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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:12:14 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 151
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:23:19 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline 		I think the point that Jim is making, and one I agree with, is that the game doesn't seem well though out as far as making the balnce between various things work.

You can build/conscript infantry, but cavalry is too "expensive", artillery is too "expensive" and ships are too "expensive". The Union Navy efectively doubled in size in the first year of the war. How could one manage that in the current game?

This is not a question of game balance, per se. But a question of whether the game "matches up" with the time frame it is gaming. Right now, it does not. It would appear that the next patch will adress the naval issue at least. That is good to know.

one thing that is interesting to note is that the blockade was effective even without full coverage by the US Navy. Simply the threat of having your ship and goods siezed killed most international trade with the South, since most shippers were unwilling to risk their fortunes on such an endeavor...especially when there was plenty of money to be amde shipping goods to and from the North anyway!

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 152
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:30:28 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
It was a game design decision. The designers chose to build a balanced strategy game instead of an historical wargame.


The game designers decided to make the "default" settings such that they would approximate history while providing a balanced game. The game itself is full of historical research and historical decisions, as well as historical options that are in the player's control to adjust.

For example, the European Diplomacy option. There's nothing wrong with turning that off if you think it's too much of a drain on the economy as designed. Historically, there were possibilities, but it ended up being a sideshow and turning off the option make sure it ends up that way.

Behind the scenes, we're working based on feedback to address some issues players find ahistorical or at least bending history a bit too far. However, what confuses me is that most players don't seem to change the settings much and explore the variety of gameplay that can be achieved by that.

quote:

As it is, in my above post where I had tweaked the settings so high, I could have steamrolled the south anytime I wished since the game is designed to be a balanced test and any weight given to one side or the other simply skews game balance.


The question also becomes, what would a game vs. a Human look like? I believe that a Union player can come pretty darn close to doing what the Union did historically against the AI, even with the AI in some cases playing smarter than the Confederacy did. Against a human, with settings designed to skew against a balanced game and more towards a painfully realistic game, I still think a CSA opponent would not be that easily steamrollered. Keep in mind what the Union did manage to achieve in 1862 and 1863 and I think the results would be fairly close. Of course, there's only one way to find out... :-)

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 Jim D Burns)
Post #: 153
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:32:12 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.


Artillery batteries were 6 guns and 155 men therefore a 3000 man brigade would average out to 116 guns. A few less once you factor in command staff at the battatlion and brigade level.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 154
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:36:14 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline 		Currently it takes far too long to build a sizable army up to actual wartime levels due to the high cost of units. I'd say reduce costs by a factor of 10 at least and triple upkeep costs or something. By tripling the upkeep you limit the size of player’s armies in relation to what their economy can sustain.

As to regularbirds artillery argument, I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If artillery was causing casualties equal to what 300 pieces would have been expected to do then I'd say ok, but they do about as much damage as 12-20 guns would be expected to do so in my mind they represent 12-20 guns. Either tweak damage way up or reduce costs so players can outfit their divisions/corps/armies properly.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/3/2007 8:50:50 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 155
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:37:35 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Ok, that sounds about right. With that agreed upon what was the largest amount of pieces brought together during a battle of the ACW. If memory serves me right it was at Gettysburg and it was in the ball park of 200 pieces. Which means that 2x arty brigades per army in this game would be about on the money, right? Just curious.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 156
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:38:14 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
WHY? because when I asked you ""Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?", your answer was "to be honest, no."

Alright, I'm by no means as good at FoF as Hard Sarge, but I'll undertake the challenge as long as I'm allowed to adjust the provided in-game settings to my preferences for a more historical but less balanced situation. I'll also be playing with the latest internal beta update which helps by significantly reducing the cost of building the Navy up for the Union. Set me a few benchmarks and I'll see what I can do to achieve them, in parallel.



