RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1?

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: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1?

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] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 6:29:43 PM

WarHunter

Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I think I must be doing something wrong - any pointers out there on how to make the game (at least in the West) be a little bit more about moving, and less about gigantic fights?

quote:

Well, I will agree that I am not your typical "OMG DIS GAME IS TEH BESTED EVER IT IS PERFECT OMG!" fanboy, and that is true in every game that I like. If I did not like the game, you would never even hear from me, since I would not waste my time commenting on it, asking questions, and challenging the fanbois.

I see now you were never really interested in any pointers. All you really care about are the fanbois. Just because there are people who see the glass half full, you have appointed yourself the half empty guy. You have become the classic

See no good, hear no good, speak no good.

Be sure to ignore any and all aspects of the game that make it wonderful to play, a challenge for the mind and one of the few gems in the rough playable out of the box. Oh, and a clean pbem for 2 players. yep, there are some out there who actually enjoy the game.

No doubt you will be patted on the head, told you have pointed out a possible fix and maybe get an "attaboy". Amazingly enough there are others out there who are doing just the same thing. But they actually read the rules and play the game from both sides to gauge if there is a problem to bring up.

Not everyone can see everything from 1 side of the coin. You are something special.

Btw, i know you will ignore everything i have said. its ok, i'll live.

_____________________________

�We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.�
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 31

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 6:34:41 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feralkoala

I think Berkut's problem has more to do with the scale of the game; at the scale depicted, there were very few times you saw a 'war of movement'.

I agree and would also add 'hindsight'. In 1861, the Civil War commanders were operating off the Napoleonic template; sweeping maneuvers, concentration and decisive battles. In period photographs, ever notice how many generals posed with right hand slipped under the breast lapel? Technology, like rifling, had transferred the advantage to the defender. The player knows this but the actual leaders had to grope towards this epiphany.

So, given the player's pre-knowledge, campaigns in WBTS tend, in my experience, to unwind in a conservative, a-historical fashion. Taking the Confed side you see that the Union AI will NOT attempt a Bullrun but will consolidate at leisure before invading Virginia in 1862. And is wise to do so, despite the political climate which would have rendered inertia inconceivable. But I believe the combat mechanics and results are pretty unimpeachable, abstracting out political realities.

quote:

But I believe the combat mechanics and results are pretty unimpeachable

I do not at all think the mechanics are unimpeachable - at the scale of the game, the idea that the defense can be spread out, and then come together for every fight is an interesting mechanic,but what it is trying to portray? That certainly did not happen during the war. The entire flexibility between offense and defense rests with the defense due to the activation and reaction mechanics.

I think Bull Run will not be attempted not because historically the Union could not win it - that is simply not the case. It will not be attempted because in this game the Union will almost always lose that fight - and almost any fight like it. The Union only gets to attack with whatever units activate, the South gets to defend with whatever units are in the space the Union attacks, plus whatever units can be moved to that space - which is, essentially, everyone within several spaces.

Bull Run was not a foregone Confederate victory historically, and most people who study Civil War history would tell you that the war likely could have been won much earlier given an aggressive Union commander willing to exploit his numerical advantage to crush the ANV. The only "hindsight" that ought to apply here should result in a stronger Union, since in fact the player should know that the Pinkerton reports are bogus, and that the AoP seriously outnumbers ANV most of the time.

It is not hindsight that holds the Union player back - nor is it even the superior Southern leaders. It is the game mechanics that greatly favor the defender, far beyond any historical reality.

The ACW was NOT WW1 on the Western Front, even if it foreshadowed it. There are no preponderence of machine guns and indirect fire artillery backed by millions of rounds and massed to an average strength measured in tubes per yards here.

< Message edited by Berkut -- 7/5/2008 6:36:11 PM >

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 32

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 6:41:13 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

quote:

I think I must be doing something wrong - any pointers out there on how to make the game (at least in the West) be a little bit more about moving, and less about gigantic fights?

quote:

Well, I will agree that I am not your typical "OMG DIS GAME IS TEH BESTED EVER IT IS PERFECT OMG!" fanboy, and that is true in every game that I like. If I did not like the game, you would never even hear from me, since I would not waste my time commenting on it, asking questions, and challenging the fanbois.

