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

regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:12:14 PM)

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.



Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:23:19 PM)

I think the point that Jim is making, and one I agree with, is that the game doesn't seem well though out as far as making the balnce between various things work.

You can build/conscript infantry, but cavalry is too "expensive", artillery is too "expensive" and ships are too "expensive". The Union Navy efectively doubled in size in the first year of the war. How could one manage that in the current game?

This is not a question of game balance, per se. But a question of whether the game "matches up" with the time frame it is gaming. Right now, it does not. It would appear that the next patch will adress the naval issue at least. That is good to know.

one thing that is interesting to note is that the blockade was effective even without full coverage by the US Navy. Simply the threat of having your ship and goods siezed killed most international trade with the South, since most shippers were unwilling to risk their fortunes on such an endeavor...especially when there was plenty of money to be amde shipping goods to and from the North anyway!



Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:30:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
It was a game design decision. The designers chose to build a balanced strategy game instead of an historical wargame.


The game designers decided to make the "default" settings such that they would approximate history while providing a balanced game. The game itself is full of historical research and historical decisions, as well as historical options that are in the player's control to adjust.

For example, the European Diplomacy option. There's nothing wrong with turning that off if you think it's too much of a drain on the economy as designed. Historically, there were possibilities, but it ended up being a sideshow and turning off the option make sure it ends up that way.

Behind the scenes, we're working based on feedback to address some issues players find ahistorical or at least bending history a bit too far. However, what confuses me is that most players don't seem to change the settings much and explore the variety of gameplay that can be achieved by that.

quote:

As it is, in my above post where I had tweaked the settings so high, I could have steamrolled the south anytime I wished since the game is designed to be a balanced test and any weight given to one side or the other simply skews game balance.


The question also becomes, what would a game vs. a Human look like? I believe that a Union player can come pretty darn close to doing what the Union did historically against the AI, even with the AI in some cases playing smarter than the Confederacy did. Against a human, with settings designed to skew against a balanced game and more towards a painfully realistic game, I still think a CSA opponent would not be that easily steamrollered. Keep in mind what the Union did manage to achieve in 1862 and 1863 and I think the results would be fairly close. Of course, there's only one way to find out... :-)

Regards,

- Erik



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:32:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.


Artillery batteries were 6 guns and 155 men therefore a 3000 man brigade would average out to 116 guns. A few less once you factor in command staff at the battatlion and brigade level.



Jim D Burns -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:36:14 PM)

Currently it takes far too long to build a sizable army up to actual wartime levels due to the high cost of units. I'd say reduce costs by a factor of 10 at least and triple upkeep costs or something. By tripling the upkeep you limit the size of player’s armies in relation to what their economy can sustain.

As to regularbirds artillery argument, I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If artillery was causing casualties equal to what 300 pieces would have been expected to do then I'd say ok, but they do about as much damage as 12-20 guns would be expected to do so in my mind they represent 12-20 guns. Either tweak damage way up or reduce costs so players can outfit their divisions/corps/armies properly.

Jim



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:37:35 PM)

Ok, that sounds about right. With that agreed upon what was the largest amount of pieces brought together during a battle of the ACW. If memory serves me right it was at Gettysburg and it was in the ball park of 200 pieces. Which means that 2x arty brigades per army in this game would be about on the money, right? Just curious.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:38:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union. Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.



This is from what I asked SARGE. "Spring of 1862 was a really busy time for the Union IRL. Farragut taking New Orleans (with Butler's occupation force following), Pope siezing the Mississippi Forts and Memphis, Grant and Foote opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers at Henry and Donaldson while Buell marched his army on Nashville through Kentucky. That's over 150,000 men involved in some active operation in the West. And in the East between Burnside on the Carolina Coast and Fremont in the Allegheny's, you also have Banks in the Valley, Wool at Fortress Monroe, and "Little Mac's" massive Army of the Potomac around Washington----over 200,000 men ready to go into "action". My question is "Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?"


"Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths. "


To me this looks like an admission that the basic scenarios are "way out of whack"... Aren't you saying that to get an historically accurate start up Jim Burns was asking about, you have to "jack up the Union considerably" while "heavily handicapping" the South? Sure sounds that way...





regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:41:53 PM)

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.