This is from what I asked SARGE. "Spring of 1862 was a really busy time for the Union IRL. Farragut taking New Orleans (with Butler's occupation force following), Pope siezing the Mississippi Forts and Memphis, Grant and Foote opening up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers at Henry and Donaldson while Buell marched his army on Nashville through Kentucky. That's over 150,000 men involved in some active operation in the West. And in the East between Burnside on the Carolina Coast and Fremont in the Allegheny's, you also have Banks in the Valley, Wool at Fortress Monroe, and "Little Mac's" massive Army of the Potomac around Washington----over 200,000 men ready to go into "action". My question is "Did you also have anything approximating this situation on the rest of the map?"


"Have you tried the various options provided to tailor the game to your liking? +3 Union Power, -3 Confederate Power and Richer Economies can allow the Union a lot more leeway as far as multiple parallel production and research paths. "


To me this looks like an admission that the basic scenarios are "way out of whack"... Aren't you saying that to get an historically accurate start up Jim Burns was asking about, you have to "jack up the Union considerably" while "heavily handicapping" the South? Sure sounds that way...



(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 157
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:41:53 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 158
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:46:08 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.


Well Pickett's charge lasted about 30 min to an hour and I'd say they lost much higher numbers than that to each Union artillery brigade firing at them. The union had on average 6 guns to a battery and 3-4 batteries to a brigade/regiment if my memory serves. That's a lot of lead flying at those troops as they crossed that field.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/3/2007 8:57:43 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 159
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 8:47:46 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

I am not sure abut that Jim, you may be right. But I have caused causualties of 1500+ with one shot. Each turn is 20 minutes, I am not sure but that sounds like it may be a little high to me. Granted that was at a range of 1 hex, but how common was 1500 caualties in a 20 minute period.


Very uncommon.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 160
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:02:34 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 161
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:11:50 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

...



Yeah, but this question is moving the goal posts. The original question lacked the "...against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish" clause.

Hard Sarge quite convincingly answered the original question "yes."

And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.

_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 162
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:16:18 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Jim,

I like you and many others want this game to be historically accurate but the artillery issue to me was settled long ago by Eric. He said for some reason he needed to handle arty in a 3000 men brigade format. If you divide that out assuming 9 men per piece then you would have over 300 pieces per artillery brigade wich is way more than any Army of the time brought to bear in any large engagement. In detailed battle I often split my arty up into 2x 1500 men brigades. If you add into account the brigade arty attribute then artillery may actually be over represented in this game.

I am not saying I love the way this has been done I have just accepted that it is the way Eric needed to do it.


Artillery batteries were 6 guns and 155 men therefore a 3000 man brigade would average out to 116 guns. A few less once you factor in command staff at the battatlion and brigade level.


Actually I would half that number of guns to about 50 or so. Why? Because an Arty Bde in this game costs 1 manpower to build, as opposed to 2 for Inf and Cav Bdes. Hence I think it's fair to say there is only 1500 men in this unit, hence about 50 guns. FWIW.


_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 163
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:19:14 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Uggh, that is a lame test though.

It is testing against the AI. The AI is stupid.

Can you achieve historical results against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish?

...



Yeah, but this question is moving the goal posts. The original question lacked the "...against a human player who knows what you are trying to accomplish" clause.

Hard Sarge quite convincingly answered the original question "yes."

That isn't moving the goal posts, it is establishing them where they belong to begin with. Sarge proving that he could accomplish something against the AI doesn't prove that the game makes it possible against a human player. The inability to supply via sea is a pretty major oversight, for example.
quote:



And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.


Well, lets be fair here. There were quite a lot of shots fired at Forts Jackson and...I forget the name of the other one.

The assumption was that they would protect the city. It wasn't taken without a fight, the fight just happened down the river a bit. To achieve true "historical indecision" the game should make it provisionally possible to actually protect a river with forts - something that most considered accurate in the early days of the war.

Which I have always thought would be interesting. Farragut proved that forts, by and large, could not deny a fleet passage. But before he proved it, the assupmption was that they could. Wouldn't it be interesting to play a game where the basic physical realities of what works is unknown at the start? Kind of like hidden generals ratings, but instead hidden combat engine settings...

Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...

< Message edited by Berkut -- 1/3/2007 9:35:01 PM >

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 164
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:20:06 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		I will grant the artillery Brigade, BUT try and build up your Infantry, Cavalry and navy all at the same time AND provide an approximate mix of Artillery attributed Brigades to represent the Actually Union forces. Ohh and try to arm them with anything other than blunderbusses.

Dont forget while doing this you need to find the money to build about 20 Acadamies, research facilities, armories just to arm, train and have the ranked generals you should have.

While doing all that see whats left to bribe the Europeans not to join the Confederacy and to manage ANY upgrade to your other economies.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 165
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:22:55 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

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

ORIGINAL: kafka
hmm... I thought I've purchased a game (which btw I enjoy as it is) and not just a tool to feed the illusion of a perpetual history recreation


The issue is that it's supposed to be a game of the American Civil War. The fact that you enjoy it is of some interest, but it's irrelevant to this particular issue. Maybe you enjoy Tetris too, but Tetris isn't marketed as a game of the American Civil War and so it doesn't attract this kind of historical criticism.

(in reply to kafka)
Post #: 166
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:27:54 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

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

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.


As I understand it, the Confederacy believed that its forts and 'torpedoes' would protect New Orleans from attack from the sea. That was wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Farragut tested the belief and found it wrong, good for him. If he'd been wrong, he might have gone down with his ships.

(in reply to jimwinsor)
Post #: 167
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:27:56 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?


The artillery in the civil war was grouped into battalions not brigades.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 168
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:29:53 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		I am certain that you can MOD the cost if infantry, calvary and artillery.  I myself am not in love with the economic system, it definatley needs some tweaking. 

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 169
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:32:31 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		The problem with moding the costs is then you have to go mod the research upgrades as well, and then you have to ADD population, you have to add economy, add more and more, all basic guess work for those of us that didnt do "exhaustive" research on the period in question based on the game engine capabilities.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 170
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:34:11 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
And as for the AI being stupid...in THIS case the AI was actually smarter than the historic CSA...in real life, the Union invasion fleet sailed up next to a completely unoccupied New Orleans, landed troops unopposed, and took the South's largest city w/o a shot. Hard Sarge had to actually siege the place...against an ahistorically bright AI!

I guarantee you...if the South made the same historic blunders it made in 1862, a the Union can capitalize on them in a reasonably historic manner. And vice-versa of course. Let not move the goal posts here.


As I understand it, the Confederacy believed that its forts and 'torpedoes' would protect New Orleans from attack from the sea. That was wrong, but not necessarily stupid. Farragut tested the belief and found it wrong, good for him. If he'd been wrong, he might have gone down with his ships.


Didnt Farragut have his Flagship sunk under him? I know at least one main naval Combatent ( as I recall) went down due to "Torpedoes".

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 171
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:38:24 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		OK, where there 1 Batt per division or one Battalion per corp, or 1 Battalion per brigade? I am just trying to see if the number of pieces will break down with some historical accuracy. I am guessing that a Corp would have a brigade worth of Arty. Which I guess now would be around 80 pieces, right?

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 172
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:38:55 PM   
jimwinsor


Posts: 1076
Joined: 11/21/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut


Well, lets be fair here. There were quite a lot of shots fired at Forts Jackson and...I forget the name of the other one.

The assumption was that they would protect the city. It wasn't taken without a fight, the fight just happened down the river a bit. To achieve true "historical indecision" the game should make it provisionally possible to actually protect a river with forts - something that most considered accurate in the early days of the war.

Which I have always thought would be interesting. Farragut proved that forts, by and large, could not deny a fleet passage. But before he proved it, the assupmption was that they could. Wouldn't it be interesting to play a game where the basic physical realities of what works is unknown at the start? Kind of like hidden generals ratings, but instead hidden combat engine settings...

Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...


You could always simulate this by playing the game w/o reading the rulebook first...