I see now you were never really interested in any pointers. All you really care about are the fanbois. Just because there are people who see the glass half full, you have appointed yourself the half empty guy. You have become the classic See no good, hear no good, speak no good.

Be sure to ignore any and all aspects of the game that make it wonderful to play, a challenge for the mind and one of the few gems in the rough playable out of the box. Oh, and a clean pbem for 2 players. yep, there are some out there who actually enjoy the game.

No doubt you will be patted on the head, told you have pointed out a possible fix and maybe get an "attaboy". Amazingly enough there are others out there who are doing just the same thing. But they actually read the rules and play the game from both sides to gauge if there is a problem to bring up.

Not everyone can see everything from 1 side of the coin. You are something special.

Btw, i know you will ignore everything i have said. its ok, i'll live.

What an interesting perspecive. You claim I am going to ignore everything you say, and to the extent that your entire post is simply a personal attack, I guess it is worthy of being ignored.

I have no idea why there are these people who feel such a misplaced sense of attachment to a game such that they lash out at other fans who discuss potential issues. I am not sure what you and madgamer and pyle hope to accomplish by slandering others and turning the forum into some form of pissing contest. Maybe you think this will make the game designers think you are cool or something? I have no idea.

You do not respond to my posts, you simply flame away. I suppose that is cool if that is your thing - certainly the internet is chock full of people with the great courage to slander anonymously like this, so you are in numerous, if not notable, company.

Let me know when you want to talk about the game though - it is pretty damn good, and you might consider playing it and understanding it more, and flaming people on the internet less. The only people impressed by such displays are usually your fellow flame warriors.

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 33

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 7:01:43 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I do not at all think the mechanics are unimpeachable - at the scale of the game, the idea that the defense can be spread out, and then come together for every fight is an interesting mechanic,but what it is trying to portray? That certainly did not happen during the war. The entire flexibility between offense and defense rests with the defense due to the activation and reaction mechanics.

Defenders react in WBTS with significant penalties. They arrive later at the battlefield and lose the possibility of entrenching. I find the mechanics rather ingenious. Maybe the 'unspotted' bonus could be tweaked down a bit, I don't know. The game just came out, for chrissakes, cut them some slack. I'm confident they'll revisit a lot of aspects.

quote:

It is not hindsight that holds the Union player back - nor is it even the superior Southern leaders. It is the game mechanics that greatly favor the defender, far beyond any historical reality.

Civil War battles tended be grinding, slogging matches. They hardly ressembled the Napoleonic set piece, typically in less rugged terrain and dominated by the smoothbore musket, effective out to about 100m. Austerlitz, Jena and many others were destructive, conclusive affairs. For similiar lopsided outcomes in the US war you had Fredericksburg- an incompetent general colliding with an unassailable defensive position.

< Message edited by Pford -- 7/5/2008 7:03:41 PM >

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 34

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 7:02:29 PM

ssclark

Posts: 35
Joined: 12/2/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

quote:

I think I must be doing something wrong - any pointers out there on how to make the game (at least in the West) be a little bit more about moving, and less about gigantic fights?

quote:

Well, I will agree that I am not your typical "OMG DIS GAME IS TEH BESTED EVER IT IS PERFECT OMG!" fanboy, and that is true in every game that I like. If I did not like the game, you would never even hear from me, since I would not waste my time commenting on it, asking questions, and challenging the fanbois.

I see now you were never really interested in any pointers. All you really care about are the fanbois. Just because there are people who see the glass half full, you have appointed yourself the half empty guy. You have become the classic See no good, hear no good, speak no good.

Be sure to ignore any and all aspects of the game that make it wonderful to play, a challenge for the mind and one of the few gems in the rough playable out of the box. Oh, and a clean pbem for 2 players. yep, there are some out there who actually enjoy the game.

