Fleets and the Mississippi (Full Version)

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



Message

ABridgeTooFar -> Fleets and the Mississippi (1/17/2007 7:33:21 PM)

Does anyone bother to blockade the southern ports with the Union's Navy? It just seems very expensive to build your navy up so that you have three ships blockading every river and city port.

Also, last night my union army finished their "March to Mardi Gras" by capturing New Orleans. They travelled all the way down from Kentucky capturing foods and the river provinces along the way. They did not receive the bonus (kind remember if it was NW or VP) that the Union receives for owning the entire Mississippi River. Is this a bug or am I missing something?



Twotribes -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/17/2007 8:22:12 PM)

Have you actually captured all the RIVER provinces of the Mississippi, or did you just take the land ones?



decaturkev -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 3:02:06 AM)

I wish the CSA could get a bonus for occupying the Ohio River provinces.



Gil R. -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 3:44:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

I wish the CSA could get a bonus for occupying the Ohio River provinces.


Please explain. Is this based on something historical that I'm not remembering?

As for costs of ships and fleet containers, I believe that we're lowering that in the patch. In the meantime, it's possible to lower costs yourself by modifying one of the datafiles.



decaturkev -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 3:57:52 AM)

Of course it is not historical, the Confederacy had liitle influence on the Ohio River, unlike the Mississippi. However, neither is my game when I bring Illionois and Missouri into the Confederacy. I just thought it would be nice get some bonus on the CSA side.



Twotribes -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 4:34:17 AM)

Hush, your pointing out the "flaws" in the standard scenarios and the choices made to "balance" the game.



decaturkev -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 4:38:56 AM)

But that is one of the endearing "enhancements " of the game, not a "flaw".



Twotribes -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 4:43:23 AM)

Absolutely, if one doesnt want to actually fight the real civil war.



chris0827 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 4:50:39 AM)

I think the photon torpedos on the confederate ironclads is a nice touch.



decaturkev -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 5:06:02 AM)

IMO, to replicate history is boring as wargame. Been there and done that with Avalon Hill and SPI. I want "what if" with realistic alternatives for command decisions other than what actually occurred. That is really intriguing to me. Besides, I enjoy "Old Jack" as a full General with an army in the west taking on all comers with Lee doing defense in the East. "Old Pete" would have loved this game! Besides, history is in the past.



ABridgeTooFar -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/18/2007 4:57:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Have you actually captured all the RIVER provinces of the Mississippi, or did you just take the land ones?


I have taken the river provinces only and none of the adjacent land provinces. But I think I read last night that for the bonus I have to have the Mississippi and the port blockade to get the bonus



christof139 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/19/2007 6:23:34 AM)

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why paly waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history.

Chris



Mike Scholl -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/19/2007 7:53:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games. "Within reason.., and within the constraints of the realities of the situation". It's only fun and interesting to take on the role of Robert E Lee if you also take on the same challanges as Lee, with the same problems, strengths, and weaknesses.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why play Waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history. Because "should" doesn't mean "absolutely will". That's the challange..., can you make better or different use of the same resources to change the historical results? But if all you want to do is give Napoleon Tanks or some other rediculous advantage he never enjoyed, then you are not playing Waterloo..., you're playing "Dungeons and Dragons" or some other fantasy. Would Robert E. Lee be thought of as one of the Greatest Commanders America ever produced if the South had had equal resources to the North? Of course not. It was Lee's ability to pull victories from impossibie-looking situations of inferiority that made his reputation.

Chris





Twotribes -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/19/2007 8:50:38 AM)

Yup, the point being, dont call it a game of the "american Civil War" when one must modify files and set the options to off the scale positions to even remotely approximate the actual conditions of the 2 sides.

The base should be " what was" or as close as one can get with a game like this. From THERE one uses the settings and modifies files for the "fantasy land" what ifs.

The war was NOT balanced. One can not call a game "the American Civil War" and have balanced sides. One can provide a scenario that does that within a game, but to make the base that defeats the entire premise of the title and the expectation from most buyers.

