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

*Lava* -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:29:32 PM)
Hmm.. I knew a thread like this would appear about the game... There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it. So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore. When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people. Ray (alias Lava)

regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:36:11 PM)
Lava, not sure I agree with your premise. Was there anyone in 1861 that did not know what the Anaconda Plan was? Heck, The press gave it its name.

*Lava* -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:45:39 PM)
Okay try this.. Where would you put this guy.. Appointed to the military academy, he found it distasteful and hoped that Congress would abolish the institution, freeing him. He excelled only in horsemanship for that he had displayed a capability early in life and graduated in 1843, 2lst out of 39 graduates. Posted to the 4th Infantry, since there were no vacancies in the dragoons, he served as regimental quartermaster during most of the Mexican War. Nonetheless he frequently led a company in combat under Zachary Taylor in northern Mexico. He came to greatly admire his chief but was transferred with his regiment to Winfield Scott's army operating from the coast. He received brevets for Molino del Rey and Chapultepec. With the resumption of peace he was for a time stationed in Mexico, a country which he came to admire greatly, and then was posted to the West coast. Separated from his wife, he tried numerous business ventures to raise enough capital to bring her to the coast but proved singularly unsuccessful. On July 31, 1854, he resigned his captaincy amid rumors of heavy drinking and warnings of possible disciplinary action by his post commander. His return to civilian life proved unsuccessful. Farming on his father-inlaw's land was a failure, as was the real estate business and attempts to gain engineering and clerk posts in St. Louis. He finally became a clerk in a family leather goods store in Galena, which was run by his two younger brothers. Before he had been there long the Civil War broke out. Offering his services to the War Department and to General George B. McClellan in Ohio, he met with no success in gaining an appointment. http://www.civilwarhome.com/grantbio.htm Given that knowledge, I wouldn't appoint him either. But I'm sure as soon as his name pops up, because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE most would make him an army commander. Ray (alias Lava)

regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:49:50 PM)
That is why I play random-hidden leadership traits. Next question please.

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:50:30 PM)
A game about a historical event SHOULD have as a base the REALITY of that event. From there one allows for "balance".

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 3:57:10 PM)
"Offering his services to the War Department and to General George B. McClellan in Ohio, he met with no success in gaining an appointment." If "Little Mac" turned him down I'd make him General of the Armies just on the principle that McClellan was a moral coward and that anyone he didn't like was probably a fighter.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 4:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: elmo3 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. Dyer's Compendium of the War of Rebellion. A much better source than wikipedia

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 5:19:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Hmm.. I knew a thread like this would appear about the game... There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it. So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore. When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people. Ray (alias Lava) That's exactly my point.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 5:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people. Please read how I defined the historical test at the start of this thread. Why should passing that test make the game any worse? Why should failing that test make the game any better? No-one is suggesting that games should follow the historical path. I'm only suggesting that the game should permit the historical path to be followed, if both players choose to do so. You're right that hindsight (and being able to play the game over and over again) may and indeed should enable us to improve on the strategies originally followed. That's fine, it's surely why many people play the game. I merely point out that, if the game doesn't permit the original strategies to be followed (with all the original blunders), there must be something wrong with it as a simulation. And if it isn't a simulation, what's the point of labelling it as a game of the American Civil War? In what sense is it a game of the American Civil War? If it's just a game with Civil War flavour, like icecream with whisky flavour, to hell with that, I'm not interested. Give me a bottle of whisky. How can you say that you've improved on the original strategies if the game doesn't honestly represent the original situation?

Feltan -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 6:26:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Hmm.. I knew a thread like this would appear about the game... There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it. So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore. When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people. Ray (alias Lava) Having pre-knowledge is a challenge, but not a show stopper. If one simply wants to abandon history --- fine --- just advertise the game as "Civil War Fantasy" and add anything you want. I suspect some of the people who are Confederate cheerleaders would be happy to have panzer divisions -- and would see nothing wrong with it in the name of a good "game." Regards, Feltan

LitFuel -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 6:51:39 PM)
Let's face it historically anal dudes...you will never...ever... be happy no matter what the "game" makers do..you really won't. You know it , we know it...you have forgotten how to have fun and are stuck playing out history over and over in your heads. You want a movie where you already know the ending..or with little variation as possible. Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea...they never can win....just like the south if you have your way...lol. [:D]

regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 8:22:39 PM)
LitFuel, please do not take this the wrong way but your post sucks. My guess is if you took a little time to learn about the history of the ACW you may actualy appreciate us HISTORICALLY ANAL DUDES, Dude.

Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 8:27:34 PM)
Lit, posts like yours contribute nothing to the discussion. Casting those who do not agree with you into a position they would vehemently disavow is cheap and childish.

chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 8:39:56 PM)
I haven't seen a single post by someone saying the South shouldn't be able to win. What forum are you reading?

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 8:42:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LitFuel Let's face it historically anal dudes...you will never...ever... be happy no matter what the "game" makers do..you really won't. You know it , we know it...you have forgotten how to have fun and are stuck playing out history over and over in your heads. You want a movie where you already know the ending..or with little variation as possible. Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea...they never can win....just like the south if you have your way...lol. [:D] There are a couple of serious points in this farrago of nonsense. 1. Will we ever be completely satisfied with the historical accuracy of a game? Answer: no, but we may be reasonably satisfied. Nothing is ever perfect, but some things can be good enough. 2. "Why developers want to bother with these hassles I have no idea..." Well, I'm afraid if you set out to make a game out of a piece of history, you can expect criticism of it as a game, and criticism of it as history. It's true that a lot of criticism tends to surface on a forum like this; some of it is petty and shouldn't be taken too seriously. However, any game developer who doesn't accept historical criticism should stick to making abstract games that don't claim to be based on history.

Roger Neilson II -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 9:16:23 PM)
Ok, so would you buy a game about tactical warfare in WW2.... lets say Steel Panthers style where the Sherman was upgunned and armoured to be able to take on the Tiger and Panther? Or perhaps where the Germans were not allowed to have 88s because it wasn't fair...... Or how about a naval game of the period where the Kriegsmarine had an equivalent number of warships to the Royal Navy so that it balanced it up? The fun comes from using the instruments available to the commanders in the right way to overcome the other side - at its most basic its scissors, paper,stone..... a game of stone/stone would be pretty boring..... If you want a pure game where things are 'balanced' then perhaps you should be buying 'Starfleet Empires of the Galaxy Rangers' or 'Starship Marines of Alpha Centauri.' Don't rip into people who want a historical simulation.......... and don't fling mud at what has been to date an erudite debate (in the main) Roger

Roger Neilson II -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 9:22:27 PM)
Almost off topic...... Great moments from films..... 1. In The Battle of the Bulge where two sets of Patton tanks charge each other across a wasteland - hey fun! 2. In Cross of Iron, where the German Infantry squad all get transported inside a Hetzer tank destroyer..... 3. In 'Under the Stars and Bars' where John Wayne, dressed in a very similar manner to Nelson breaks the Yankee line with a tugboat towing 100 barges full of several divisions of crack SAS trained CSA troops to land in New York.... Yes, I must admit I made the last one up! Roger

christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 9:54:36 PM)
quote: Great moments from films..... 1. In The Battle of the Bulge where two sets of Patton tanks charge each other across a wasteland - hey fun! 2. In Cross of Iron, where the German Infantry squad all get transported inside a Hetzer tank destroyer..... 3. In 'Under the Stars and Bars' where John Wayne, dressed in a very similar manner to Nelson breaks the Yankee line with a tugboat towing 100 barges full of several divisions of crack SAS trained CSA troops to land in New York.... I saw number 3 several times and 1 and 2, but 3 more recently in 'Return of The King movie #3' at Osgiliath those barges and crack(ed) troops were seen. Yup. I just drink coffee now, and an occasional tea, as you can for the reasons see. [&:] This is due to a fewm time local magistrate and me behind the wheel type of deal. At least I told him in more words or less that he and certain laws were an idiot and idiotic respectively. I had to pay but I sure told him anyway, don't know if he quite understood me but he seemed upset and confused so that wa OK. I once belonged to the opposite of MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, that is DAMM, Drunks Against Mad Mothers with Alfred E. Newman or Newman of Mad Magazine as the Pres. Overall, looking back over the last decade or so coherently now, I can say it was worth the enjoyment of seeing the lunatic's expression, and he was removed twice by the State from the Judgeship, and the second time permanently and ordered to see a shrink, so my attorney and I were right afterall, he was nuts and rude to too many people and it caught up with His Lordship the Pseudo Judge Bean West of the Pecos, except he hung himself and Judge Bean didn't hang himself just other people. Big difference so I guess Judge Bean and myself and attorney were smarter and right afterall. The Judge somehow reminded me of this one Colonel long ago, but the Colonel was more humane and understanding having some decent humor or humour in the Frenchisized English. Yeah, you have to have some historical accuracies and balance, if not you get bedlam and something that won't sell and may not be challenging. If I want something not challenging I just solo play as usual, because at least I always win and can have things my own selfish way, but I am still bounded by the historical constraints of the game. If too unrealistic and non-historical then it's just a mess, bedlam, a non-seller. Chris [>:]