No doubt you will be patted on the head, told you have pointed out a possible fix and maybe get an "attaboy". Amazingly enough there are others out there who are doing just the same thing. But they actually read the rules and play the game from both sides to gauge if there is a problem to bring up.

Not everyone can see everything from 1 side of the coin. You are something special.

Btw, i know you will ignore everything i have said. its ok, i'll live.

Wow. Your post is nothing more than a personal attack on a guy who, it seems to me, is addressing some honest concerns he has about the game.

As someone who is considering buying this game, but is concerned with his concerns, how about addressing those? An added benefit of that is that you might help convince me to buy this game...

(in reply to WarHunter)

Post #: 35

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 7:51:26 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I do not at all think the mechanics are unimpeachable - at the scale of the game, the idea that the defense can be spread out, and then come together for every fight is an interesting mechanic,but what it is trying to portray? That certainly did not happen during the war. The entire flexibility between offense and defense rests with the defense due to the activation and reaction mechanics.

Defenders react in WBTS with significant penalties. They arrive later at the battlefield and lose the possibility of entrenching. I find the mechanics rather ingenious. Maybe the 'unspotted' bonus could be tweaked down a bit, I don't know. The game just came out, for chrissakes, cut them some slack. I'm confident they'll revisit a lot of aspects.

Holy cow, I don't need to cut them any slack, because I am not hanging them (I think that is where that term came from). I don't doubt at all that there will be some tweaks - hopefully I am providing some small part of the feedback necessary to make such tweaks happen..

I like this game, and want to see it get better. More than that, I want to get better at it, and asking questions and raising issues with the mechanics is the means by which both of those things happen.

If I did not like the game, or thought it was terribly broken and unworkable, you could tell because you would never see my posting, just like I don't post on the 99.9% of game forums, because I don't play those games, and don't really care if anyone makes them better.

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 36

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 7:58:53 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford
Civil War battles tended be grinding, slogging matches. They hardly ressembled the Napoleonic set piece, typically in less rugged terrain and dominated by the smoothbore musket, effective out to about 100m. Austerlitz, Jena and many others were destructive, conclusive affairs. For similiar lopsided outcomes in the US war you had Fredericksburg- an incompetent general colliding with an unassailable defensive position.

At the scale of this game, we aren't really looking at battles - we are looking at campaigns. A given "battle" in this game could represent a singular battle, like Getysburg, I guess, but what it really represents is a operational campaign, which could include several different battles.

The unit of maneuver, and scale of manuever is a full month. A civil war army could move rather far in a month, and this is reflected to a degree in the ability to the defender to move far to reinforce an area under attack. Part of the issue is that they can do so while largely ignoring whatever is in front of them, since they know they can almost certainly get back before whatever is in front of them can exploit them being gone. Even if the reaction uses all their movement, in most cases they can still strat move back into position, all during their own turn.

Even if they cannot within their own turn, the odds of whatever was in front of them activating during the next turn are slim. And even if it DOES activate, that still isn't that big a deal, since you will have the next turn to react to THAT activation, and bring in all the reinforcements from all around to do so.

Funny thing - this system would be really interesting in a situation where both sides need to both attack and defend, since the dynamic of reacting makes it hard for you to attack during your own turn (I think, I am going a bit out on a limb here). But the South is generally content to just meet the Norths attacks most of the time, so they enjoy the benefit of this mechanic to a great degree.

I suspect this would make a very interesting WW1 game mechanic, where the defender almost always wins the operational fight, at least on the Western Front, and the Allies have to try to just wear down the German army by making them fight all over Europe.

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 37

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 7:59:41 PM

tedhealy

Posts: 138
Joined: 1/28/2005
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline

One of the things that gets lost is that the battles aren't necessarily a single battle.� Perhaps I'm way off on this, but I view them as a serious of engagements over the course of a month.� I don't have too much of a problem with reaction moves when battles are viewed in that context because troops are moved in to the area over the course of the month, but what I might like is for reaction moved troops to have a harder time actually being committed to the battle.� You may be able to get the troops near the battle but coordinating the move well and getting them to fight perhaps could be harder.�

I like the reaction move mechanic personally, but would certainly be open to tweaks.

edit

similar points posted at the same time going in somewhat different directions. I like the idea of making the reaction moves slightly more dangerous either by allowing a counter-counter attack or something a bit closer to a WEGO mechanic during reaction, but I suppose those things change the underlying mechanics of the game too much. Just making it harder to recover after a reaction move might be interesting.

