Gamespy Preview

[JosephL]

I thought you'd be interested in what Gamespy had to say about Forge of Freedom; which they saw at GenCon Overall, not bad, though the author is always skeptical that the mainstream cares about hardcore strategy games.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/forge-of-freed ... 516p1.html

[*Lava*]

Hi!

I'm really interested in the "many options" the game has and how it will be received by players.

As for me... the more the merrier.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Tanaka]

Wow...Ive been waiting for a civil war game like this for a very long time!

[bstarr]

I once said that the american civil war could never be realistically represented with a computer game. I may have to take that back. It looks good so far.

[Capt Cliff]

The ity-bity lines of infantry on the tactical map are kind of goofy! It would be nice just to have the NATO symbol or the option! Where's the cavalry and artillery? What will they look like?

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

The ity-bity lines of infantry on the tactical map are kind of goofy! It would be nice just to have the NATO symbol or the option! Where's the cavalry and artillery? What will they look like?

Capt. Cliff, there is a NATO symbols function on the tactical map -- just press the "+" key and you'll get them. As for cavalry and artillery, pixelpusher (= graphics guy) is working on those. He'll post them as soon as they're ready for public viewing.

[ravinhood]

{{Almost every strategic rule in the game has a player option to be turned on or off. }}

Something I've asked for for years. Finally someone is doing it right. Now if only they would add difficulty sliders to improve the AI.

One thing I can already see though is one cannot go into this game expecting historical accuracy. With states abilities to change sides from politics to abstract unit sizes and appearances. It more or less sounds like Colonization Win95 in the Civil War era. Which isn't a bad thing if it's marketed that way. But, somehow I already hear gnawing and gnashing of teeth about silly things that are going to happen in the game. Like Virginia decides to convert to the Union. lol Or one might even see a checkerboard like map of Union and Confederate states all over the map. When that happens the wailing will commence. Also about EU intervention, if this is on a money scale, the Union is going to overpower the Confederates with its industrial might by historical factors, but, being as the states could convert in the north as well as the south the confederates might steal an industrial base or three. My only fear if this happens too "easily" on a grand scale many people aren't going to be as happy with the game as expected whereby they (we/I) are looking for a more realistic historical believeable game.

[sol_invictus]

I hope that it will next to impossible for a State to switch sides after the War starts. I agree with the variable commitment of States, depending on the War's progress, but the States just didn't switch sides during the War. I agree, if we see silly things that had no chance of happening historicly, then there will be much wailing.[:@]

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

{{Almost every strategic rule in the game has a player option to be turned on or off. }}

Something I've asked for for years. Finally someone is doing it right. Now if only they would add difficulty sliders to improve the AI.

One thing I can already see though is one cannot go into this game expecting historical accuracy. With states abilities to change sides from politics to abstract unit sizes and appearances. It more or less sounds like Colonization Win95 in the Civil War era. Which isn't a bad thing if it's marketed that way. But, somehow I already hear gnawing and gnashing of teeth about silly things that are going to happen in the game. Like Virginia decides to convert to the Union. lol Or one might even see a checkerboard like map of Union and Confederate states all over the map. When that happens the wailing will commence. Also about EU intervention, if this is on a money scale, the Union is going to overpower the Confederates with its industrial might by historical factors, but, being as the states could convert in the north as well as the south the confederates might steal an industrial base or three. My only fear if this happens too "easily" on a grand scale many people aren't going to be as happy with the game as expected whereby they (we/I) are looking for a more realistic historical believeable game.

I don't know where the notion that Virginia can switch to the Union side came from but that's decidedly not part of the game. Kentucky -- and only Kentucky -- can join the war on either side.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

{{Almost every strategic rule in the game has a player option to be turned on or off. }}

Something I've asked for for years. Finally someone is doing it right. Now if only they would add difficulty sliders to improve the AI.

One thing I can already see though is one cannot go into this game expecting historical accuracy. With states abilities to change sides from politics to abstract unit sizes and appearances. It more or less sounds like Colonization Win95 in the Civil War era. Which isn't a bad thing if it's marketed that way. But, somehow I already hear gnawing and gnashing of teeth about silly things that are going to happen in the game. Like Virginia decides to convert to the Union. lol Or one might even see a checkerboard like map of Union and Confederate states all over the map. When that happens the wailing will commence. Also about EU intervention, if this is on a money scale, the Union is going to overpower the Confederates with its industrial might by historical factors, but, being as the states could convert in the north as well as the south the confederates might steal an industrial base or three. My only fear if this happens too "easily" on a grand scale many people aren't going to be as happy with the game as expected whereby they (we/I) are looking for a more realistic historical believeable game.

