Some are explicitly modeled. Others are abstracted or implied. While I don't dispute that many of the details could stand some tweaking, I applaud the fact that the designers have tried to model both the numbers and the intangibles. Again, it would have been far easier for the designers to have simply copied accounting ledgers without regard to the subtleties of what actually occurred and why.

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 6:59:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joram quote: ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II I think in an unbalanced historical situation like this we have to redefine what we mean by win or lose. I've said that many times but you need a wargamer to write the computer game. Not a computer programmer to write a wargame. [;)] And yet, I'm glad the computer folks try.

Feltan -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 7:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan I concur with what was said above; the base settings should be the designers best attempt at historical reality -- with the options to make it easier/harder spreading out from that point. And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen. There is, of course, a compromise to be made here, and reasonable minds can differ in the details. But modeling "historical reality" requires more than simply modeling the numbers. I've never argued based solely on numbers. That would be folly. However, I have argued on game outcome(s). No matter how the game is tweaked, within the constraints offerred, there is simply no combination (I have been able to find) that allows anything close to historical outcome. Pick a power setting, and you can win playing as the Union and as the South with the same settings. The naval/blockade portion of the game is badly out of whack; the Southern replacements allow them to hang on forever; seiges are freqently too bloody and take too long, etc. I am not saying it is easy to do, but part of the challenge of designing a game like this is to allow some level of historical reality based on game outcome. I am all for "what if" scenarios, but I would very much like a level-setting game set-up that comes somewhat close to showing historical results. Regards, Feltan

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 7:56:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl "And what "historical reality" is that, exactly? The fact that the Union had overwhelming manpower, industrial, logistical and technological advantages? Or the fact that the Union never fully and efficiently brought those advantages to bear in real life? The former is what could have happened. The latter is what actually did happen." And "what actually did happen" is that the South Lost. Do you want that "fact of historical reality" hardcoded into the game as well? You can't have it both ways... Are you interested in a serious discussion or not? If not, I'll gladly move on. Of course I am. But you are suggesting that because it took the North until the Summer of 1864 to fully make use of their superior numbers and material, the game should "hard code" it's impossibility during the whole war. I mearly "called you" on the "one-sidedness" of your proposition. Of course, I'm not for hard-coding the outcome - either way. We've been discussing what is the most reasonable set up for the base game in terms of balance. And I'm simply saying that it ignores too much of history to merely model the numbers - to say, for example, that since the North had four times the population, it should be able to build four times the number of troops. That is an overly simplistic view of both the ACW and what should be simulated in the game. The South "lucked" into Robert E. Lee..., suppose Joe Johnson hadn't been wounded at Seven Pines? I don't see you proposing the possibility that Lee not be available to the Confederacy. But you seem willing to leave Grant out for most of the game. Suppose he had been brought East instead of Pope? Pope took Island No. 10---Grant took Henry and Donaldson, then managed a "win" at Shiloh. Either could have been the choice. The Game doesn't even have him available as a leader then..., but I don't see you complaining about that.

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 9:57:39 AM)
Actually the game already HAS a mechanism to restrict the North from recruiting every available able bodied man. If you strip your cities of population you lose production. Granted it is a feature that can be turned off, but the point is the base game COULD have included realistic population numbers with production being effected at a level based on historical recruitment. What it has now is a population used to enforce a SMALLER army on both sides. And if one pays attention to what is being said in the suggestions for "improvements" there is a move afoot to even more severely restrict armies by tieing replacements to that shrunken population. Add to that the fact that the designers assume that every person that ever gets sick dies, tied to an inability to provide medical coverage to an army in enemy territory and you can quickly melt away the non exsistant manpower advantage the North ( doesnt have in the game) has since IT not the South MUST go on the Offensive in order to win. You can argue till your blue in the face BUT the reality is the base game gives TOO much to the South. Or takes to much away from the North. Your pick. The economy is no were near historical, once again, the only clear advantage given in the stock game goes to the SOUTH not the North. Add in the freebies from European Countries randomly slipping tons of goods through the non exsistant blockade and the very real possibility that both France and England will attack the US and the base game is closer to fantasy then reality. The biggest glaring, obvious , problem is of course the Naval situation. Within a year ( 18 months max) the US had an effective blockade of all Southern Ports as well as was siezing some from the sea. That is IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate in the base game. Add to that the starting Union Navy is weaponless and that the South, which had no real blue water Navy, has 50 ships to the US's 90 and you have a MAJOR disconnect with the REAL world. On the ground side, the South is free to raise ( within the already limited population) troops and strip garrisons from States that REFUSED to allow any such actions and you argue that the North shouldnt be able to do the same? Again there is in the game a mechanism for controlling the free use of large armies. Rather than limit the population unrealisticly , use the Governors to demand garrisons based on troops raised from that State. Remove those Garrisons and suffer the Consequences from disgruntled State Governors hampering the war effort. Reread what you have argued. You have demanded that the South be free to do what if till the cows come home BUT the North should be prevented from even getting what it had historicaly.