< Message edited by tedhealy -- 7/5/2008 8:04:14 PM >

(in reply to ssclark)

Post #: 38

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:04:58 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ssclark

As someone who is considering buying this game, but is concerned with his concerns, how about addressing those? An added benefit of that is that you might help convince me to buy this game...

ss, don't worry about it, this kind of thing is standard in the gaming world.

As far as buying the game, I will say this as someone who has bought it and played it for several hours in a couple of PBEM games (the only way I really play):

On the one hand, I have already gotten my moneys worth in fun. The game does one thing that is, to me, utterly necessary for any PBEM wargames: create that sense of tightness in the stomach when I see my opponent has sent a turn and I am nervous about the outcome of a battle - that sense of *caring* about what happened. This is kind of subjective of course, but I have played plenty of technically excellent games that I just could not get into because they didn't make me CARE. This is not on of those.

On the other hand, I think there are some odd design decisions, that I think savvy players will learn to exploit rather quickly. However, I also think this is largely inevitable in ANY wargame that is more than Risk-like complexity. Quite simply, humans are too good at "gaming" the game, and designers and developers have a hard time imagining the ways they will do so. IMO, all games, and especially wargames, require significant post release balancing work. This one is no different. To a great extent, me buying any game on release is a leap of faith that these things will get done eventually, presuming the core of the system is workable.

For all the issues I have raised, I do not regret buying the game.

(in reply to ssclark)

Post #: 39

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:12:04 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Berkut, I'll try to be nice, which is hard for me. Melo dude. If you have seggestions make them, If you don't like how the game is laided out get another one. Almost all the players except you find this to be inovative and flowing game. Sure no game is perfect, but this one fun, fun, game.

Jon

(in reply to tedhealy)

Post #: 40

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:12:20 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

One of the things that gets lost is that the battles aren't necessarily a single battle.� Perhaps I'm way off on this, but I view them as a serious of engagements over the course of a month.� I don't have too much of a problem with reaction moves when battles are viewed in that context because troops are moved in to the area over the course of the month, but what I might like is for reaction moved troops to have a harder time actually being committed to the battle.� You may be able to get the troops near the battle but coordinating the move well and getting them to fight perhaps could be harder.�

I like the reaction move mechanic personally, but would certainly be open to tweaks.

edit similar points posted at the same time going in somewhat different directions. I like the idea of making the reaction moves slightly more dangerous either by allowing a counter-counter attack or something a bit closer to a WEGO mechanic during reaction, but I suppose those things change the underlying mechanics of the game too much. Just making it harder to recover after a reaction move might be interesting.

It is likely too early to start thinking about ways to fix it, if in fact there really is a problem.

But that has never stopped me before - me and my opponent talked for over an hour on Skype the other night about it, actually.

Some ideas, mostly half-baked:

Make activation for reaction moving rare, and not to be counted on. Even for the South. If you get guys who can react in, great, but it should not be counted on when you set up your defense.
Make MPs for reacting units that have not actually been activated VERY low, and don't let them use rail to do so.
Limit the total number of units able to react in in some manner.
Make "soak off" attacks much less painful. I did a soak off attack, and attacked 20k rebels with 10k union, just to pin them so they could not react - I lost 7k of the 10k attacking. Should there be some way to order a "Spoiling attack" where the units know not to over-commit? Kind of a infantry-raid that doesn't have much chance of success, but will disrupt the ability to react.

Those are just some ideas that were bandied about in case a solution was actually needed.

(in reply to tedhealy)

Post #: 41

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:15:36 PM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Berkut, I'll try to be nice, which is hard for me. Melo dude. If you have seggestions make them, If you don't like how the game is laided out get another one. Almost all the players except you find this to be inovative and flowing game. Sure no game is perfect, but this one fun, fun, game.

