RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Civil War II



Message

rsallen64 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/20/2013 5:02:30 PM)

Queeg captures the point I was trying to make. If some people are "gaming the system" by creating massive armies in the East while essentially ignoring every other theater, they are ignoring the political reality the real leaders faced historically. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should. [:D] The great thing about a game is that it lets you try to do things differently to see if you can achieve a different outcome than the historical one, but for me, personally, these are simulations, not fantasy, and I try to play somewhat historically.



Ace1_slith -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/20/2013 6:41:46 PM)

For me, the Union has to contest KY and MI, because politics of the time demanded it. Going after Missisippi with the Anaconda plan in mind is a strategy choice, I would not like if it would be hard coded forcing the players to follow the historic Union strategies. This is a grand strategy game. We must leave it to the player to choose his path.



veji1 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/20/2013 6:52:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

For me, the Union has to contest KY and MI, because politics of the time demanded it. Going after Missisippi with the Anaconda plan in mind is a strategy choice, I would not like if it would be hard coded forcing the players to follow the historic Union strategies. This is a grand strategy game. We must leave it to the player to choose his path.


True, let the players decide, but place them under constraints similar to history.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/20/2013 7:42:42 PM)

I'd like to see a requirement by state that x number of regiments be kept within the state or production for every region in the state would be cut by 50%. Then you can change the requirements as the war drags on and governors released more of their state troops for federal service.

While one could make an argument for redeploying half the on map strength out west to Virginia early war, the political realities of the time would have prohibited it. Not to mention the fact the long two week turns make reacting to unexpected strength build ups in game very hard to do. The game really needs a shorter 3-5 day turn to prevent unopposed marches across half a state without the abitily to react to them. That or some kind of automatic reaction movement system that lets a large army move to intercept an army trying to bypass it.

Jim



Toro12 -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/20/2013 8:38:37 PM)

Your latter idea is a good one (auto-response to enemy movement). I've often wanted that myself.



Michael T -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/20/2013 8:52:39 PM)

What I like about this game is the numerous different strategies it allows a player to try. It's up to your opponent to be clever enough to devise a counter. I am newbie at this game but it seems to me that *any* strategy employed can be derailed by appropriate measures being taken by the enemy.



dukewacoan -> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance (12/21/2013 12:45:43 AM)

10 day turns might really change the feel in a positive way. Only adds 12 turns a year so really won't prolong play but allow more interaction. Sure the recoding is not as simple as a 50% reduction in everything.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375