_____________________________

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 173
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:39:55 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827


quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok so than we can agree that a typical Arty brigade was about 15-25 pieces during the ACW.  That means that each of FOF's Arty BDE's consist of 116 pieces.  Therefore each FOF BDE = 4-6 ACW Arty BDE's.

I agree Jim that it is a little strange the way it was done but It can easily be rationalized in this manner as salavagable for game purposes.  Agree or disagree?


The artillery in the civil war was grouped into battalions not brigades.


I seem to be partly wrong. The confederates called them battalions and the Union seemed to call them brigades but they were much smaller than the artillery units in FoF.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 174
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:43:01 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		The fact is, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that while the designers chose a default balance for game purposes, they included a ton of options to make it possible to tailor your own game _without_ modding. In addition to that, the first update and the next one will help with player requests in the area of fleets and generals, among other things.

What's preventing people who want a more realistic imbalance from setting the following provided in-game settings? No modding required, these are official game options:

Note that this is how I would set them if trying to set the balance to "painfully realistic" for the South, this is not an official endorsement for these as being the perfect combination for those who want the best historical results, but I know the designers included these options so that you could use them.

Start with Advanced Game Settings
Union +3 Power
Confederate -3 Power
Richer Economy ON
Population Modifiers OFF
European Diplomacy OFF
CSA Emancipation OFF
Randomized Stats OFF
Hidden Stats OFF (these last two are OFF only so that the generalship each side starts with is largely historical)
More Generals ON

Give that a try and let me know how it works for you. I think the next update will also add some nice changes for those who are looking for maximum historicity and with the above settings, I'd be very surprised if a historical outcome was not achievable in terms of Union military progress.

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 Twotribes)
Post #: 175
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:44:35 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

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

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...


I can only begin to imagine the feedback such a game design would create...


_____________________________

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 Berkut)
Post #: 176
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:47:45 PM   
Berkut

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 5/16/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut
Everyone decries the hindsight stupidity of early Civl War tactics in an era with the rifle. But what if we had a game where the players shared their historical counter-parts ignorance of what would work? The only way to do that would be to actually change the reality of the game system...


I can only begin to imagine the feedback such a game design would create...



LOL, no kidding!

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 177
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 9:48:42 PM   
regularbird

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 10/27/2005
Status: offline 		Eric I have used the power setting quite frequently and the problem is that it effects any new buildings as well. For example If I build a new RR station I only get 3RR pts, or 2 research pts out of a research facility. I am currently trying to mod a scenario that starts the south out with very little but lets me build to a known quantity. But I agree with mike why not make the start point historically and let the power settings be for players who dont care for the historical scenarios.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 178
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 10:12:31 PM   
chris0827

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

OK, where there 1 Batt per division or one Battalion per corp, or 1 Battalion per brigade? I am just trying to see if the number of pieces will break down with some historical accuracy. I am guessing that a Corp would have a brigade worth of Arty. Which I guess now would be around 80 pieces, right?


At Gettysburg the confederates had an artillery battalion for each division plus one for each corps. The union had a brigade per corps and a large 5 brigade artillery reserve. I don't have the number of cannon but the union brigades on average were probably stronger than the confederate battalions since the union usually had 6 gun batteries and the confederates 4 gun batteries.

(in reply to regularbird)
Post #: 179
RE: The historical test - 1/3/2007 10:32:25 PM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

...

one thing that is interesting to note is that the blockade was effective even without full coverage by the US Navy. Simply the threat of having your ship and goods siezed killed most international trade with the South, since most shippers were unwilling to risk their fortunes on such an endeavor...especially when there was plenty of money to be amde shipping goods to and from the North anyway!



You are either forgetting or ignoring blockade runners. From Battle Cry of Freedom on blockade runners:

"They shipped out half a million bales of cotton and brought in a million pairs of shoes, half a million rifles, a thousand tons of gunpowder, several hundred cannon, and so on."

That sounds like quite a bit of trade to me.

(in reply to Berkut)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: The historical test Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
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

0.891