XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (Full Version)

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



Message

christof139 -> XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/19/2007 3:40:49 PM)

There were only a few, maybe 3 or 4, and one was sold after the war to Ecuador maybe, XX-inch Rodmans that were produced, none saw combat. 15-inch dahlgrens saw combat in Monitors and elsewhere, not many but they did.

The game has this ficticous XX-inch uber weapon, maybe could make it a 15-inch Dahlgren??

Chris



Dasara II -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/19/2007 3:59:46 PM)

I agree on this subject with christof139 and at the very least add a couple more ship guns in between these giants, so that the more common naval guns can be chosen for upgrades.

Maybe the the Union will be able to have a couple XX-inch gun ships in later 1864.



ericbabe -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 12:43:03 AM)

These guns were produced during the war for use in the war.  It's true they were never fired in anger in the war, but, uhm, so what?  Forge of Freedom is a game that allows some things that didn't actually happen in history to happen during the game.  The USS Puritan was built to fire a 20-Inch Dahlgren -- these guns were about to be put into use when the war ended.  I see no reason to exclude them just because they didn't quite make it into the war.




chris0827 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 12:53:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

These guns were produced during the war for use in the war.  It's true they were never fired in anger in the war, but, uhm, so what?  Forge of Freedom is a game that allows some things that didn't actually happen in history to happen during the game.  The USS Puritan was built to fire a 20-Inch Dahlgren -- these guns were about to be put into use when the war ended.  I see no reason to exclude them just because they didn't quite make it into the war.




I don't think anyone would complain if the showed up at the end of the war but you can get them in 1862 now.



General Quarters -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 1:00:44 AM)

I have forgotten whether getting them in 1862 has some prior condition. Is there a research prerequisite? If so, that just means you get them in 62 only if you make that a priority. Would that have been historically impossible?



Twotribes -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:38:04 AM)

If even ONE was available during the war then they are "historical" unless of course you want the designers to research the weapon distributions and ensure that all naval, cavalry, artillery and Infantry units are "appropriately" equipped. Or maybe just a set cap on each time of firearm used.



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 10:15:07 AM)

quote:

These guns were produced during the war for use in the war. It's true they were never fired in anger in the war, but, uhm, so what? Forge of Freedom is a game that allows some things that didn't actually happen in history to happen during the game. The USS Puritan was built to fire a 20-Inch Dahlgren -- these guns were about to be put into use when the war ended. I see no reason to exclude them just because they didn't quite make it into the war.


There were only 3 or 4 or so 20-inch guns made I do believe, not many. The Civil War Arty. page has info on these, I can find the link and post it. Also, I may be thinking of that huge gun that weighed over 100,000 pounds, and of these there were only 3 or 4 made. However, the 20-inch Dahlgren never made it either, and we would have to check to see if these are the same gauns. I'll look tonight and post.

The 15-inch Dahlgren was the biggest gun used in quantity, then 8, 10 and 12-inch Old and New and Rodman Columbiads and the 9 and 11-inch Dahlgrens. The Rodman was a Columbiad, although some Dahlgrens may have been cast using the rodmane process, not sure off-the-top-of-my-head. This info. is all on the inet. and I have some books on the subject. These are the guns that would be historical to use in the game, they, particualrily the 8, 9, 10 and 11-inchers, along with the multitude of 24 and 32 pounders of many models, and both SB and Rifled.

There was a nice, what was was it, a 300pdr. Armstrong at Ft. Fisher, the largest gun that came from Britaind I do believe, and most Armstrongs, Blakelys etc. siege/naval/coastal defense type guns were smaller.

There was the large converted Union Frigate, the USS Roanoke, with 3 turrets that was built, and kept in the navy yard at dock since it couldn't float worth a yahoo, and not even in a slight to mild swell which would cause it to nearly roll-over. Since the roanoke was built and could float somewhat, should that be put into a historical game?? IMHO no it shouldn't.

You see, many people like to keep things a wee bit more historical, otherwise things do get to be Turtledovish and Victorian Sci-Fi like.

Chris




christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 11:41:30 AM)

OK, only 7 total of 20-inch Rodmans and dahlgrens were cast, and none were used in combat in the ACW, although 2 were latter sold to Peru and used by Peru in the war with Chile.

See for yourself. Here are the sources. This is an excellent site, and these people have spent years researching ACW Arty. info.

