RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance

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: Historical accuracy vs. game balance

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] >> Civil War II >> RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

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

rsallen64

Posts: 172
Joined: 6/15/2009
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Queeg captures the point I was trying to make. If some people are "gaming the system" by creating massive armies in the East while essentially ignoring every other theater, they are ignoring the political reality the real leaders faced historically. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should.

The great thing about a game is that it lets you try to do things differently to see if you can achieve a different outcome than the historical one, but for me, personally, these are simulations, not fantasy, and I try to play somewhat historically.

_____________________________

Desert War 1940-1942 Beta Tester
Agressors: Ancient Rome Beta Tester

"The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices." Frederick the Great

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 121

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

Ace1_slith

Posts: 340
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline

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

(in reply to rsallen64)

Post #: 122

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

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ace1

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

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

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Ace1_slith)

Post #: 123

RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/20/2013 7:42:42 PM

Jim D Burns

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

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

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

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 12/20/2013 8:44:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 124

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

Toro12

Posts: 162
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Covington, KY, USA
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 125

RE: Historical accuracy vs. game balance - 12/20/2013 8:52:39 PM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Toro12)

Post #: 126

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

dukewacoan

Posts: 150
Joined: 6/7/2010
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 127