I don't know where the notion that Virginia can switch to the Union side came from but that's decidedly not part of the game. Kentucky -- and only Kentucky -- can join the war on either side.

Did not all these border states have a chance to sway either way?

Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia, New Mexico and Arizona Territories...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)

[jimwinsor]

Yes, but Kentucky stayed on the fence longest of all.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Well that is the deal breaker for me. Thought I might just get this game but the unrealistic stance concerning border states ruins IMO. True Missouri stayed in the Union but, with the sole purpose and idea not to allow Federal forces to use Missouri and it's citizens against the south, of which many were of southern stock.

When Lyons commited its unconstitutional assault on peacfully and more importantly LEGAL gathering of the state militia Gov. Jackson and Missouri was thrust into the Confederacy. Much of Mo being burnt to the ground by the 'liberating' army. Jackson was the only rightful elected Gov. and the puppet gubament the union forced on it's citizens was unconstitutional. Gov. Jackson was also the only SITTING Gov to EVER lead troops in battle in American history.Missouri was under martial law for the remainder of the war, a state of war being understood, and was admitted to the confederacy in Nov 1861.

In the game it should be represented that if federal troops try to occupy Missouri there should be a VERY high chance of them joining the CSA. Same thing with Maryland. Dis-honest Ape had the state legislators under house arrest until a union friendly goverment was elected. Now you see why the south fought? Baboon abe pushing his big centralized version of America on everyone. A stigma still being felt today.
[:-]
This game could have been really good with the border states swaying like they did historically but alas, it is not so. Guess I will wait for a War Between the States game that accurately represents this. [&:]


Too bad. Was wanting this to be good and assumed that you guys did your homework on the subject a little better.

[:@] [:@] [:@] [:@] [:@]

Mo Reb [&:]

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

{{Almost every strategic rule in the game has a player option to be turned on or off. }}

Something I've asked for for years. Finally someone is doing it right. Now if only they would add difficulty sliders to improve the AI.

One thing I can already see though is one cannot go into this game expecting historical accuracy. With states abilities to change sides from politics to abstract unit sizes and appearances. It more or less sounds like Colonization Win95 in the Civil War era. Which isn't a bad thing if it's marketed that way. But, somehow I already hear gnawing and gnashing of teeth about silly things that are going to happen in the game. Like Virginia decides to convert to the Union. lol Or one might even see a checkerboard like map of Union and Confederate states all over the map. When that happens the wailing will commence. Also about EU intervention, if this is on a money scale, the Union is going to overpower the Confederates with its industrial might by historical factors, but, being as the states could convert in the north as well as the south the confederates might steal an industrial base or three. My only fear if this happens too "easily" on a grand scale many people aren't going to be as happy with the game as expected whereby they (we/I) are looking for a more realistic historical believeable game.

I don't know where the notion that Virginia can switch to the Union side came from but that's decidedly not part of the game. Kentucky -- and only Kentucky -- can join the war on either side.

Why from right there in the preview Ericbabey

{{Through a variety of means, state governors will either like or hate the player, and depending on which way they feel, that will drastically impact the way the state behaves. At minimum, a state with a hostile governor may not produce as many commodities. At worst, a state might actually drop out of the war -- or possibly join the other side! Strong gubernatorial allies, on the other hand, might be all that stops an unhappy state from switching sides.

[Gil R.]

You're right, the Gamespy preview did write that. However, that is wrong. Eric and I both spoke with the writer at GenCon, and he did an excellent job conveying the nature of the game, but made a single noteworthy mistake when he inaccurately wrote that states switch sides. However, the piece is right about states possibly dropping out of the war -- if the South decides to emancipate (as was contemplated by some) each state has a chance of parting ways from the Confederacy.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Well that is the deal breaker for me. Thought I might just get this game but the unrealistic stance concerning border states ruins IMO. True Missouri stayed in the Union but, with the sole purpose and idea not to allow Federal forces to use Missouri and it's citizens against the south, of which many were of southern stock.

When Lyons commited its unconstitutional assault on peacfully and more importantly LEGAL gathering of the state militia Gov. Jackson and Missouri was thrust into the Confederacy. Much of Mo being burnt to the ground by the 'liberating' army. Jackson was the only rightful elected Gov. and the puppet gubament the union forced on it's citizens was unconstitutional. Gov. Jackson was also the only SITTING Gov to EVER lead troops in battle in American history.Missouri was under martial law for the remainder of the war, a state of war being understood, and was admitted to the confederacy in Nov 1861.