Jim D Burns -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:46:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.


Well Pickett's charge lasted about 30 min to an hour and I'd say they lost much higher numbers than that to each Union artillery brigade firing at them. The union had on average 6 guns to a battery and 3-4 batteries to a brigade/regiment if my memory serves. That's a lot of lead flying at those troops as they crossed that field.

Jim



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 8:47:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.


Very uncommon.



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:02:34 PM)

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?



jimwinsor -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:11:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

...



Yeah, but this question is moving the goal posts. The original question lacked the "...against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish" clause.

Hard Sarge quite convincingly answered the original question "yes."

And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.



jimwinsor -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:16:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.


Artillery batteries were 6 guns and 155 men therefore a 3000 man brigade would average out to 116 guns. A few less once you factor in command staff at the battatlion and brigade level.


Actually I would half that number of guns to about 50 or so. Why? Because an Arty Bde in this game costs 1 manpower to build, as opposed to 2 for Inf and Cav Bdes. Hence I think it's fair to say there is only 1500 men in this unit, hence about 50 guns. FWIW.



Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:19:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

...



Yeah, but this question is moving the goal posts. The original question lacked the "...against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish" clause.

Hard Sarge quite convincingly answered the original question "yes."

That isn't moving the goal posts, it is establishing them where they belong to begin with. Sarge proving that he could accomplish something against the AI doesn't prove that the game makes it possible against a human player. The inability to supply via sea is a pretty major oversight, for example.
quote:



And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.


Well, lets be fair here. There were quite a lot of shots fired at Forts Jackson and...I forget the name of the other one.

The assumption was that they would protect the city. It wasn't taken without a fight, the fight just happened down the river a bit. To achieve true "historical indecision" the game should make it provisionally possible to actually protect a river with forts - something that most considered accurate in the early days of the war.

Which I have always thought would be interesting. Farragut proved that forts, by and large, could not deny a fleet passage. But before he proved it, the assupmption was that they could. Wouldn't it be interesting to play a game where the basic physical realities of what works is unknown at the start? Kind of like hidden generals ratings, but instead hidden combat engine settings...

Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...



Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:20:06 PM)

I will grant the artillery Brigade, BUT try and build up your Infantry, Cavalry and navy all at the same time AND provide an approximate mix of Artillery attributed Brigades to represent the Actually Union forces. Ohh and try to arm them with anything other than blunderbusses.

Dont forget while doing this you need to find the money to build about 20 Acadamies, research facilities, armories just to arm, train and have the ranked generals you should have.

While doing all that see whats left to bribe the Europeans not to join the Confederacy and to manage ANY upgrade to your other economies.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:22:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka
hmm... I thought I've purchased a game (which btw I enjoy as it is) and not just a tool to feed the illusion of a perpetual history recreation


The issue is that it's supposed to be a game of the American Civil War. The fact that you enjoy it is of some interest, but it's irrelevant to this particular issue. Maybe you enjoy Tetris too, but Tetris isn't marketed as a game of the American Civil War and so it doesn't attract this kind of historical criticism.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:27:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.


As I understand it, the Confederacy believed that its forts and 'torpedoes' would protect New Orleans from attack from the sea. That was wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Farragut tested the belief and found it wrong, good for him. If he'd been wrong, he might have gone down with his ships.



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:27:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?


The artillery in the civil war was grouped into battalions not brigades.



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:29:53 PM)

I am certain that you can MOD the cost if infantry, calvary and artillery.  I myself am not in love with the economic system, it definatley needs some tweaking. 



Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:32:31 PM)

The problem with moding the costs is then you have to go mod the research upgrades as well, and then you have to ADD population, you have to add economy, add more and more, all basic guess work for those of us that didnt do "exhaustive" research on the period in question based on the game engine capabilities.



Twotribes -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:34:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.


As I understand it, the Confederacy believed that its forts and 'torpedoes' would protect New Orleans from attack from the sea. That was wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Farragut tested the belief and found it wrong, good for him. If he'd been wrong, he might have gone down with his ships.