von Beanie -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 10:51:24 AM)
I have already given up on this game for now because the "standard" scenario doesn't come close to representing the real situation faced by either side in the actual Civil War. To salvage the game I'm sure hoping that the next patch begins to correct the major issues. The Union can't come close to recreating the historical campaigns in the western theatre, and the eastern theatre is usually static. I agree with the earlier post that the default advanced game highly favors the South. And it doesn't matter whether you play the AI or another human (I've tried both). I'm wondering how many of the people who mention what a good game this is have played the Union and tried to accomplish what the Union actually accomplished on the historic timeline? (I simply don't believe that Hard Sarge, or anyone else, could consistently conquer Forts Henry, Donelson and take Nashville in Feb 1862 against a competent human opponent in the standard November scenario, much less take New Orleans.) I really think that the problem stems from releasing the game too early. What this game really needed was another round of playtesting by veteran gamers AND people knowledgeable about the war. Unfortunately, Matrixgames standard operating method appears to be to release a game first, and then worry about revising it based on the players' forum comments. I don't buy a game with the expectation of having to wait for periodic updates before the game becomes a reasonable simulation (if it is marketed as one). That's why I stopped buying Sierra games in the 1990s after being burnt a couple of times, and now Sid Meier is starting to do the same thing! Perhaps Matrixgames should consider adding a second round of playtesting where dozens of people really interesting in the game topic could pay them $100 to receive a beta version and help revise the game BEFORE it's official release (this might solve their cashflow problem and quiet the forum posters that can't wait for the release). That way, those of us who would prefer to purchase a good, finished product could do so after most of the improvements have been completed. As it stands, I am so frustrated with this supposed simulation game that I will delay my next purchase until I am confident it is a good product--and that's not really good for anyone.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 12:50:50 PM)
You've directed this reply at me..., though from it's content it certainly looks to be aimed at Queeg. At least I hope it is, because you and I are in almost total aggreement and I'd hate to think my writing was that unclear. quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes Actually the game already HAS a mechanism to restrict the North from recruiting every available able bodied man. If you strip your cities of population you lose production. Granted it is a feature that can be turned off, but the point is the base game COULD have included realistic population numbers with production being effected at a level based on historical recruitment. What it has now is a population used to enforce a SMALLER army on both sides. And if one pays attention to what is being said in the suggestions for "improvements" there is a move afoot to even more severely restrict armies by tieing replacements to that shrunken population. Add to that the fact that the designers assume that every person that ever gets sick dies, tied to an inability to provide medical coverage to an army in enemy territory and you can quickly melt away the non exsistant manpower advantage the North ( doesnt have in the game) has since IT not the South MUST go on the Offensive in order to win. You can argue till your blue in the face BUT the reality is the base game gives TOO much to the South. Or takes to much away from the North. Your pick. The economy is no were near historical, once again, the only clear advantage given in the stock game goes to the SOUTH not the North. Add in the freebies from European Countries randomly slipping tons of goods through the non exsistant blockade and the very real possibility that both France and England will attack the US and the base game is closer to fantasy then reality. The biggest glaring, obvious , problem is of course the Naval situation. Within a year ( 18 months max) the US had an effective blockade of all Southern Ports as well as was siezing some from the sea. That is IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate in the base game. Add to that the starting Union Navy is weaponless and that the South, which had no real blue water Navy, has 50 ships to the US's 90 and you have a MAJOR disconnect with the REAL world. On the ground side, the South is free to raise ( within the already limited population) troops and strip garrisons from States that REFUSED to allow any such actions and you argue that the North shouldnt be able to do the same? Again there is in the game a mechanism for controlling the free use of large armies. Rather than limit the population unrealisticly , use the Governors to demand garrisons based on troops raised from that State. Remove those Garrisons and suffer the Consequences from disgruntled State Governors hampering the war effort. Reread what you have argued. You have demanded that the South be free to do what if till the cows come home BUT the North should be prevented from even getting what it had historicaly.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 1:10:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg Here is where I think we part company. To model the full disparity in Union and Confederate resources down to the last horseshoe is to give the Union an advantage that it never fully brought to bear in the war. To take but one example, the Union had a population four times that of the Confederacy (non-slave population), yet the Union army never enlisted four times the number of soldiers. To model numbers alone, without regard to whether those numbers ever actually materialized in the war as it was fought in real life, is neither "realistic" nor "historical." The game should include the historical population figures, and either prevent the USA from recruiting a high proportion of its population, or (better) give the US player a good reason not to do so. In fact, the upkeep costs and the reduced manpower for industry might tend to discourage very high recruitment anyway. If that's not enough, some other factor should be added (such as unrest...). quote: ORIGINAL: Queeg You can remove the Confederate Air Force from my wish list. [:D] You can have a few balloons if you like. [:)]

elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 1:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 About 2,750,000 men served in the union army ... 2,200,000 according to the Civil War Wiki. And we all know if Wikipedia says it then it must be true. Not necessarily, but at least I quoted my source. A lot of people have thrown out numbers in many threads here without doing that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.78125