Not to say I told you so, but I did. [&:]

First the 20-inch Rodman, only 3 cast, and 1 was latter sold to Peru. Pic is 4th from bottom of page here:
http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/rodman.html
20-inch Rodman gun, Model of 1861. Total length, 243.5 inches; weight, 116,497 pounds; total production for U.S. Army Ordnance, 2; known survivors, 2. The first 20-inch Rodman was completed at Fort Pitt Foundry in August 1864 and survives outside Fort Hamilton at Brooklyn NY. The second was cast at Fort Pitt Foundry in 1869 and survives at Fort Hancock NJ. A third was later cast at Fort Pitt Foundry and sold to the government of Peru.
Second, the 20-inch dahlgren, only 4 cast, 1 defective and sold to Peru. The other 3 saw nNO service and were scarpped in 1897.Picture is of the gun in Peru. Pic is second from bottom of page here:
http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/dahlgrens.html
XX-inch Dahlgren. Total length, 216 inches; weight, 97,300 pounds; total production, 4 by Fort Pitt Foundry 1864-67; no survivors. Of the four made, one was not accepted and was sold to Peru. The other three saw no service and were sold for scrap at New York Navy Yard in June 1897. The photograph shows the one purchased by Peru when emplaced at Callao; the gun was inscribed "BEELZEBUB". After being captured by Chile in the "Guerra del Pacifico" (1879-1884), it was taken to Chile where it was last seen in Arica but is no longer there. We hope to determine its present location shortly.
Here is the main Artillery Index page, and this is a great site, as it explains that differences in gun types and models, and gives insight as to just where and how many were cast. the Confeds. cast about 400 8 and 10-inch Columbiads in the war, and some were rifled and banded.

Sincerely, Chris [>:][>:][>:]




christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 11:49:27 AM)

Oops. I forgot the main ACW Arty. Index site address. Here it is:

http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/index.html

And you're quite welcome, Chris [X(][X(][X(][X(]



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 11:54:17 AM)

Oops again. [&:] Here is the Arty. Index by Bore diameter, this is what you want to look at and use. here it is:

http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/bordex.html

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]



Dasara II -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 12:41:33 PM)

Look, I have no problem with the XX inch Dahlgrens, t just that I would have thought that there would have been a few more naval gun upgrade options for your ships.

Remember we are talking about ship upgrades here (I am anyway), even the CSS Virginia (Merrimac) only had IX inch Dahlgrens!

I just find it strange that one of the first options to upgrade you 'ships' in Nov 1861 is the biggest guns that were built in the civil war and that there is not any choices in between. That's all [8D]



Twotribes -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 2:50:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dasara II

Look, I have no problem with the XX inch Dahlgrens, t just that I would have thought that there would have been a few more naval gun upgrade options for your ships.

Remember we are talking about ship upgrades here (I am anyway), even the CSS Virginia (Merrimac) only had IX inch Dahlgrens!

I just find it strange that one of the first options to upgrade you 'ships' in Nov 1861 is the biggest guns that were built in the civil war and that there is not any choices in between. That's all [8D]


Well if you read the blurb for naval improvised they bunched all the guns under that. Naval is at best a secondary thought in this game.



Twotribes -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 2:53:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

OK, only 7 total of 20-inch Rodmans and dahlgrens were cast, and none were used in combat in the ACW, although 2 were latter sold to Peru and used by Peru in the war with Chile.

See for yourself. Here are the sources. This is an excellent site, and these people have spent years researching ACW Arty. info.

Not to say I told you so, but I did. [&:]

First the 20-inch Rodman, only 3 cast, and 1 was latter sold to Peru. Pic is 4th from bottom of page here:
http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/rodman.html
20-inch Rodman gun, Model of 1861. Total length, 243.5 inches; weight, 116,497 pounds; total production for U.S. Army Ordnance, 2; known survivors, 2. The first 20-inch Rodman was completed at Fort Pitt Foundry in August 1864 and survives outside Fort Hamilton at Brooklyn NY. The second was cast at Fort Pitt Foundry in 1869 and survives at Fort Hancock NJ. A third was later cast at Fort Pitt Foundry and sold to the government of Peru.
Second, the 20-inch dahlgren, only 4 cast, 1 defective and sold to Peru. The other 3 saw nNO service and were scarpped in 1897.Picture is of the gun in Peru. Pic is second from bottom of page here:
http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/dahlgrens.html
XX-inch Dahlgren. Total length, 216 inches; weight, 97,300 pounds; total production, 4 by Fort Pitt Foundry 1864-67; no survivors. Of the four made, one was not accepted and was sold to Peru. The other three saw no service and were sold for scrap at New York Navy Yard in June 1897. The photograph shows the one purchased by Peru when emplaced at Callao; the gun was inscribed "BEELZEBUB". After being captured by Chile in the "Guerra del Pacifico" (1879-1884), it was taken to Chile where it was last seen in Arica but is no longer there. We hope to determine its present location shortly.
Here is the main Artillery Index page, and this is a great site, as it explains that differences in gun types and models, and gives insight as to just where and how many were cast. the Confeds. cast about 400 8 and 10-inch Columbiads in the war, and some were rifled and banded.