Thresh -> RE: The historical test (1/2/2007 11:15:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Hmm.. I knew a thread like this would appear about the game... There are many problems with simulating a grand strategy game that a designer must face. The greatest problem is that the players have PRE-KNOWLEDGE of how the war was fought. For example, is there ANYBODY posting on this thread that doesn't know what The Anaconda Plan was? Doubt it. Sure, I know what it is. Can I as a Union player implement it in this game? No. Why not? If FoF claims to be a Civil War game then I should be able to emulate one of the key componenets of the war that helped me, as a Northern player win it. Heck, if as a souhtern player I have the option to do the one thing Jefferson Davis never truly considered in Emancipation, then why is a blockade so hard? quote: So because of PRE-KNOWLEDGE the designer is faced with a major decision: design a SIMULATION which travels the strictly historic path (can you say "not fun") or a GAME which offers a more balanced strategic situation with different avenues for the the players to explore. Travelling a set path is indeed boring. Thats why games that force a conclusion no matter what you do die out quickly. I don;t think FoF is one of those games. I don't mind "What If's" myself, I think its always a bit of fun to see if I can do better. However, currently IMO, you cannot do so as a Union player. quote: When it comes to strategic games about historic wars, they will always fail "The historical test," that is, if the designers want to sell it to more than a handfull of people. My opinion is that in order for it to be a viable game, you have to have a reasonable chance to produce a reasonably historically accurate outcome. If that's possible, then thats a good starting point for a game. To me, That means as a Southern Player, I could do better than they did historically, hold of the Union longer, survive longer, and maybe due to my briallinace on the battlefield Lincoln will lose the election in 64 and I'll win. That means as a Northern Player I can do better managing my forces, and force the south to capitulate sooner. At this point, IMO, the first is to easily done, elections not withstanding. Thresh

Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 12:18:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thresh 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. well, again, for the top, I said I never tried for NO, so I not sure if it is accurate or not lets see, how is late March of 62 for you [image]local://upfiles/1438/76C79B2A8D384CCC81FBA8D8DB38594B.jpg[/image]

Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 12:30:46 AM)
Does this include cutting the Mississippi? I see a LOT of RED on that map.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 12:32:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge well, again, for the top, I said I never tried for NO, so I not sure if it is accurate or not lets see, how is late March of 62 for you [image]local://upfiles/1438/76C79B2A8D384CCC81FBA8D8DB38594B.jpg[/image] SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us.

spruce -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 12:35:12 AM)
well this thread needs a reality check. How on earth can you check if both parties are taking a historical path ... and what is considered to be historical or unhistorical? And what is considered to be good long term vision and what is considered to be poor long term vision? If the boundary conditions are changing - why chose historical decisions in a game with altered boundary conditions. Let me give an example ... If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place)�- is that historical or unhistorical ?�Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets in the late half of the game and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition for building blockade runners is totally different ... Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters that drove the CSA in that particular game to build ironclads ... should I have said no to building ironclads ? For sure not - if the CSA in those days would have had this kind of option, they perhaps also would have choosen to build some ironclads to break the blockade ... I agree with the premise of this thread - but it's a rethorical question I must say due to the fact that the boundary conditions are not predictable and the variables in the bigger picture will always decide otherwise. For sure I wouldn't conclude that this experiment should be used to decide on how to tweak or balance the game. I'm in favour of having one scenario with 100% genuine historical starting setup (the whole picture), but I can't agree on the last line about tweaking and balancing. It's like Einsteins theorema of the unlimited amount of parallell worlds that exist due to the unlimited amount of variancy of all stuff. In one of those parallell worlds, this game never was made and I'm just happy that the guys of WCS made it all right [:)].

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 12:47:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spruce well this thread needs a reality check. Let me give an example ... If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place)�- is that historical or unhistorical ?�Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition is totally different. Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters. But you also got five "Ships" and two "Fleet Counters" that are totally a-historic. Given that. building a fleet makes perfect sense.

