Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The historical test

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 1:53:37 AM   
jack616

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 1/3/2007
Status: offline 		Just to chime in...this was posted in Jackerson's just wondering thread from I think Eric in response to why Jakerson as the North was sustained something like 40:1 (not kidding) battle losses:

quote:

My suggestion for the future would be to focus on the defensive, particularly in the East, as the Union and force him to pay for each engagement


I know that this has been hashed and rehashed above, but in suml...isn't that sort of the problem that ppl are having?  I mean... all other play balancing issues aside, logically, in a civil war of any type, all the secessionist/rebels have to do is stay in the field.  But yet, the game favors a strategy whereby the group in power, must play defensively.  Its illogical.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 271
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 1:57:50 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Jack,

That's way too much of a generalization of my advice, which was specific to Jakerson's situation. Playing as the Union in FoF, I am absolutely on the offense.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to jack616)
Post #: 272
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 6:35:57 AM   
jack616

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 1/3/2007
Status: offline 		Erik-

I definitely appreciate how responsive, you, and everyone else thats had a hand in this game is.  Thank you.

But, to be honest, at this point, FoF is becoming more frustrating then fun.  I want to enjoy this game...I really do, but I can't get over some of the game mechanics and design decisions.  Hopefully when the new patch is out, things change....

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 273
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 12:18:15 PM   
ETF


Posts: 1748
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Probley the new civilwar game coming out by Pocus and friends will be much more historical. However I do like this one but it is Not history.




Which civil war game are you referring to?


_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 274
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 3:45:44 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline 		Its from AGEod based on their successful BOA engine.

(in reply to ETF)
Post #: 275
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 10:06:09 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.
But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.



How true is it that there were more Southern state militia than Northern states?
Almost all the early regiments on both sides were formed from state militia. I have never been able to find the numbers that indicate that the south had a larger militia tradition.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 276
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 10:11:02 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		The south mobilized earlier than the north so the numbers were somewhat close in early and mid 1861. After Bull Run Lincoln called for 400,000 more volunteers and it was never close again.

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 277
RE: The historical test - 1/15/2007 10:37:29 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		The North had more pre-war Militia than the South did simply because the North had a larger population.

The Detroit Light Guard for instance, and that's who the Detroit Tigers Baseball Club asked for and got permission to use the name 'Tigers'. Just one example of many, many more in the Northern states. The DLG was formed in 1855 from the previosuly existing Brady Guards, named after Bde. Gen. Hugh Brady, which had itself evolved from the Detroit City Guard(s) that had fought in the Black Hawk War and disbanded in 1832 at the end of that war. The Detroit Light Guard exisits today in the form of Company A, 1st Bn. 125th Inf. Regt.

The DLG also pursued Pancho Vila, served in the Spanish American war in Cuba I do believe, and in Iraq, etc.

Chris in Day-twah, the straits.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 278
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 12:12:57 AM   
Johnus

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline 		Erik's settings and advice, see pages 6 & 7 of this thread, are great and, I believe, render the game historically "acceptable."

You don't want to overdue historical "accuracy" with this particular game system or you won't have enought decisions to make. There are only a finite number of ways to invade the South. You want, as designer, to retain as many options for the North as possible, Anaconda, prefer Mississippi, prefer center, prefer east, concentrate on camps, muster, navy, etc.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the next patch before I get back into the game because the retreat bug is a show stopper for me.

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 279
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 3:02:28 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Exactly, and what you said is a big part of the picture.

Chris

(in reply to Johnus)
Post #: 280
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 4:49:59 AM   
Queeg


Posts: 495
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Erik's settings and advice, see pages 6 & 7 of this thread, are great and, I believe, render the game historically "acceptable."

You don't want to overdue historical "accuracy" with this particular game system or you won't have enought decisions to make. There are only a finite number of ways to invade the South. You want, as designer, to retain as many options for the North as possible, Anaconda, prefer Mississippi, prefer center, prefer east, concentrate on camps, muster, navy, etc.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the next patch before I get back into the game because the retreat bug is a show stopper for me.


