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

Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/5/2007 3:42:46 PM)

Twotribes,

Yes, that was a bug that is corrected in the beta patch I'm playing, which is why in my case it retreated back to Maryland.

Regards,

- Erik



Feltan -> RE: The historical test (1/5/2007 6:12:18 PM)

Erik,

I used those settings as a test a while ago. With the current early 1861 scenario I was able to win as the Union.

What concerned be somewhat, is that when I switched sides, the South as human player was able to kick the Union's butt without much of a problem on the same settings.

Have you tried these setting playing as the South?

I suspect that while the settings are important, and I agree with you that they are, the tipping point might be the new beta scenario you are testing/playing.

Regards,
Feltan



Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/5/2007 7:37:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why is it that when the Union attacks into Fredricksberg and loses it retreats to Fort Monroe, sealing it off from further retreat and supply? It has happened to me everry time I have attacked into Fredricksburg and lost AND others have reported the same results.



That's because Fortress Monroe is in the wrong place and not considered a port. IRL it was the support/covering base for all Union moves against Richmond made from the Penninsula, as it could be re-supplied and reinforced from the sea. The game has it stuck off in the countryside and isolated from turn one.



rook749 -> RE: The historical test (1/5/2007 7:54:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Erik,

I used those settings as a test a while ago. With the current early 1861 scenario I was able to win as the Union.

What concerned be somewhat, is that when I switched sides, the South as human player was able to kick the Union's butt without much of a problem on the same settings.

Have you tried these setting playing as the South?

I suspect that while the settings are important, and I agree with you that they are, the tipping point might be the new beta scenario you are testing/playing.

Regards,
Feltan

I agree the retreat changes as well as the new scenario will help resolve a lot of the current issues.

I also wanted to make two quick observations on things that seem to hamper the AI.

* Containers – its seems that in a lot of games the AI was not building any containers but after watching it closely for several games it seems that AI always builds Division containers, sometimes Corps Containers and almost never Army containers (have seen the Union build one but never the CSA). I think this might be a barracks building issue with the AI and not a container building problem. What does everyone else think, or am I just out in left field?

* Forts – the AI could use some tweaking on when/where to build forts. In every game I have played as the CSA – when the Union takes Fredericksburg it will at some point march south without leaving either a fort or a division to hold its lines of retreat and can easily have the army cut off and destroyed. While it never builds a fort in the Shenandoah or Fredericksburg to keep its lines of supply open it will build tons of forts else where to protect its territory rather than advancing. I think the Union AI would do much better if it built less forts (saving money and resources) but built them in more key areas.

Rook




jimwinsor -> RE: The historical test (1/5/2007 9:04:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why is it that when the Union attacks into Fredricksberg and loses it retreats to Fort Monroe, sealing it off from further retreat and supply? It has happened to me everry time I have attacked into Fredricksburg and lost AND others have reported the same results.



That's because Fortress Monroe is in the wrong place and not considered a port. IRL it was the support/covering base for all Union moves against Richmond made from the Penninsula, as it could be re-supplied and reinforced from the sea. The game has it stuck off in the countryside and isolated from turn one.



The position of forts in a province is an aesthetic issue only. Even if Ft. Monroe was graphically located on the coast, it would not have impacted the supply situation of any army in the province. Forts, by design, don't do that sort of thing.

And even if a fort were considered a port...even that would not have mattered in the area of supply. IIRC, Sea Supply works the same for all coastal provinces, port or no port.



spruce -> RE: The historical test (1/5/2007 9:06:15 PM)

thread hi-jack = I'm planning to start a new game this evening ... is the new patch due today or not ?



Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/6/2007 12:27:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
The position of forts in a province is an aesthetic issue only. Even if Ft. Monroe was graphically located on the coast, it would not have impacted the supply situation of any army in the province. Forts, by design, don't do that sort of thing.

And even if a fort were considered a port...even that would not have mattered in the area of supply. IIRC, Sea Supply works the same for all coastal provinces, port or no port.




That's basically my complaint Jim. There was exactly ONE DAY during the entire ACW when the South had any chance of impacting the flow of troops, supplies, or anything else in and out of Fortress Monroe. That was the Virginia's "one brief shining hour" before the Monitor arrived. In the game it's just an unsupported fort in the middle of nowhere instead of the base which made McClellan's Penninsula "follies" possible. It's like the Eads Shipyard (where the Union's first river ironclad were built)not being present in St. Louis..., or the Forts of New York all being missing. Historical problems that can't be corrected with a +2 here and a -1 there, because they are built into the system.