Sincerely, Chris [>:][>:][>:]





So I assume from this continued insistance that certain weapons not be allowed even though they were made and could have been used ( and made in greater numbers) that the whole weapons upgrade system should just be eliminated. Just let the "historical" weapons appear with the units at the discretion of the AI. There no problem.



Dasara II -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 3:47:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dasara II

Look, I have no problem with the XX inch Dahlgrens, t just that I would have thought that there would have been a few more naval gun upgrade options for your ships.

Remember we are talking about ship upgrades here (I am anyway), even the CSS Virginia (Merrimac) only had IX inch Dahlgrens!

I just find it strange that one of the first options to upgrade you 'ships' in Nov 1861 is the biggest guns that were built in the civil war and that there is not any choices in between. That's all [8D]


Well if you read the blurb for naval improvised they bunched all the guns under that. Naval is at best a secondary thought in this game.


Yes I did read the blurb, but can't a man dream of having more guns to choose from [;)]

O.K. Naval war/theme secondary, totally understand, just thought I would throw a suggestion around. By all means keep all improvements to the land war, I have no problems with that.



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 3:51:06 PM)

quote:

So I assume from this continued insistance that certain weapons not be allowed even though they were made and could have been used ( and made in greater numbers) that the whole weapons upgrade system should just be eliminated. Just let the "historical" weapons appear with the units at the discretion of the AI. There no problem.


Who in the heck are you suppossed be?? It is very unhistorical to have uber weapons in a game that were produced in a total quantity of SEVEN pieces and that were never used in combat. That is Sci-Fi to me.

There were also only about 86 or so 15-inch Dahlgrens produced and used, so those are OK but aren't in the game, and if they were they should historically replace the super uber weapon 20-inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, because I would guess that the grand total production number of 7 of both Dahlgrens and Rodmans have been lumped together. Any weapons that were produced mid to late war, as the 15-inch Dahlgrens were, should require much research etc. before a player can purchase them. Heck, the widely produced and used 9 and 11-inch Dahlgrens aren't even in the game, but instead the game has all 7 of the 20-inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans that were made but NEVER USED IN COMBAT, Very historical. Well over 1,000 9 and 11-inch Dahlgrens were produced AND USED IN COMBAT, yet they aren't in the game. 9 and 11-inch Dahlgrens ARE NOT IMPROVISED WEAPONS, but state-of-the-art heavy and powerful weapons systems.

It would be very easy to change the 20-inch dahlgren to the 15-inch Dahkgren, and add the 9 and 11-inch Dahlgrens. Not one of these large and powerful workhorses burst in the ACW BTW, at least none is recorded to have burst, yet you try to imply that the game's Improvised Waepons Classification includes these splendid and powerful state-of-the-art 9 and 11-inch Dahlgrens. There must be a quirk in your thinking and reasoning processes!!!

Funny, seems you and a few others toot on their horns about having some historically correct aspects of the game when it suits your little narrow-minded thought patterns, but when other people point-out some glaring and important historical errors that give the game a Sci-Fi aspect, then for some reason you begin to preach, as most hypocritical, vain, and narrow-minded people do. What a joke.

You want historical accuracy then you whine about the facts when they are presented.

How old are you. What is your experience with the military, history, life in general?? I have some serious reservations concerning these matters.

I could care less if the Devs change the game or not, but they have made some glaring boo-boos here, and if they or anyone else expects people not to notice these things then I pity them.

If someone tells me I am wrong and shows me the info. to support that, I sure as heck don't whine like a snivellin, coddled, brat about it, and am glad to have been corrected and enlightened about the subject matter.

I guess some little overly egotisitical egos are easily bruised.

Ta, Chris





christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:07:04 PM)

quote:

Well if you read the blurb for naval improvised they bunched all the guns under that. Naval is at best a secondary thought in this game.


I would think that Improvised Naval Weaponry would refer to older 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 32, 42pdr., 8 and 10-inch Old Columbiad SB and Rifled guns, NOT newer, state-of-the-art 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15-inch Dahlgrens, NewColumbiads, and Rodman Columbiads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is constructive criticism, as many others have given here.

