RE: Just wondering

RE: Just wondering (Full Version)

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

Message

Erik Rutins -> RE: Just wondering (1/11/2008 3:52:07 PM)
Hey BJ, quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan I just feel that there were historical restrictions to military operations that are not, and can not be modeled effectively. The one that jumps to mind at this moment is the political side of things. Lincoln had much less control than the game shows, but the only way to come close to reality is to have dozens of human players on a side. Hundreds would be better. Each would have a set of personal objectives that may, mor may not, support the overall national strategy. This would be a programming nightmare to put in an AI, uless someone can find a very clever way to to it. (I've done quite a bit of programming myself, so I understand the difficulties here.) I totally agree. I was never trying to say that the game is a simulation or perfect, I was just making sure you hadn't overlooked what it could do, which goes about as far as I've seen any ACW game go towards modeling a lot of things as well as can be in a game. quote: Second, you stated very clearly one of my points. That is, the player has the ability to instantaneously change the whoe direction of the war. That is one aspect of the game that would also be difficult to program into the AI, but it is the source of some of my comments. By having this control, the player (and by extension the AI, to the degree that the AI is programmed) can take historically improbable actions. The game does control this reasonably well, but it is a shortcoming we'll have to live with. (The programming problem again, as well as a group of people living today trying to "understand" the situation back then, but without any experience of actually living back then. This is a big problem when people use their values, experiences, and knowledge to analyze what happen in the past. In historical literature, it's rampant. I can expand on this, but I think you see my point.) Ok, I certainly agree with this too. quote: I think we agree on much more than you might realize. I also feel that you are trying to defend the product when there is no attempt on my part to really criticise the game. I think it's actually an outstanding product. It is enjoyable, reasonably faithful to the period, and has occupied my time for countless hours, and many more to come. I'm sorry if I came across as defensive - had we been speaking in person, I assure you that impression wouldn't have been there but the internet is very difficult as far as conveying tone or attitude. My main goal in continuing the discussion was three-fold really - 1. It was interesting for us and I figured for others as well, 2. I wanted to make sure you were aware of all the game did/could do, 3. I figured a lot of new players might be reading too who would be interested in some of the more verbose replies I made listing various features and effects. quote: My main point, admittedly inexpertly stated, is that it should not be viewed as a true simulation. No game can. It can give some insight. (And does, especially the role of the Governors.) It can generate interest in the period. It can even answer some questions for those not too familiar with the conflict. But I don't think people should assume that if it can be done in the game, then it could have been done in real life. Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. Ok, yes, we are in agreement there. quote: Back when I was in the army (in 1978, I think it was), the staff of the 82nd Airborne wargamed a new anti-armor concept that they believed would allow relatively small light forces to not only delay, but actually stop masses of Soviet armor. <snip> We just flat bulldozed them. Patton, Rommel, Jackson, Guderian, Manstein, all would have been proud. Very cool story, thanks for sharing it. I didn't realize the army was doing stuff like that before the NTC. You bring up Patton, it certainly reminds me of what he did in some of the maneuvers before WWII. quote: They do not resemble the real battles of the period at a tactical level very well. (Yes, I know. Up the difficulty level. That's not my point.) Actually, I'd be curious to know what you feel the detailed battles are missing in terms of conveying the real battles well. I think they do a pretty good job, but I also have a list of improvements I'd like to see in the future and I'm curious if we agree. Since you commented, do you have any specific feedback? Thanks for your many thoughtful replies, it's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Regads, - Erik

ericbabe -> RE: Just wondering (1/11/2008 4:15:19 PM)
Players do have much more control than Lincoln would have had, but that's the way these kinds of games typically work. One is not really playing "Lincoln," he's playing the spirit of the Union. Frankly we've found that players don't like limitations on their control, and even the very few limitations on control we have in detailed combat are met with many people who do not like them (which is why we have options to turn most of them off).

morganbj -> RE: Just wondering (1/11/2008 5:27:49 PM)
Eirc, I understand. I want control over my nation, too. The game should be designed that way. But, I recognize that that makes it VERY ahistorical. Lincoln, and to a much greater extent, Davis had incomplete control in real life. I guess, that's my point all along. The "Governors" implementation helps a lot in this regard, and is one of the best parts of the game to help one understand why things didn't always happen as they seem like the should have. And yes, I sometimes turn it off, so I'm not burdened with their "silly" antics. As benevelont dictator I want to have copmplete control. Again, I'm not suggesting you change the game at all, really. It's great. It's insightful. It's fun. It's darn sure worth the money. I patiently wait for the encore.