Didnt Farragut have his Flagship sunk under him? I know at least one main naval Combatent ( as I recall) went down due to "Torpedoes".



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:38:24 PM)

OK, where there 1 Batt per division or one Battalion per corp, or 1 Battalion per brigade? I am just trying to see if the number of pieces will break down with some historical accuracy. I am guessing that a Corp would have a brigade worth of Arty. Which I guess now would be around 80 pieces, right?



jimwinsor -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:38:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Well, lets be fair here. There were quite a lot of shots fired at Forts Jackson and...I forget the name of the other one.

The assumption was that they would protect the city. It wasn't taken without a fight, the fight just happened down the river a bit. To achieve true "historical indecision" the game should make it provisionally possible to actually protect a river with forts - something that most considered accurate in the early days of the war.

Which I have always thought would be interesting. Farragut proved that forts, by and large, could not deny a fleet passage. But before he proved it, the assupmption was that they could. Wouldn't it be interesting to play a game where the basic physical realities of what works is unknown at the start? Kind of like hidden generals ratings, but instead hidden combat engine settings...

Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...


You could always simulate this by playing the game w/o reading the rulebook first... [:D]



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:39:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?


The artillery in the civil war was grouped into battalions not brigades.


I seem to be partly wrong. The confederates called them battalions and the Union seemed to call them brigades but they were much smaller than the artillery units in FoF.



Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:43:01 PM)

The fact is, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that while the designers chose a default balance for game purposes, they included a ton of options to make it possible to tailor your own game _without_ modding. In addition to that, the first update and the next one will help with player requests in the area of fleets and generals, among other things.

What's preventing people who want a more realistic imbalance from setting the following provided in-game settings? No modding required, these are official game options:

Note that this is how I would set them if trying to set the balance to "painfully realistic" for the South, this is not an official endorsement for these as being the perfect combination for those who want the best historical results, but I know the designers included these options so that you could use them.

Start with Advanced Game Settings
Union +3 Power
Confederate -3 Power
Richer Economy ON
Population Modifiers OFF
European Diplomacy OFF
CSA Emancipation OFF
Randomized Stats OFF
Hidden Stats OFF (these last two are OFF only so that the generalship each side starts with is largely historical)
More Generals ON

Give that a try and let me know how it works for you. I think the next update will also add some nice changes for those who are looking for maximum historicity and with the above settings, I'd be very surprised if a historical outcome was not achievable in terms of Union military progress.

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:44:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...


I can only begin to imagine the feedback such a game design would create...



Berkut -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:47:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...


I can only begin to imagine the feedback such a game design would create...



LOL, no kidding!



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 9:48:42 PM)

Eric I have used the power setting quite frequently and the problem is that it effects any new buildings as well. For example If I build a new RR station I only get 3RR pts, or 2 research pts out of a research facility. I am currently trying to mod a scenario that starts the south out with very little but lets me build to a known quantity. But I agree with mike why not make the start point historically and let the power settings be for players who dont care for the historical scenarios.



chris0827 -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 10:12:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

OK, where there 1 Batt per division or one Battalion per corp, or 1 Battalion per brigade? I am just trying to see if the number of pieces will break down with some historical accuracy. I am guessing that a Corp would have a brigade worth of Arty. Which I guess now would be around 80 pieces, right?


At Gettysburg the confederates had an artillery battalion for each division plus one for each corps. The union had a brigade per corps and a large 5 brigade artillery reserve. I don't have the number of cannon but the union brigades on average were probably stronger than the confederate battalions since the union usually had 6 gun batteries and the confederates 4 gun batteries.



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/3/2007 10:32:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

...

one thing that is interesting to note is that the blockade was effective even without full coverage by the US Navy. Simply the threat of having your ship and goods siezed killed most international trade with the South, since most shippers were unwilling to risk their fortunes on such an endeavor...especially when there was plenty of money to be amde shipping goods to and from the North anyway!



You are either forgetting or ignoring blockade runners. From Battle Cry of Freedom on blockade runners:

"They shipped out half a million bales of cotton and brought in a million pairs of shoes, half a million rifles, a thousand tons of gunpowder, several hundred cannon, and so on."

That sounds like quite a bit of trade to me.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7021484