How can you state that '... AT BEST Naval is a secondarythoght in thi game.'?? Blockade Running is very important to the South, and helped my game efforts greatly. Also, the threat of and implementation of Northern Amphip. Ops. upon the Southern Coast is a real pain and hassle in the early to mid war period. If the South leaves its coast undefended it will get wallopped fast and lose the game as the north gobbles-up coastal provinces and cities, thereby drastically reducing the Southern economy. That is very secondary?? Uh-huh.

There are errors in the land weapons too, as I and others have pointed-out.

It's OK to generalize to a degree, but it is also possible to have more historical and accurate generalizations. Remeber the Liege Rifle conversation, I stated it was a piece of do-do based on historical knowledge and actually owning one, and the game itself states the Liege is a piece of do-do, yet one of the devs had to say it wasn't and it was another rifle etc., when the game itself stated what I stated!!!

All in all, I think the game is OK, pretty darn good, so what is the problem!??!

Sorry to have a great interest in the ACW and etc., but that is the way it is.

Chris



ABridgeTooFar -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:27:56 PM)

Ugh!  Nothing more than a forum bully.  So only a few uber Dahlgren guns were produced IRL.  This is a game where you can change what happened IRL.  You can have McClellan lead a successful campaign against Lee, the South can actually win the war, the North can choose not to follow the Anaconda plan, and the Union War Department can be directed to produce more uber Dahlgren guns.  To me that seems like alternative history, which is what these games are supposed to create.  Call it sci-fi if you would like but that would not be a proper description.  If a weapon was able to be produced during the war then it should be available to the player.  If the weapon was rarely available IRL then make it more expensive or more difficult to produce.  But that is just my "little narrow-minded thought pattern"



Dasara II -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:28:17 PM)

Well put chrisof139, I do believe that this is a great game and in the end any "criticism" is not aimed at the anyone who helped build this game. It is rather "constructive" talk about how Forge of Freedom can be the best game it can be.

As I have acknowledged before in regards to the navy side of things being secondary in this game, you can not dismiss how important the navy aspect is to the entire strategy of winning the American Civil War.

It's not like someone is suggesting that we absolutely need Detailed Naval Battles, all that is being suggested is a couple more options that is in context the real navy war.

Will not making naval changes make this game worst off - hell no.

Take it or leave it, after all this is a democracy [:)]



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:35:20 PM)

quote:

So I assume from this continued insistance that certain weapons not be allowed even though they were made and could have been used ( and made in greater numbers) that the whole weapons upgrade system should just be eliminated. Just let the "historical" weapons appear with the units at the discretion of the AI. There no problem.


Forgot to add, yup, you are an 'assumer', not good.

I never mentioned the weapons upgrade system should be eliminated, but YOU DID!!

It can be revamped to get rid of those seven 20-inch dahlgren and Rodman uber weapons that were never used in combat, in fact at least one of those wan't produced until 1869!!!

So, you must be a Victorian Age Sci-Fi enthusiast, and are not too concerned with ANY type of historical accuracy?? I wouldn't assume this myself, but would take an educated guess.

And yes, only "historical' weapons should be used in a historical game, otherwise the game becomes a Turtledovish and Victorian Age Sci-Fi game.

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]





General Quarters -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:36:55 PM)

I think this is a matter of personal preference -- how much a player wants to push the boundaries beyond what happened to what could have conceivably be done.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to have additional naval guns to choose from, and I see why someone said it seemed odd to be able to jump right away all the way to the uberweapon. Perhaps those should be available only after more naval research, or should be more expensive than they are now.



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:40:58 PM)

quote:

Ugh! Nothing more than a forum bully. So only a few uber Dahlgren guns were produced IRL. This is a game where you can change what happened IRL. You can have McClellan lead a successful campaign against Lee, the South can actually win the war, the North can choose not to follow the Anaconda plan, and the Union War Department can be directed to produce more uber Dahlgren guns. To me that seems like alternative history, which is what these games are supposed to create. Call it sci-fi if you would like but that would not be a proper description. If a weapon was able to be produced during the war then it should be available to the player. If the weapon was rarely available IRL then make it more expensive or more difficult to produce. But that is just my "little narrow-minded thought pattern"


'Forum bully', that sounds like you awhile back.

I just like a good historical discussion and game without nonsense, and that is pure nonsense having the 7 uber weapons in the game, of which one at least wan't produced until 1869, and not having the major cannon that actually were used.