hgilmer -> RE: Just wondering (1/14/2008 6:32:47 AM)
I think the original argument of "If Stonewall Jackson had lived would it change the outcome of the War". The alternative is too bitter to contemplate (if I may steal from Eisenhower - I am not sure he actually said this, but he said it in the longest day). I was born in Massachusetts and live in the South. There are some who live here who think they would be better off if the South had won. Really? I don't think so. Regardless of what the reasons for going to war were (and I must confess I'm no expert), if the natural progression of said war stopped man enslaving man on America's soil, then I say it was worth it. I'm not here to argue over who was at fault or why we fought or what each soldiers' reason were or anything like that. It was wrong to enslave people. It was wrong to own people. I'm the granson of immigrants and there have been slaves the world over. My people were basically slaves at some points in history. It was always wrong. Sorry. I don't know if that is further off topic or closer to being on topic. I just don't think it would have been good in the long run for anyone if the South had won and I love the South.

GShock -> RE: Just wondering (1/14/2008 11:57:55 AM)
I just don't understand what this has to do with the topic...the guy asked if we are happy with the realism of the game...and just wrote a sort of sig about Stonewall... :)

Conny D -> RE: Just wondering (1/25/2008 7:11:19 PM)
Two of the greatest lies ever perpetrated by history are, number one, that the South instigated the war, and number two, that it was fought by the North for the purpose of freeing the slaves. Read "The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag" by John Weaver You can find it with google search

meisterchow -> RE: Just wondering (1/25/2008 7:15:16 PM)
Even the slavery issue boiled down to States' Rights, it's just that the moral and ethical aspects of slavery overshadowed the original disputes.

Joe D. -> RE: Just wondering (1/25/2008 8:17:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Conny D Two of the greatest lies ever perpetrated by history are, number one, that the South instigated the war, and number two, that it was fought by the North for the purpose of freeing the slaves ... I don't know if these are lies as much as over simplifications; the shooting war began after Lincoln, against the advice of his cabinet, reinforced Fort Sumter. So, in one sense, Lincoln "started" the war, but the South had already threatened to secede during Andrew Jackson's presidency. Certainly slavery was a cause celebre among northern abolitionists, but of course there was much more to it than that: federal vs. state government, northern industrial vs. southern agricultural economies, and so on. As the saying goes, a house divided against itself cannot stand, and there were great divisions in America by the 1860s.

morganbj -> RE: Just wondering (1/25/2008 8:48:05 PM)
Charlie, what you and Conny said are correct. I would add, however, that the whole situation back then is impossible for us to understand, as we have 100 years of history since then that has reshaped opinions, attitudes, and perceptions of the average American. One thing is also probably true, however, and that is that there were few issues at that time, other than slavery, that could have caused such a war to begin in the first place. Maybe none. For decades the Nothern states (actually, some groups in the Northern states) had waged a social and political campaign to end slavery. This long term effort raised the Southerners sensitivity to the issue to the boiling point. The real issue, states rights, has been overshadowed by the immorality of the institution of slavery, as it is looked back on today. At one point in my life, I spent coniderable time researching the history of the period. Many of the actual facts of the time are disputed by some, because they hold the high moral ground of being against slavery, and that is all that matters to them. It's an easy argument to win when one has that to fall back on. Everyone should now agree that slavery was an abhorrent institution. Now, nearly 150 years later, we SHOULD be able to rationally discuss the states rights issue, but it always comes back to slavery, and how bad the South was for having it. So, that's where we alays end up. But, what facts am I talking about that are easily ignored or disputed? Well for one, only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves. I don't have at hand the actual numbers, but as I recall it was around fifteen percent or so. And of those, most only owned a single family. While owning even ONE slave is a travesty, it does demonstrate that the vast majority of those who fought for the South didn't have a vested interest in protecting an instituion that they didn't feel they participated in. What they fought for was their countries. (Remember that to them, their country was their state.) Yes, they all benefited by slavery, but at least to them, it was not the issue. I had a college professor many years ago who felt that had the South succeeded in gaining its full independence, slavery was doomed anyway. He beleived that by the end of the century, the slaves would have been freed for economic reasons. I can no longer cite what those reasons were, but they made sense at the time. He also felt that the South would eventually have rejoined the Union, as their long-term survival was not possible alone. I don't know if any of that is true; I can't believe that South would have ever been compelled to reenter a situation that they felt was opression by a federal government, but it's interesting at least to ponder. Getting back to the game, all of these what ifs and might have beens are an interesting conversation, but could never be expected to be integrated into a game of this type. The game does a pretty decent job of simulating the military conflict and is a lot of fun to play. That's the point, I guess. My hope is that by playing it, some will be interested on researching not only the military aspects of the period, but the social and economic aspects as well. The war's impact can still be seen today. I have come to understand that the war had a dramatic impact on the U.S., both politically and socially, and that some of the impact is positive, some not. That's a discussion for another place and time, however. For anybody interested in the period, I would highly recommend this game. It's not bad, not bad at all. Now, if I can just figure out how to get enough troops to South Carolina quickly enough to push those blue-bellies back into the sea ....