One shouldnt have to be a Civil War History buff so that they know what to change to get a "historical" feel for what was the conditions in the war. The designers did the research and should have provided that as a scenario at the offset.

Fortunately they appear to be doing JUST that.



decaturkev -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/20/2007 4:01:11 PM)

IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.



Twotribes -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/20/2007 5:20:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF.


Well except for the oh so minor point that "similiar resources and Political/economic factors" are NOT present unless one IS a history buff and or researches the data available. The game as released CAN provide what you have said, BUT only if the player learns the reality that was present back then, the two basic scenarios are NOT even remotely representative of "similiar resources and Political/economic factors" present during the war in question.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/20/2007 5:22:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: decaturkev

IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.



Then the "truth in advertising" concept should require it to be called "FORGE OF FREEDOM: A bunch of malarky about a theoretically "equal" struggle between the Northern and Southern United States in the 1860's". Calling it "the American Civil War 1861-65" sort of spoils your arguement



General Quarters -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/20/2007 8:00:37 PM)

To me, it gets old seeing the same "it's not historical" game bashing going on, regardless of the topic of the post. The point has been made, and made again, and made again, sometimes with insulting language. The developers have indicated that they are trying to address whatever points they find valid and addressable. We are all by now quite familiar with your point of view. Repeating it over and over doesn't add anything, except boredom. And it lessens the spirit of civility and community and constructive criticism one likes in a forum. I am not trying to silence anyone, but sometimes self-restraint is a virtue.



Twotribes -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/20/2007 8:02:20 PM)

Yup, but the restraint would it appear be expected from only one side of the arguement.



chris0827 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/20/2007 9:42:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

To me, it gets old seeing the same "it's not historical" game bashing going on, regardless of the topic of the post. The point has been made, and made again, and made again, sometimes with insulting language. The developers have indicated that they are trying to address whatever points they find valid and addressable. We are all by now quite familiar with your point of view. Repeating it over and over doesn't add anything, except boredom. And it lessens the spirit of civility and community and constructive criticism one likes in a forum. I am not trying to silence anyone, but sometimes self-restraint is a virtue.


Where was insulting language used? I've only seen it from the anti-historical side.



General Quarters -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/21/2007 6:03:42 AM)

Then let's all try not to repeat the same point over and over.



chris0827 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/21/2007 7:29:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Quarters

Then let's all try not to repeat the same point over and over.


Why not? You do. And who made you the boss of the forum?



Gil R. -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/21/2007 7:45:46 AM)

As someone who is a boss of the forum, if not the boss, I'm not going to take anyone's side here, but I WILL state that if someone makes a good point well it only needs to be made once to receive serious consideration from those of us on the development team. The upcoming patch will be full of changes made not because people browbeat certain points into us, but because they were made effectively a single time.

That patch will also have a more historical scenario based on just that sort of browbeating -- a point that I and others have been trying to browbeat into visitors to this forum. So discussing that issue is superfluous for the time being, unless someone wants to respond to my earlier appeals for specific suggestions on what that scenario should have and not have.



chris0827 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/21/2007 8:30:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

As someone who is a boss of the forum, if not the boss, I'm not going to take anyone's side here, but I WILL state that if someone makes a good point well it only needs to be made once to receive serious consideration from those of us on the development team. The upcoming patch will be full of changes made not because people browbeat certain points into us, but because they were made effectively a single time.

That patch will also have a more historical scenario based on just that sort of browbeating -- a point that I and others have been trying to browbeat into visitors to this forum. So discussing that issue is superfluous for the time being, unless someone wants to respond to my earlier appeals for specific suggestions on what that scenario should have and not have.



How about telling us what changes are being made in the historical scenario so we don't annoy you by bringing it up again.