Yes on all points, though the biggest show-stopper for me is the wildly disproportionate losses in Quick Combat.

(in reply to Johnus)
Post #: 281
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 5:37:20 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But the Southern "Militia Tradition" was very strong and active, which meant that they already had a lot of "volunteer" and State Units formed and available in the Spring of 1861. The same type of "South Carolina Volunteers" that besieged Ft. Sumpter were available all over the South.
But these numbers did not show up at "the front" because they were needed all along the coast to man the siezed fortifications, and the Governors kept significant numbers "at home" to guard their own states.



How true is it that there were more Southern state militia than Northern states?
Almost all the early regiments on both sides were formed from state militia. I have never been able to find the numbers that indicate that the south had a larger militia tradition.


The South had a much more active "Militia Tradition" simply from the fear of slave revolts. In the North the "militia" was primarily a social affair of balls and parades and such---but in the South genuine need and fear kept the "militia" in a higher state of training and readiness. That's the real basis for the difference.



(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 282
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 6:32:20 PM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Many Northern and Southern Militia units were somewhat of 'social affairs' in nature.

Many Northern and Souhern Militia units were also used to enforce local law and order at times, and in the old Northwest Territory, to fight Indians every now and then. There were many river and lake pirates and land based desparados around in those days, particularily along the western, southwestern and northwestern borders, the northern border with Canada and the southern border with Mexico etc.

Some Southern and Northern units were very well drilled and had a bit of 'snazziness' to them, in both dress and drill.

Seems only a minority were anything near 'regular' or 'professional', but the best of them had the basics and a bit more down, and there were veterans of previous wars in the ranks of both Northern and Southern militia units.

Therefore, I think the concept of the South having 'better' militia units is bunk, as was shown on the battlefields of Bull Run One and Wilson's Creek etc. In both those battles the Northern troops were forging ahead with zeal and determination, until the Southerners rallied due to  timely reinforcement and the fatigue of the Northern troops that were on the offense.

However, due to a good number od Slave revolts occurring in the South over the years, I can comprehend that perhaps a higher percentage of Southern Militia may have had a slight bit more of experience than some Northern militia but not others, and by no means did Southern Militia outnumber theri northern counterparts simply because the North had a larger population.

Many Kansan, Iowan, Minnestotan, Wisconsonian and even Michiganian troops from the western UP had some experience in dealing with the Lakota, Osage, Chippewa, Kansas, etc. etc. Indians in those Frontier States, either as homesteaders, in local posses and/or Militia.

I think the oldest Militia unit in the USA was/is from Massachusetts, an Arty. Company I think it is that formed in the late 1600's, but it could be Virginia, I read this some time ago and just ran across it the other day.

Chris

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 283
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 8:47:23 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139
I think the oldest Militia unit in the USA was/is from Massachusetts, an Arty. Company I think it is that formed in the late 1600's, but it could be Virginia, I read this some time ago and just ran across it the other day.


I read somewhere that Europeans think a hundred miles is a long distance, while Americans think a hundred years is a long time. The school I went to in England was founded in 1604, before the voyage of the Mayflower.

< Message edited by Jonathan Palfrey -- 1/17/2007 9:16:50 AM >

(in reply to christof139)
Post #: 284
RE: The historical test - 1/16/2007 9:00:30 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		It is funny you mention the above Jonathan.  My friend in Sweden often tells me that he has pissed in bathrooms older than my country.  I have always found that amusing.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 285
RE: The historical test - 1/17/2007 1:06:55 AM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline 		I spent four and a half years in Sweden once, but I don't think I encountered any of those bathrooms.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 286
RE: The historical test - 1/19/2007 6:50:18 AM   
christof139


Posts: 980
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		There are indeed lavoratories in the USA that are also older than the USA, and I am not referring to the outside green Latrine, but inside the building latrines.

Urinating on walls in Europe can be habitual.

Chris

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 287
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.766