Conny D -> RE: Just wondering (1/25/2008 9:12:25 PM)
quote: Now, if I can just figure out how to get enough troops to South Carolina quickly enough to push those blue-bellies back into the sea .... Right you are, Down with the Yanks!!! [:D]

Joe D. -> RE: Just wondering (1/25/2008 9:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan ... For decades the Nothern states (actually, some groups in the Northern states) had waged a social and political campaign to end slavery ... In early US history, slavery wasn't so clearly defined by geography. As you can see from my avatar bio, I'm a Yankee from Stratford, which was home to two sea captains named Judson and Sterling. Both homes were donated to the town after the last family member died, but since Capt. Judson both owned and traded in slaves, the town didn't accept the deed to his home and Sterling House became our community center. Frankly, it was much easier for the industrial North to abhor slavery than it was for the labor-intensive agricultural South to finally part w/it.

JagWars -> RE: Just wondering (1/28/2008 9:25:24 PM)
quote: Originator: hotdog433 Whether Cleburne would have made the grade as a regular corps commander and so been a candidate for higher things is an open question. Its perhaps instructive to note that when corps vacancies did emerge he didn't seem to expect promotion (perhaps because of his foreign birth and lack of West Point training) and even his admirers like Hardee didn't recommend him. General Cleburne advocated emancimation of the slaves early on (1862) as an addition man-power resource and continued to support this alternative throughout the conflict. This, probably more than anything else, prevented him from being promoted. While his merit was recognized by his superiors, they probably understood that any submission for promotion would not be well received in Richmond.

jkBluesman -> RE: Just wondering (1/28/2008 11:28:12 PM)
There are two rewarding books out there that summaries the question why the war went the way it went. One is called "Why the North Won", the other "Why the South Lost the Civil War". One remark on bjmorgan: There is a difference between what people fought for and what the war was about.

Ironclad -> RE: Just wondering (1/28/2008 11:33:56 PM)
It may have played a minor part but there doesn't seem any evidence that Johnston or Davis held it against him after he presented his proposals in January 1864. It was highly contentious of course which is why it was hushed up.

morganbj -> RE: Just wondering (1/29/2008 6:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jkBluesman One remark on bjmorgan: There is a difference between what people fought for and what the war was about. Perhaps that's true in a geopolitical sense, but not in the minds of those who fought. The historical literature is replete with thousands of letters, journals, diaries, and so forth, of Southerners who talk about not wanting to be dominated by the North. Of course, they did not use those terms; most put that concept in simpler terms that basically meant the same. I don't recall that any of the ones I've read, who didn't own slaves, were wanting to make sure someone else could have them. For them, the war was not about slavery, but something else. How they descibe that thing is highly personal. Certainly, it is silly to argue that slavery was not the "cause" of the war. Obviously it was, and a major cause, as well, but it was not the only cause. It was one facet of a many faceted set of issues all related to what was called "states' rights" at the time. Today, most cannot fathom what that phrase meant to those of the period. I've spent 40 years researching the period and I'm not sure I fully understand it, either. So, we simplify the issues and talk about that which is most egregious as a way to retain the moral high ground, whichever side we identify with. We're not different than any other nation or culture. It's common in the historical record. We should just be aware of what we're doing. Both sides had to "justify" the war in their own minds so that they would be willing to fight. The Southerners used the states rights argument (and mother, wife, apple pie, and the like as well). The North used "restore the Union," and increasing over time, "free the slaves." Neither was entirely correct in a geoplotical sense, but they all catch the essence of why each side decided to kill each other in unprecendented numbers (at least from our prespective). By the way, I threw the Yankees into the sea many times in my current game (see my post above). I'm not sure what was so alluring about Savannah, but the blue bellies sure wanted it. I had a five brigade division taking on all comers, about an invasion every three months or so. It really became the "Fort Jackson" training center for my troops. I'd give them some live target practice shooting at blue running targets, then some prisoner processing training, followed by a little weapons "import" business as we cleaned up the field. Their quality quickly increased over a year or so. And, thankfully, we always had enough prisoners to bury the blue targets. Andersonville has to be a bustling metropolis of at least 50,000 by now. Gee, I wish I could make farmhands out of them. Nah! They're just a bunch of shopkeepers incapable of doing real work. Some can paint (whitewash) rocks at the prison, the others I'll just let rot.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.830078