Icelandair -> RE: The historical test (1/6/2007 1:22:24 AM)

About the positioning of the fort, what about a few new provinces in VA?  You could split Fredericksburg into the Wilderness maybe in the south and Manassas in the North?  It seems strange that the whole VA theater of operations is consolidated into one hex.



regularbird -> RE: The historical test (1/6/2007 2:20:47 AM)

The Fred province most definately needs broken into 2.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The historical test (1/6/2007 2:21:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icelandair

About the positioning of the fort, what about a few new provinces in VA?  You could split Fredericksburg into the Wilderness maybe in the south and Manassas in the North?  It seems strange that the whole VA theater of operations is consolidated into one hex.



The map certainly isn't drawn the way I would have done it either..., but I don't know if there is any chance of changes in that area.



jimwinsor -> RE: The historical test (1/6/2007 3:50:48 AM)

Yeah my general impression of such things is that redrawing maps and the recoding of such is pretty involved.



Bearcat2 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 5:06:04 PM)

I have now played this game 10 times as the union and 10 times as the confederacy; I have a few questions or observations; I generally like playing the south to see if I could change history.

1. I thought the treatment of generals was fine with a minor irritation, shouldn't the generals be linked to the amry/corp/division containers, rather to academies?  If you have an army/corp/division,you would have a commander.
2. Rebel navy at the start?  where did that come from?
3. South had better equipped soldiers than the north?  This was news to me, I was always under the mistaken impression that the north was better equipped, thanks for clearing up that wrong impression.
4. Based on this game, the north in the real war, had one of the most outstanding victories in tha annals of military history; how they were able to conquer the south amazes me; based on this game, I wonder why there is even a USA today and not a CSA. the south fighting for survival? playing as the south; it is the north fighting for survival.
5 title name- Forge of Freedom -the American Civil War 1861-1865 - after playing this game, not sure they got the title right- maybe the War of Sourthern Independence -how the South really won the  Civil War.



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 6:01:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

I have now played this game 10 times as the union and 10 times as the confederacy; I have a few questions or observations; I generally like playing the south to see if I could change history.

1. I thought the treatment of generals was fine with a minor irritation, shouldn't the generals be linked to the amry/corp/division containers, rather to academies? If you have an army/corp/division,you would have a commander.
2. Rebel navy at the start? where did that come from?
3. South had better equipped soldiers than the north? This was news to me, I was always under the mistaken impression that the north was better equipped, thanks for clearing up that wrong impression.
4. Based on this game, the north in the real war, had one of the most outstanding victories in tha annals of military history; how they were able to conquer the south amazes me; based on this game, I wonder why there is even a USA today and not a CSA. the south fighting for survival? playing as the south; it is the north fighting for survival.
5 title name- Forge of Freedom -the American Civil War 1861-1865 - after playing this game, not sure they got the title right- maybe the War of Sourthern Independence -how the South really won the Civil War.



Nothing new here... [>:]



Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 6:41:46 PM)

Termite,

If you find the South too strong on the default settings, did you avail yourself of the in-game options provided to adjust that?

Regards,

- Erik



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 6:52:36 PM)

Having the right settings help. I also leave the power settings at 0 for both Presidents. i seem to have a fairly realistic game in this aspect at the moment.

Chris



Bearcat2 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 8:42:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Termite,

If you find the South too strong on the default settings, did you avail yourself of the in-game options provided to adjust that?

Regards,

- Erik


I have changed the settings, but I think you are missing my point, at the default settings; the game is a southern fantasy. I like playing the south to see if I could change history, but what disadvantages at the default setting does the south have to overcome to win? All the disadvantage are with the north, your leaders suck, ok; can't move your troops because of it, which is ok cause you really don't want to get in a battle with an adversary who has better leaders, morale, skill, guns, bigger tactical units, artillery and cavalry.



Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 8:52:57 PM)

I find it HARD to believe you ever know what you are talking about Sir, I ran the game and won as the Union in 1862, all you have to do is use what you got, the Union side is very easy to play

I will say, you should play the Union different then you play the CSA, but that should be expected

the West is a peice of cake, Kentucky/Tenn is easy, you just have to work at it, the hassle is the East and the ANV, but once you take out the other two areas, you can loop around behind them and take them out


but since you say you have played 10 games as the Union and 10 games as the CSA, I am sure you should know all of this already





Bearcat2 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 9:22:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

I find it HARD to believe you ever know what you are talking about Sir, I ran the game and won as the Union in 1862, all you have to do is use what you got, the Union side is very easy to play

I will say, you should play the Union different then you play the CSA, but that should be expected

the West is a peice of cake, Kentucky/Tenn is easy, you just have to work at it, the hassle is the East and the ANV, but once you take out the other two areas, you can loop around behind them and take them out


but since you say you have played 10 games as the Union and 10 games as the CSA, I am sure you should know all of this already





I may indeed not know what I am talking about, if you won as the union in 1862 at the default setting; I take my hat off to you and your excellent play. I have only been playing wargames since hex Gettysburg, so maybe alzheimers has set in and I am experiencing halluncinations. I can only conclude that when playing both sides, that it was easier for me as the south to conquer[not win- CONQUER] the north, than the other way around. Yes I can advance on the Mississippi[well if my troops feel inclined to follow my orders and actually move] especially when the major southern army is vacationing in Wheeling[ they must like coal] Yes I have figured out how to siege multiple forts at the same time.




Erik Rutins -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 9:29:47 PM)

Termite,

I think both sides are winnable with the default settings, but they do have different play styles. You're not the first player to say that the South is too strong at the default settings, but we've also had folks posting who've had trouble winning as the South, so there is a broader spectrum here.

With that said, we've been pointing out that the default game was intended to be "balanced" and possible to win for both sides, but not easy for either. Hard Sarge is basically the best of the Beta Tester players and can win handily with either side, but his skill level with this game is far above the average and way above my own. Nevertheless, take a look at the posts I made earlier in this thread for suggestions on settings that will give you a more historical balance.

In providing all the options to tailor the game, our intention was to allow a broad range of balances outside the default to be possible. It's really a "choose your own balance" game based on what you want, what suits your play style, what options you find interesting, etc. In this way it's somewhat unique in its ability to be customized in this way.

For that reason, I encourage folks who don't like the default setting to realize that this was not meant to be a "defaults only" gameplay experience. It was intended from the get go to allow you to customize it to get the game you want to play. We might consider adjusting the defaults in time, but no player is in any way tied to having to play with the default settings and I would imagine most will want to change them after a few games.

The last five games I've played, I think only two have been with the exact same options.

Regards,

- Erik



Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 9:33:58 PM)

Deflaut ? no, I think it would more advanced, CSA on +2 power, most of the bells and whisles turned on

I would normally go for a more slow appoach, but the way was open to try out a tactic I been thinking about, the AI give me the chance and I took it

Hex G ? would that be the AH one (think there were 2, one was early and simple, but the 2nd one was good)





Hard Sarge -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 9:42:26 PM)

Roger Erik
that is why I have been trying to stay our of these posts

questions and troubles, I am good at replying to now, play balance or bais I am not good at, as I do not see it, or believe it

plus if I am able to do something, I think everybody can do it (which to be honest, they can, they just do not know it yet:)



Bearcat2 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 9:50:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Deflaut ? no, I think it would more advanced, CSA on +2 power, most of the bells and whisles turned on

I would normally go for a more slow appoach, but the way was open to try out a tactic I been thinking about, the AI give me the chance and I took it

Hex G ? would that be the AH one (think there were 2, one was early and simple, but the 2nd one was good)


The original was hex, brigades; the square version, divisions; was the most numerous. I may be missing something that was obvious to the playtesters, Generally speaking, any tips? muster/conscription percentages? economic expansion priorities? Generals utilization?







TheHellPatrol -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 9:53:07 PM)

It's too easy to win as the Union and it's too easy to win as the CSA.
It's too hard to win as the Union and it's too hard to win as the CSA.
[X(]
What do these two sentences have in common?
SETTINGS
"Give the people what they want"...that's what WCS did and maybe they'll regret it.
There are not only three different settings: Basic, Intermediate & Advanced, but each one can be tweaked. For those of you who stayed awake in Math during High School and College do you recall a thing called "exponentials"? That is all it is...math. You CAN play the game as you want it very hard - very easy but you CAN'T expect the game to adjust automatically to your skill level or historial replica of a given battle at a given time.