Jon

I think some people certainly need to mellow out, but it isn't me, as I am not the one tossing around personal attacks and trying to make my posts be about me, rather than the game.

I do have issues to raise, and I raise them. If I don't like the game, I won't even raise any issues. Do not speak for me, and do not tell me what I think about the game - I find the system intriguing and worth examining, so statements like "most players...except you" are simply inaccurate. And since I have stated time and again that I *do* like the game, stating otherwise becomes something more than a mistake.

A game can be "fun, fun" and still ahve issues that can make it better. Attacking other posters has never once improved a game though.

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 42

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:24:41 PM

tedhealy

Posts: 138
Joined: 1/28/2005
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline

All very interesting ideas that should merit at least some consideration I would think. I like the idea of not being able to count on reaction moving 100% of the time for defense, and coming up with something to make soak off/feints/holding/pinning/or whatever you want to call them attacks handled a little differently. I want the general to push forward on the enemy lines to hold them, not go full bore fix bayonets and charge into the teeth of the enemy sometimes. Definitely have a chance of that limited engagement growing, but better generals should be able to pull off something like that to pin troops without having to risk huge casualties.

I'd add to your list simply reducing the chance of reaction moved forces actually committing to the battle.

I don't see how brainstorming some ideas on how you might improve the game hurts

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 43

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:25:19 PM

Massattack

Posts: 93
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Berkut, I like your excellent suggestion about spoiling attacks. I too find the diversionary attacks can be very expensive in losses. Ageod's ACW has the ability to set units stances. I would love to see this adopted here. Something like an all-out attack, or a probing attack. All in all this is a great game, and hopefully customer feedback will help the developers tweak and adjust, if it is necessary. This game has just the right amount of micromanagement for me, never so much as to become a chore.

Regards

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 44

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:30:22 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

Ted thats in the game, in my AAR with Joel I did that alot, sure you get hurt doing it, but it slows or blocks movement of troops to the main battle. If a smaller force goes agianst a large force, sure there bound to be spanked...

Jon

(in reply to tedhealy)

Post #: 45

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:36:40 PM

tedhealy

Posts: 138
Joined: 1/28/2005
From: St. Louis, MO, USA
Status: offline

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

Liker Berkut (I think

), I absolutely love this game, but I feel like there is a piece or two missing or not quite right. Initiative nails getting civil war generals to attack darn near perfectly - the frustration of sometimes generals just not moving no matter what, but defense and reaction moves seem almost too sure.

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 46

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 8:45:33 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

I like this game, and want to see it get better. More than that, I want to get better at it, and asking questions and raising issues with the mechanics is the means by which both of those things happen.

With you on this, Berkut. We all want it to be perfect. This is the only wargame forum to which I've made more than desultory posts since Combat Mission was released. Let's admit it, Gary Grigsby and Matrix have come with a thrilling, atmospheric and ingenious rendition of the US Civil War. The ressemblance to WaW being only skin deep, imo. Kudos all around.

(in reply to Berkut)

Post #: 47

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/5/2008 11:17:17 PM

Queeg

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

Reading from the fence, trying to decide whether to purchase this one, I have to say that I find Berkut's posts to be very thoughtful and helpful. Every game has to make design choices and adopt some abstractions. Just looking at the map and comparing it to that in AACW, it looks to me like this game has less room for local maneuver, thus lending itself more to a strategic, campaign-level approach. That's absolutely fine, so long as the game mechanics are consistent with that approach. I understand Berkut to be suggesting that some of the mechanics - at least as currently implemented - may not be entirely consistent with a strategic-level game. Others may disagree, but I think Berkut has made his points thoughtfully and, for me at least, helpfully.

I'll probably buy soon. But I have a better idea of what I'm buying. That's good.