spruce -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 12:52:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: spruce well this thread needs a reality check. Let me give an example ... If I play CSA and I build extra blockade runners early in the game (with little blockade in place)�- is that historical or unhistorical ?�Is that good long term vision or what ? Well in my game I chased the Union fleets and broke the blockade ... the boundary condition is totally different. Why did I build that extra navy - cause I was lucky to get ironclad program and good naval techs from the UK ... all random parameters. But you also got five "Ships" and two "Fleet Counters" that are totally a-historic. Given that. building a fleet makes perfect sense. I see your point - and I support to tweak those numbers - but I was so happy the UK helped me out on naval techs and I was lucky to get ironclad program. I was dying to use those ironclads against the Union. Those ships from the game start had little impact on my naval victory - it was the fact I was able to build new ironclads all together. I also must say that general Jackson was responsable for these ironclads. Jacksons corps had mauled 3 smaller Union armies so badly, that the Union retreated and left me alone for a long period of time ... My brigades all had good weapons upgrade, so I went for the ironclads that I could afford to pay for ... Like I said - variables and variancy is important here ... If Jacksons victory (some stroke of luck) wouldn't have been there - the Union would have invaded the Carolina's and those ironclads would have been a dream in the minds of the Confederacy. other imbalancings things for the moment, and the CSA gets a good deal out of the current setup = - camps, - gun pick up, - blockade runners are too successfull I must say, - Southern Economy is a bit too easy to "boost" upwards, should be more difficult, - emancipation act for both sides

Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 4:24:20 AM)
quote: SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us. Mike that was normal seige combat I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected

jimwinsor -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 4:44:11 AM)
I'd wager Hard Sarge could have taken NO even quicker had it been practically undefended, as it was historically. But as you can all see, he took it ahead of schedule, against what seems to have been ahistorically stiffer opposition!

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 5:02:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge quote: SARGE? Was this achieved using the "Detailed Combat System"? Or the "Quick Combat System"? We all know that you are the "world's expert" at the "CoG-type Detailed Combat System"..., so it would be nice if you were using the "Quick Combat System" for scenario testing to face problems more like the rest of us. Mike that was normal seige combat I didn't do anything fancy, other then make sure I had my seige guns with me and added in some eng's to be honest, I do not think I could of won a ATTACK the fort or city with the Union that early in the game I said before, I have never tried to take NO before, but the statement was made it couldn't be done, by the time the Union did take it, and in fact, I think it could be taken soon, I had two hangs ups during the path,but pretty much, with everything working, March is about as early as you are going to take it, and I would say, April or May may be to be expected I understood that New Orleans was taken with normal siege combat...., what I meant was were you using the "Detailed Combat System" in that GAME? Your "expertise" with "detailed combat" means you can confidently expect to pull out victories that a player using "quick combat" (practicing for PBEM) can't hope to win normally. It gives you a "freedom of action" that those less skilled or not using Detailed Combat can't emulate. That was what I was asking.

Queeg -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 5:12:24 AM)
These are all interesting comments, and I really don't have much of a disagreement on the various historical points that have been made. And this type of discussion is one that always follows close on the heels of any new game - and, frankly, the better the game, usually the more lively the discussion. My concern, here and with other games, is this: Computer logic tends to be linear - the biggest number tends to win. Couple that with 20/20 hindsight and the bloodless detachment that comes from playing a game, and you end up with a near-impenetrable force field of certainty that distorts historical reality. History never follows in lock-step with the numbers and offers no reset button. Indeed - and this is the source of my acknowledged Southern bias - what makes the ACW so universally appealing is that it so wonderfully didn't play out by the numbers. If it had, I sincerely doubt that anyone would be making a game about it today. Not many Shay's Rebellion blockbusters out there, after all. I agree that the current set up probably favors the South too heavily and probably would endorse most of the points spruce made. But I do resist the notion that the answer lies wholly, or even mostly, in the numbers. Indeed, simply modeling the ledgers is the easy way out. Far better, I think, to build a game that captures the fog of uncertainty that bedeviled our ancestors, within the bounds of historical plausibility. I'm sure that Lincoln would have dearly loved to have the sense of certainty that simple reliance on the numbers would have afforded. Then again, had it played out strictly by the numbers in real life, we wouldn't still be writing books about him.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 5:52:17 AM)
"My concern, here and with other games, is this: Computer logic tends to be linear - the biggest number tends to win. Couple that with 20/20 hindsight and the bloodless detachment that comes from playing a game, and you end up with a near-impenetrable force field of certainty that distorts historical reality." This is why the designers included such factors as "troop quality" and "Leadership" and "suprise" and such in the equasion. But even now such "miracles" as Chancellorsville should not be pre-ordained---just look at all the oddities that had to take place in the right order for Lee's 60-odd thousand to "beat" Hooker's 130+ thousand. Even then, most Northern officers and men felt that it was Hooker who'd been beat.., not them. The system needs to guarantee the "possibility" of a Chancellorsville..., but not it's certainty.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8598633