In the game it should be represented that if federal troops try to occupy Missouri there should be a VERY high chance of them joining the CSA. Same thing with Maryland. Dis-honest Ape had the state legislators under house arrest until a union friendly goverment was elected. Now you see why the south fought? Baboon abe pushing his big centralized version of America on everyone. A stigma still being felt today.
[:-]
This game could have been really good with the border states swaying like they did historically but alas, it is not so. Guess I will wait for a War Between the States game that accurately represents this. [&:]


Too bad. Was wanting this to be good and assumed that you guys did your homework on the subject a little better.

[:@] [:@] [:@] [:@] [:@]

Mo Reb [&:]

Missouri Rebel, one thing you might not be aware of is that our standard scenario begins in Nov. 1861, by which time Missouri was mostly under Union control. The way our game works, states are either Union or Confederate, but can be conquered and put under a military governor once that state capital is under control, and thus compelled to switch sides. As you know, Jefferson City was in Union hands by Nov. 1861 and Gov. Gamble had been installed. This means that Missouri absolutely has to start as a Union state, since to do otherwise would violate one of the most fundamental rules of the game. Of course, if the CSA conquers Missouri, then it's a Confederate state -- it just can't start out that way. (Kentucky is the only state that can come in on either side because Kentucky at that time was undecided, the vote to secede not coming until Dec. 10.)

Please note that we are considering at least one pre-November scenario (e.g., pre-Fort Sumter, pre-Bull Run, or post-Bull Run), and if we do that you might well get your way with Missouri. So, please reserve judgment until the game is released.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Did not all these border states have a chance to sway either way?

Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia, New Mexico and Arizona Territories...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)

Wikipedia is far from perfect considering people put in what they want and it is only removed when someone else complains. Delaware would not have left the Union. West Virginia would not have been formed if those counties had not falled into Union hands and Lincoln had not needed an example for how he planned on reconciling the states. Maryland would have but Washington was a little to well defended to allow that. Kentucky and Missouri did leave, albiet they were rapidly overrun. New Mexico, from what I have read, was sympathetic but really not big on war and I do not know about Arizona.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Why from right there in the preview

Yes, I understand that. I meant I don't know how this notion got into the preview.

[Viking67]

This would be awesome...
How can we support the effort?

ericbabe, "Please note that we are considering at least one pre-November scenario (e.g., pre-Fort Sumter, pre-Bull Run, or post-Bull Run), and if we do that you might well get your way with Missouri. So, please reserve judgment until the game is released."

[sol_invictus]

Kentucky didn't secede from the Union, though the pro-South Governor Magoffin and the pro-Union Legislature were split; as well as the rest of the State. Initially, Kentucky tried to stay neutral and join with other neighboring states to mediate the crisis. After the Legislative elections of August 5th, Unionist were in firm control of the State. The Confederate invasion of General Polk on September 3rd forced the Legislature to come off the fence and on September 18th Kentucky declared for the Union. Governor Magoffin resigned and on November 18th, a convention passed an ordinance of succession and formed a provisional government. On December 10th, the goverment in Richmond admitted Kentucky into the Confederacy. Therefore, Kentucky was represented with a star on both sides flags. The loss of Kentucky was Lincoln's worst fear early in the crisis.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

Kentucky didn't secede from the Union, though the pro-South Governor Magoffin and the pro-Union Legislature were split; as well as the rest of the State. Initially, Kentucky tried to stay neutral and join with other neighboring states to mediate the crisis. After the Legislative elections of August 5th, Unionist were in firm control of the State. The Confederate invasion of General Polk on September 3rd forced the Legislature to come off the fence and on September 18th Kentucky declared for the Union. Governor Magoffin resigned and on November 18th, a convention passed an ordinance of succession and formed a provisional government. On December 10th, the goverment in Richmond admitted Kentucky into the Confederacy. Therefore, Kentucky was represented with a star on both sides flags. The loss of Kentucky was Lincoln's worst fear early in the crisis.

All true. But since our game requires that every inch of territory on the map either be red for the Confederacy or blue for the Union we can't have a "purple" state that is on both sides -- thus Kentucky can come in on one side or the other, but not both. HOWEVER, and countless hours of play-testing back this up, just because Kentucky comes in on one side or the other doesn't mean it stays that way. Kentucky is one of the most hotly contested parts of the map, and can be flipped through conquest -- first province by province, and then the whole state goes the other way.

Furthermore, you may have read about our "Legendary Units" -- especially powerful units named for historical infantry, cavalry and artillery units that are programmed to have some of their special attributes and abilities. Well, Kentucky is the only state that has Legendary Units for both sides: if the state is Confederate, it might produce the Orphan Brigade, and if the state is Union it might produce the Louisville Legion or Wild Riders. It is therefore possible to have Kentucky military units in the game fighting on both sides -- just as it really happened. (Note: We plan to add more Legendary Units through patches, so the fact that there are just three for Kentucky is a function of there being 100 Legendary Units and about 33 states.)