Apparently, if not anyhting, including historical fact, don't agree with you, you take that narrow-minded stance, 'Wha-wa-wa!'

What a pity.

Chris



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:55:29 PM)

quote:

Well put chrisof139, I do believe that this is a great game and in the end any "criticism" is not aimed at the anyone who helped build this game. It is rather "constructive" talk about how Forge of Freedom can be the best game it can be.

As I have acknowledged before in regards to the navy side of things being secondary in this game, you can not dismiss how important the navy aspect is to the entire strategy of winning the American Civil War.

It's not like someone is suggesting that we absolutely need Detailed Naval Battles, all that is being suggested is a couple more options that is in context the real navy war.

Will not making naval changes make this game worst off - hell no.

Take it or leave it, after all this is a democracy


Yup, thanx, and what you say exactly.

Everytime I read a book about the ACW or talk to someone about it I LEARN SOMETHIN NEW, and appreciate the input.

Seems some other people are getting ruffled for not any reason, and actually may be jealous about other people's knowledge and views, or something like that.

There is a whole lot of good and intersting and fun aspects to this game, and I am not going to let those other people ruin it for me, but I hope the new patch corrects some issues, which from what Gil and Erik and HS have said seems to be that it will.

My whole point is that more people like a historically accurate ACW game rathr than a non-historical Victorian Age Sci-Fi game. Some things can be stretched or altered, such as moving your commanders around where they wern't etc., but to have weapons in a game that can affect a game's play and outcome greatly is maybe stretching it too far.

I would be impressed and indeed happier if the 20-inch dahlgren simply had its name changed to a 15-inch Dahlgren, with maybe 11-inch Dahlgrens added, and if the 10-inch Rodman Columbiad was made better than the 10-inch New Columbiad, and it might not be bad to combine those two 10-inch type guns into one generic type, and add 8-inch New Columbiads and 9-inch Dahlgrens as a new combined generic gun type.

I think something like this may be in the new patch or a future patch anyway, as it would not be hard to implememt, and because some of the Devs realize that people like historical games for their historical aspects, at least with regard to weapons and weapons' effectiveness and other historical aspects.

Chris



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 4:58:08 PM)

quote:

I think this is a matter of personal preference -- how much a player wants to push the boundaries beyond what happened to what could have conceivably be done.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to have additional naval guns to choose from, and I see why someone said it seemed odd to be able to jump right away all the way to the uberweapon. Perhaps those should be available only after more naval research, or should be more expensive than they are now.


Exactly GQ. Plus moe weapons choices makes it more intersting, but in reality, the game has a good and wide range now. But, a little more variety would be sooooooooo nice to have. [&o][&o][&o][:)]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]




Twotribes -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 6:31:58 PM)

Bully would be appropriate. You consistantly name call, order people around and make disparaging remarks about PEOPLE posting in a game forum that are neither attacking you nor disparaging you. Your points are lost because as a bully you dont discuss you order and anyone with a different view is immediantly attacked by you for the audacity of disagreeing with you.

I suggest YOU grow up. As for me your assumptions are ridiculous in the extreme.

This is a public forum. EVERYONE is entitled to their views. Your attacks are unwelcome in my opinion. Personal attacks and innuando are something you seem to excell at.

Rather than order everyone else around I suggest you post your opinions in a less hostile manner and not instantly attack anyone that happens to disagree with you.



Twotribes -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 6:35:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dasara II

Well put chrisof139, I do believe that this is a great game and in the end any "criticism" is not aimed at the anyone who helped build this game. It is rather "constructive" talk about how Forge of Freedom can be the best game it can be.

As I have acknowledged before in regards to the navy side of things being secondary in this game, you can not dismiss how important the navy aspect is to the entire strategy of winning the American Civil War.

It's not like someone is suggesting that we absolutely need Detailed Naval Battles, all that is being suggested is a couple more options that is in context the real navy war.

Will not making naval changes make this game worst off - hell no.

Take it or leave it, after all this is a democracy [:)]


My point on weapons is that the designers made that decision, I neither disagreed with you nor attacked your opinion, simply provided the facts in refrence to GAME design. Last I checked there is a wish list, make some posts there , they are more likely to be seen by the people that actually decide what to do with the game engine.