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 48

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 12:27:30 AM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

< Message edited by Pford -- 7/6/2008 12:29:47 AM >

(in reply to tedhealy)

Post #: 49

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 3:17:22 AM

ssclark

Posts: 35
Joined: 12/2/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Queeg

Reading from the fence, trying to decide whether to purchase this one, I have to say that I find Berkut's posts to be very thoughtful and helpful. Every game has to make design choices and adopt some abstractions. Just looking at the map and comparing it to that in AACW, it looks to me like this game has less room for local maneuver, thus lending itself more to a strategic, campaign-level approach. That's absolutely fine, so long as the game mechanics are consistent with that approach. I understand Berkut to be suggesting that some of the mechanics - at least as currently implemented - may not be entirely consistent with a strategic-level game. Others may disagree, but I think Berkut has made his points thoughtfully and, for me at least, helpfully.

I'll probably buy soon. But I have a better idea of what I'm buying. That's good.

I'm right with you. I'm strongly leaning toward this game right now instead of Harpoon 3: ANW, which seems to have some pretty serious problems.

And, it is Berkut's posting of his concerns that is helping me to consider buying it, not just the cheerleading by some others.

(in reply to Queeg)

Post #: 50

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 3:20:50 AM

ssclark

Posts: 35
Joined: 12/2/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

Maybe more by like 1864 by the Union. Occupy Lee with the AoP in northern Virginia while ripping up the Shenandoah valley with Sheridan (I think it was).

Or, Grant pinning Lee in late '64, early '65 so that Sherman could rip out the CSA's guts in Georgia. No more repeats of Chickamauga (1863), where the timely arrival of Longstreet's corps from the ANV to Georgia swung the battle.

< Message edited by ssclark -- 7/6/2008 3:21:34 AM >

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 51

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 7:36:11 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 52

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 7:40:51 AM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: tedhealy

Yeah I know it's in the game, I use pinning attacks all the time (and I dare say if you don't use them as the Union you have no chance of winning), but every attack seems to be an all out assault. Sometimes I want a general to push forward into enemy pickets to hold that force, not assault that force risking huge casualties.

An option for launching a lower intensity attack in order to fix enemy forces sounds cool. But I'm not sure this was common policy on the strategic level during this war. Maybe some Civil War grog can enlighten us.

Anyone tried raiding regions, tearing up rail, in attempt to disrupt reaction possibilities?

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Well, I would say that if we can accept that prior to modern communications and logistics the stuff going on in reaction movement is feasible (multiple Corps moving across states in a period of days or weeks at the most and moving straight into battle), I don't think the idea of feints and spoiling attacks is all the tough to swallow, to be honest.

I can certainly see your point, but we are dealing with a particular system, and how to plausibly soften some of its effects.

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 53

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 8:07:10 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

As with most game rules in a game of this scale, the main questions in my mind about the reaction rules are 1) Do they feel right and 2) How does it affect game balance, and how would changing it alter game balance.

I say feel right, because there's always a lot of abstraction in games, especially at the strategic scale, but those of us wanting to refight history want it to provide the right historical feel. This can be very subjective so there's likely going to be different opinions about how it feels to each player.

As for game balance, as I've said, I think the game is balanced slightly in favor of a good Union player against a good CSA player. However, since WBTS puts the burden of attack on the USA player, between two beginning players the balance may be more toward the CSA side. This is my best guess based on what I've experienced myself and in watching the testers. Since many rules were changed and tweaked right up until late in development, it's always possible that my best guess is incorrect. It's only now that the game is out and can get a larger sample of play, can we get a better sense of the balance. It was rather late in development that we added the +1 MP per area for units reacting without initiative (about 2-3 months before release, IIRC). I fully expect that changes may be required in order to get the balance right, and tweaks/changes in the reaction rules would certainly be an area we'd be looking at since I would agree that some of the long reactions that can occur sometimes don't quite feel right.

I never take offense at comments about a game's design, or suggestions for possible improvement. I just ask that people recognize that some time has to be given for players to become familiar with some of the more common strategies used, and have a large enough sample of games played before good judgments can be made. I've seen this recognition from the various posters here so I'd like people to get away from the personal comments and just focus on what they're seeing in the game. We're open to making tweaks as they seem to be needed as proven through lots of game experience. I'm not convinced they are needed, but we're open to it.