Gil R. -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/21/2007 11:08:49 PM)

There's a meeting this Tuesday night to start firming up our plans for the unbalanced scenario (as well as the CSA navy). We'll try to give you guys an update then. But we're certainly moving ahead with this clearly-needed change.



christof139 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/27/2007 10:19:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

Yeah, you hit it right on the head. With a historical game played by us now and not the real thing back then, that is what makes it fun and interesting, to be able to alter history a bit within reason, and that is the purpose of historical basec games.

MS:"Within reason.., and within the constraints of the realities of the situation". It's only fun and interesting to take on the role of Robert E Lee if you also take on the same challanges as Lee, with the same problems, strengths, and weaknesses.

Why play 2nd Punic War games if there isn't a chance of various Carthaginian commanders winning battles and even the war itself?? Why play Waterloo and other battles in that campaign if there isn't a chance that Nappy and the French can win?? Why play any WWII campaign games if the Allies always should ultimately win as they did in history.

MS: Because "should" doesn't mean "absolutely will". That's the challange..., can you make better or different use of the same resources to change the historical results? But if all you want to do is give Napoleon Tanks or some other rediculous advantage he never enjoyed, then you are not playing Waterloo..., you're playing "Dungeons and Dragons" or some other fantasy. Would Robert E. Lee be thought of as one of the Greatest Commanders America ever produced if the South had had equal resources to the North? Of course not. It was Lee's ability to pull victories from impossibie-looking situations of inferiority that made his reputation.

Chris :quote:end

Yes MS, I do believe that is what I stated and the points that I made. I agree. You seem not to comprehend what I wrote.

Chris




christof139 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/27/2007 10:29:33 AM)

IMO, the "American Civil War" is simply the theme behind FOF. FOF does not advertise itself as a "simulation" of historic events. In fact, I have not been able to duplicate the actual history of the conflict thusfar. For me, the most intriguing aspect of the FOF design is the opportunity to make decsions differently than were done by historic persona in the past ,given similar resources and political/ecomnomic factors. This is the great appeal of FOF. If I want a history lesson on the War Between the States, I would not start with entertainment software.

_____________________________

Private, CSA
Norfolk Light Artillery Blues
-----------------------------------------

Too many Uber Weapons such as too many repeating rifles and Gatling Gun type weapons and the silly Med. Attachment/upgrade are a bit too much. Baloons were rarely used and from what I have read only in 1862 in the East, so that is a bit of Victorian Sci-Fi, although von Zepplin was impressed and motivated by what little he saw of them being used. Super Subs are also a bit too much.

There are other aspects of the game that are good and fun. I had a near historical game going by using the settings to constrain economics and supply etc.

In Nov., 1861 the South could have a river flotilla in either New Orleans or Memphis, and that would be historic.

There has to be some historical constarint with the ACW or Victorian Sci-Fi takes over.

Chris



Gil R. -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/27/2007 11:24:27 AM)

christof139,
Please use the forum's quotation system properly, or else put quoted text into italics, so that we can easily figure out which parts of your posts are by you, and which are quoted.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/27/2007 3:32:51 PM)

Alot of negitive stuff in the forums here lately-gamers, moderates, matrix team. I really don't understand why. If everyone will remember the same stuff went on with some people liking witp others not happy with it. As for chris I really don't see why that bothers anyone so much. With price tag on this game we have every right to love it or hate it. I see no problem with people voicing their opinion on the forums with in reason, especially after they spend $60.00.

The only reason I bring that up(the price) is that it seems once they have bought the game they have made a commitment to it, wether it be good or bad. The game was not a gift it was paid for.[:)] Let the man write. Besides I get bored once in awhile and it makes for good reading.[:D]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

christof139,
Please use the forum's quotation system properly, or else put quoted text into italics, so that we can easily figure out which parts of your posts are by you, and which are quoted.





ABridgeTooFar -> RE: Fleets and the Mississippi (1/27/2007 10:05:10 PM)

Titanwarrior:  I agree with free speech and every consumer should be able to voice their comments.  I just think that some posters should show courtesy and respect in their delivery.  There is an old Irish saying that goes, "You can tell someone to go to hell but make them think they will enjoy their trip to get there."



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875