And as a note. I disagree with the idea that so few naval weapons exsist for us. The wealth of artillery alone shows that something more could have been done with naval guns EVEN without changing the current combat naval system.



ericbabe -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 8:20:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
Who in the heck are you suppossed be?? It is very unhistorical to have uber weapons in a game that were produced in a total quantity of SEVEN pieces and that were never used in combat. That is Sci-Fi to me.
....
And yes, only "historical' weapons should be used in a historical game, otherwise the game becomes a Turtledovish and Victorian Age Sci-Fi game.


See, we just disagree about this. I don't think it's science fiction to have a piece that was produced in 1864 to be produced in 1862 if the player chooses one upgrade instead of another and decides to spend funds in one way instead of another. Construction on the 20-inch Dahlgrens was, in fact, first ordered in 1862, though due to delays the first wasn't actually finished until 1864. To compare the inclusion of an 1864 weapon in a Civil War game with Harry Turtledove's novel which has AK-47's in the Civil War seems like an insulting exaggeration.


quote:


There are errors in the land weapons too, as I and others have pointed-out.


I have addressed any of these that have come to my attention. I believe that people were simply looking at other issues of the weapons than we were, or did not realize that for some weapons we were include aggregate statistics from several issues of that weapon type. We are planning to change two of the weapons' statistics in the patch, this will reflect different issues of the weapons and is mostly being done for the sake of game play balance. All of our weapon statistics are based on historical research -- there are different sources of data available, and we have opted to use what seem to be more realistic battlefield numbers for the ranges rather than the more theoretical numbers that come from firing range tests. But it is wrong to imply that our weapon data is not historical just because someone found a different statistic or two somewhere.


quote:


My whole point is that more people like a historically accurate ACW game rathr than a non-historical Victorian Age Sci-Fi game. Some things can be stretched or altered, such as moving your commanders around where they wern't etc., but to have weapons in a game that can affect a game's play and outcome greatly is maybe stretching it too far.


I can't imagine that the 20-inch Dahlgren alone would affect the outcome of the game -- as it is now, the weapon is priced so expensively that it is probably a poor game strategy to use many of them.


quote:


This is constructive criticism, as many others have given here.


I have to beg to differ; the title of your thread and the tone of several of your posts seem to me inflammatory. Your posts may be "constructive criticism" but they are not just that. When you call the historicity of the game "science fiction" and compare it to a Harry Turtledove novel you are not just being constructive, you are giving people who are here on the forum to learn about Forge of Freedom for the first time a poor impression of the game. We are more than happy to take constructive criticism, and the hundreds of changes we are making to the game in the upcoming update are, I hope, a testament to the fact that we take such criticism seriously. However, please understand that these forums are our primary way of showing off our game to the public and that rather than "improve the game" posts like yours seem more like attempts to smear our game and hurt our sales and reviews.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 10:09:16 PM)

Good reply. Your post is also a good example of intelligence, civilized behaviour, and correct use of English; and therefore comes as a breath of fresh air after some of the posts I've seen recently.



General Quarters -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 10:21:04 PM)

I have probably made as many suggestions for changes as anyone, but we all have to remember that these designers are human beings engaged in a creative effort. They have devoted their lives, dreams, and a lot of hard work to making this game so many of us are enjoying. They are currently working hard to improve it and respond to the input of players. They will be able to continue this work only if the game is a commercial success. We owe it to them to pitch in with informative player feedback, concrete suggestions for improvements, and a gracious "thank you" every once in a while. Thanks, guys.



ABridgeTooFar -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/20/2007 10:25:51 PM)

Well said, GQ.  I have to say that even without the upcoming patch, FOF is the single greatest civil war themed game ever created.  I hope games in the future will include the concept of both strategic and tactical maps.  Simply brilliant!



christof139 -> RE: XX inch Dahlgrens and Rodmans, Nope. (2/21/2007 7:28:52 AM)

quote:

Bully would be appropriate. You consistantly name call, order people around and make disparaging remarks about PEOPLE posting in a game forum that are neither attacking you nor disparaging you. Your points are lost because as a bully you dont discuss you order and anyone with a different view is immediantly attacked by you for the audacity of disagreeing with you.

I suggest YOU grow up. As for me your assumptions are ridiculous in the extreme.

This is a public forum. EVERYONE is entitled to their views. Your attacks are unwelcome in my opinion. Personal attacks and innuando are something you seem to excell at.

Rather than order everyone else around I suggest you post your opinions in a less hostile manner and not instantly attack anyone that happens to disagree with you.


Hey buddy, I was insulted off the get go by some people here. Why don't you gorwup. I don't take BS from anyone Mr. TT.

Your babbling is just that, babbling and whining.

Have a good one, Chris



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875