Another thing that's may happen is we may see balance changes as bugs are fixed and other tweaks are made in patches that might impact game balance. Also, altering something so fundamental to the design as the reaction rules, even if only in what seems to be small ways might have a profound impact on game balance. Usually, these kinds of changes have to be made with compensating changes. For example, if I'm right and the game is balanced or slightly leaning toward the Union side, then reducing cavalry raids while also reducing reaction ranges could swing the balance strongly in the other direction if no compensating changes are made.

In conclusion, keep playing, keep learning, keep posting, and by all means feel free to suggest changes. When you suggest changes, you can always post a specific item, but it also helps if you can think in terms of a basket of changes that taken together seem to have the desired outcome on the game feel and game balance. I'm very interested in seeing the results of games played.

(in reply to ssclark)

Post #: 54

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 10:38:52 AM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

I concur 100% with Joel. To experienced players my guess is that the Union is slightly favored. To players with less experience the game will favor the Conderation. I believe most of the concerns Berkut is posting are due to this. Yes, reaction movements seems too strong initially - no, imho it is not too strong once you gain some more experience with the game - infact, its very much needed to give the CSA a fighting chance. Its possible I am incorrect but thats my opinion based on having been involved with the game since early alpha nearly two years ago.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 55

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 1:09:36 PM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

Right on!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tran505

Couple of things.....

Although the appearance of a continuous line of fortifications from on end of the map to the other does suggest WW I, the game does not play that way IFF you understand the system. The early turns are critical to set yourself up for success (or failure) in '62. Taking Missouri and W. Virginia is automatic on turn 1, and taking Kentucky is not that much harder within the next turn or two. DRAFT on turn 1; delaying all builds for a turn will get you 50+ militia to train on turn one alone.

I have no doubt that there is all sort of "maneuvering" going on; except that at this scale it occurs within a single zone within a single month. If you want lower detail -- try AGEODS's product. This system works within its intended scope.

I liked the comment someone made that you need to "crack the egg and spill the yolk"". It really works that way. You will need to fight like hell in Tennessee, but things will get better once you punch through.

Yes if do not "do the right things" you may get bogged down. It has happened to me. But if you take the many easy "gimmies" that are available, you will have enough PP for a turn 1 draft and an early '62 draft, and you will be able to punch through with improved leaders AND enough soldiers to do the job.

Regards,

P

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to tran505)

Post #: 56

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 5:00:34 PM

PyleDriver

Posts: 6152
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Occupied Mexico aka Rio Grand Valley, S.Texas
Status: offline

I guess I should jump in also. I my game with JAMiAM, I still tossed and turned over my moves the last 2 nights, after 18 months of playing this game. I spoke with James last night, he's in the same boat. This game is like some weird spell...

Jon

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)

Post #: 57

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 8:01:16 PM

Nibelung

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/27/2006
Status: offline

I'm wondering about a thing, perhaps vets can enlighten me. It seems very hard (harder than historical I mean) for the CSA to conduct any kind of offensive, like the one which bring them as high as Gettysburg. So, have you see serious games where the CSA ever launched a major attack?

As of now, my limited experience against the CSA AI shows me that I'm the sole doing attacks, always. The CSA only reacts (this does not mean they don't win battle

(in reply to PyleDriver)

Post #: 58

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/6/2008 11:52:10 PM

Pford

Posts: 235
Joined: 11/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Yes, you suppose spoiling/fixing attacks, on the grand tactical level, had to await the telephone, i.e. WW1. These kind of attacks in WBTS, according to a poster, are necessary to win yet ruinously expensive. Is there a dilemma here?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 59

RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1? - 7/7/2008 1:14:18 AM

Berkut

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

That sort of thing was very hard to pull off prior to modern communications.

Yes, you suppose spoiling/fixing attacks, on the grand tactical level, had to await the telephone, i.e. WW1.

I don't think feints and distraction was at all beyond that capabilities of this time, at the strategic level. Why would they be?

(in reply to Pford)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Gary Grigsby's War Between the States >> RE: How do you keep the game from bogging down into WW1?