Bearcat2 -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 10:14:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

It's too easy to win as the Union and it's too easy to win as the CSA.
It's too hard to win as the Union and it's too hard to win as the CSA.
[X(]
What do these two sentences have in common?
SETTINGS
"Give the people what they want"...that's what WCS did and maybe they'll regret it.
There are not only three different settings: Basic, Intermediate & Advanced, but each one can be tweaked. For those of you who stayed awake in Math during High School and College do you recall a thing called "exponentials"? That is all it is...math. You CAN play the game as you want it very hard - very easy but you CAN'T expect the game to adjust automatically to your skill level or historial replica of a given battle at a given time.


I am not sure this is directed at me, but I will tell you I expect the default settings to reflect generally the situation as it existed, with settings to adjust from that. I do not expect them to reflect my skill level, nor do I expect battles to come out as they did historically; but I would disappointed in a game where the north armies are armed with pitchforks and the South army with repeating rifles. The major draw of a game on the Civil War for me, is for it to give a flavor of the time period with the advantages and disadvantages of the actual war. The Confederate navy, for ex; belongs to a what if setting, not the default. This may seem to be inconsequential, but it detracts from the civil war experience.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: The historical test (1/7/2007 10:59:04 PM)

@Termite@2
No, i wasn't directed at anyone[:)]...just my 2 cents after experimenting with the myriad of options. Damn hard job to figure out what to choose but at least i have the choice. The CSA Navy...that's another thing, "What-If" sounds like a great idea[8D].



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 10:57:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2
I expect the default settings to reflect generally the situation as it existed, with settings to adjust from that ... The major draw of a game on the Civil War for me, is for it to give a flavor of the time period with the advantages and disadvantages of the actual war.


I agree with you, and I think a number of other people here have already said much the same thing.

A game like this is a bit like a historical novel: customers want to be able to believe in it while they're experiencing it. If things happened that not only didn't happen in reality, but (in the customer's judgment) wouldn't or couldn't have happened in reality, then the suspension of disbelief collapses.



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 12:51:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2
I expect the default settings to reflect generally the situation as it existed, with settings to adjust from that ...


Why? The designers have said their default settings are meant to provide a more competitive game rather than strictly recreate hsitory. You can adjust the settings to create a more historical game if you like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I agree with you, and I think a number of other people here have already said much the same thing...



A number of people have beat this poor horse to death! [8|]

Edited to clarity.



christof139 -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 1:06:10 PM)

Could have a starting Confed Navy of 1 Gunboat unit at New Orleans or Memphis for the November, 1861 Scenario start. For July, 1861 Scenario start it would be nope, no CSA Navy.

Boats, boats, boats, and all the things that floats, the more boats the more I gloats, and tis more difficult to find my soap amongst all my bathtub boats and floats. [8|]

Don't ask me or wonder why, I just think it's nonscencically hilarious.

Chris



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 2:44:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2
I expect the default settings to reflect generally the situation as it existed, with settings to adjust from that ...


Why? The designers have said their default settings are meant to provide a more competitive game rather than strictly recreate hsitory. You can adjust the settings to create a more historical game if you like.


People expect that because it's a reasonable thing to expect. The game is entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865".

If it were entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War Readjusted To Give The South More Clout", then purchasers would have different expectations.

If the game could be made historically accurate just by changing a setting, this would be only a minor quibble (though still a valid complaint in principle). In fact it's rather more complicated than that. But Western Civ seems to be taking the problem seriously and I hope that future patches will bring improvements. The game seems good enough to be worth improving.



elmo3 -> RE: The historical test (1/8/2007 3:39:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

People expect that because it's a reasonable thing to expect. The game is entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865".

If it were entitled "Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War Readjusted To Give The South More Clout", then purchasers would have different expectations.

If the game could be made historically accurate just by changing a setting, this would be only a minor quibble (though still a valid complaint in principle). In fact it's rather more complicated than that. But Western Civ seems to be taking the problem seriously and I hope that future patches will bring improvements. The game seems good enough to be worth improving.


I see no deception in the title as you do. It's a game about the Civil War. Guess we'll see if the next patch brings what people are clamoring ofr. Be careful what you wish for though. If they truly provide an accuarate simulation then it should be unwinnable for the South. They had no chance really.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.3125