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: for the people who want a historcal 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: for the people who want a historcal test Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 9:17:44 PM   
Queeg


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The reason for making the scenario start as historically accurate as possible is to present the player with the same choices his historical counterparts faced..., not to force them to make the exact same choices. Making a different choice of how to use your assets is a valid course of action (wouldn't be much point in playing otherwise). Starting with assets your side never had --- or starting without assets your side did have --- that's the problem. Under those conditions ALL player choices are baloney..., because the scenario itself is a bunch of baloney.



I agree with you...up to a point. Depends on what you mean by "assets." While the North clearly had the advantage on paper, there was no human being alive in 1861 who could have actually utilized more than a fraction of them. For example, in mid-1862, the CSA had more than 12% of its white, male population in arms; the North had less than 6%. And Lincoln had virtually zero chance of changing that - he faced too many political, economic and cultural obstacles. So while I agree with you that an historical game should present the player with the same choices his historical counterpart faced, I would disagree with any suggestion that giving the player God-like powers is, in any sense, either realistic or historical.

(Edited per chris' post below.)

< Message edited by Queeg -- 1/9/2007 9:39:17 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 31
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 9:23:04 PM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The reason for making the scenario start as historically accurate as possible is to present the player with the same choices his historical counterparts faced..., not to force them to make the exact same choices. Making a different choice of how to use your assets is a valid course of action (wouldn't be much point in playing otherwise). Starting with assets your side never had --- or starting without assets your side did have --- that's the problem. Under those conditions ALL player choices are baloney..., because the scenario itself is a bunch of baloney.



I agree with you...up to a point. Depends on what you mean by "assets." While the North clearly had the advantage on paper, there was no human being alive in 1861 who could have actually utilized more than a fraction of them. For example, in mid-1861, the CSA had more than 12% of its white, male population in arms; the North had less than 2%. And Lincoln had virtually zero chance of changing that - he faced too many political, economic and cultural obstacles. So while I agree with you that an historical game should present the player with the same choices his historical counterpart faced, I would disagree with any suggestion that giving the player God-like powers is, in any sense, either realistic or historical.


That's not right. I made a typo in te strengths thread. The CSA had the 12% under arms in mid 1862, not mid 1861.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 32
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 9:40:33 PM   
Queeg


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

That's not right. I made a typo in te strengths thread. The CSA had the 12% under arms in mid 1862, not mid 1861.


Thanks. I corrected my post above. The fact that the CSA commitment, as a percentage of available manpower, was more than twice that of the Union, even in 1862, makes my point. Should the North have more assets than the South? Of course. But not nearly to the extent that the mere paper numbers would suggest.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 33
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 10:16:23 PM   
chris0827

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

That's not right. I made a typo in te strengths thread. The CSA had the 12% under arms in mid 1862, not mid 1861.


Thanks. I corrected my post above. The fact that the CSA commitment, as a percentage of available manpower, was more than twice that of the Union, even in 1862, makes my point. Should the North have more assets than the South? Of course. But not nearly to the extent that the mere paper numbers would suggest.



I haven't seen anyone suggest that the north receive a 4 to 1 advantage in troops since they had a 4 to 1 advantage in population but currently the game gives the union a 1.17 to 1 advantage at the start with a 2 to 1 advantage in manpower to recruit more men. That's way short of the historical 2.75 to 1 advantage the union had.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 34
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 10:19:59 PM   
Jonathan Palfrey

 

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline
A game should allow you to make your own decisions within the historical contraints of what was possible. These constraints could well be political, economic, or even cultural.

Ideally, the game should give you both the historical assets and whatever historical constraints there were on using them.

In some cases I can understand the argument for simplifying the game by cutting the assets in order to omit some tedious constraints. Simplifying the game is a worthwhile objective. The trouble is that the justification for cutting the assets may not be readily apparent to players, some of whom are inclined to whinge about such things.

It is actually fairly simple to say, look, you have these assets, but you can use only x% of them per year (or something of the sort). I think this is easier for people to accept than to deny that the assets existed.

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 35
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 10:21:46 PM   
Queeg


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris0827

I haven't seen anyone suggest that the north receive a 4 to 1 advantage in troops since they had a 4 to 1 advantage in population but currently the game gives the union a 1.17 to 1 advantage at the start with a 2 to 1 advantage in manpower to recruit more men. That's way short of the historical 2.75 to 1 advantage the union had.


I'm not sure I've seen anyone suggest anything specific, either way. Mostly just cries for the game to be "historical" without any real definition of what, exactly, that means. Though there have been plenty of posts that seem to resort to number-crunching as a surrogate for historical fidelity. I'm just a persistent critic of that simplistic approach.

(in reply to chris0827)
Post #: 36
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 10:41:02 PM   
Queeg


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

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

A game should allow you to make your own decisions within the historical contraints of what was possible. These constraints could well be political, economic, or even cultural.

Ideally, the game should give you both the historical assets and whatever historical constraints there were on using them.



Agreed. But that, of course, is the ideal. And largely unattainable since most of the historical constraints were due to the fog of uncertainty and self-absorption that afflicts most mortals during their tenure on this planet. A fog that's near-impossible to recreate in a game. Indeed, one reason Lincoln is so revered to this day is that it is difficult to imagine any other man of his age marshaling the Union effort even half as well as he did.

quote:

In some cases I can understand the argument for simplifying the game by cutting the assets in order to omit some tedious constraints. Simplifying the game is a worthwhile objective. The trouble is that the justification for cutting the assets may not be readily apparent to players, some of whom are inclined to whinge about such things.


Then perhaps this discussion will encourage greater flexibility in their historical thinking. The constraints were real and immutable. Best to recognize them for what they were.

quote:

It is actually fairly simple to say, look, you have these assets, but you can use only x% of them per year (or something of the sort). I think this is easier for people to accept than to deny that the assets existed.


Perhaps. Or just employ some abstract reasoning.

I don't mean to be flip. The fact is that "realism" demands some concession to the inability of mortals to achieve perfection. And debate will always exist as to where that line should be drawn to achieve "historical" results. Probably the best we can ever hope for is plausibility, which requires some flexibility of thinking.


< Message edited by Queeg -- 1/9/2007 10:52:41 PM >

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)
Post #: 37
RE: for the people who want a historcal test - 1/9/2007 11:40:20 PM   
hotdog433

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 1/1/2007
Status: offline
i was not trying to be hostile but i dont think my post was selfish either as i think there are enough options in the game to give you just about any challenge you would like.

as for not being accurate enough for some people what do they want do they just want the same economy as the south or tha same disposition of forces or manpower differences???

if you had these things in your game it might be historical but with hindsight you would off course do alot of things differently as you already know how it ends so would off course try and change it

would you try and build up the souths economy or change the disposition of forces from east to west???

what would you do differently that you dont do in the game now



i hope this makes sense as i have not slept for 2 days

(in reply to Queeg)
Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> RE: for the people who want a historcal test Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

2.281